Skip to main content

View Diary: Democrats introduce Supreme Court Ethics Act to helpfully suggest the Supreme Court have some (79 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  How would this work? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Villanova Rhodes, Eyesbright

    If a justice refuses to recuse himself, to whom do you appeal to have him removed from the case?  You would need a provision for a randomly drawn panel of appellate judges to act on recusal motions (random so that someone like Roberts can't stack it as he has been doing with FISA).


    My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.—Carl Schurz
    "Shared sacrifice!" said the spider to the fly.—Me

    by KingBolete on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 04:27:06 PM PDT

    •  It wouldn't work. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coffeetalk

      Such a panel would almost surely violate article III, section 1 -- the "one Supreme Court" mandate. Unlike, say, financial disclosure, the decision to recuse is considered part of the judicial function. There's no way lower court judges can or would exercise review over that function. (Also, Supreme Court litigants almost never file recusal motions, so the panel wouldn't be particularly effective anyway.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site