It would seem as though the calls from the political left and right for two Supreme Court Justices to recuse themselves regarding the Affordable Care Act is such that Chief Justice Roberts needed to speak about the fact neither Justice would be asked to recuse themselves.
From the right and left, (click here) Washington is awash in demands that two Supreme Court justices recuse themselves from this spring’s review of the health law....
Below is a paragraph from the 2011 report.
...Although a Justice’s process for considering recusal is similar to that of the lower court judges, the Justice must consider an important factor that is not present in the lower courts. Lower court judges can freely substitute for one another. If an appeals court or district court judge withdraws from a case, there is another federal judge who can serve in that recused judge’s place. But the Supreme Court consists of nine Members who always sit together, and if a Justice withdraws from a case, the Court must sit without its full membership. A Justice accordingly cannot withdraw from a case as a matter of convenience or simply to avoid controversy. Rather, each Justice has an obligation to the Court to be sure of the need to recuse before deciding to withdraw from a case....
While I believe it is highly unlikely the decision regarding The Affordable Care Act will result in any recusals by the simple fact 'opinions' should be as broadly based as possible to bring insight, it is more than sad to realize a report of the Federal Judiciary is relying on a 1920 precedent to begin the approach to Supreme Court Recusal. Here as in most modern day dilemmas regarding ethics and legal standing these precedent occurred before computers and especially before a powerful plutocracy dominates American life. While precedent is always helpful, the dynamics of such can only be a guide post to the modern era we now live.
In 1920, American baseball fans were jolted by allegations that Chicago White Sox players had participated in a scheme to fix the outcome of the 1919 World Series. The team owners responded to the infamous “Black Sox Scandal” by selecting a federal district judge, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, to serve as Commissioner of Baseball and restore confidence in the sport....
...Judge Landis resolved his situation by resigning his judicial commission in 1922 to focus all his efforts on the national past-time. The controversy, however, prompted organized efforts to develop more guidance for judges. That same year, the American Bar Association asked the Nation’s new Chief Justice, former President William Howard Taft, to chair a Commission on Judicial Ethics.
In the 21st Century of the USA there are problems with 'power over the people' that cause gross distortions to the citizens of this country by a plutocratic principle alive within the Supreme Court. I hardly find myself resolved regarding divided political loyalties among the Supreme Court Justices when such ancient precedent is called upon to inhibit legitimate concerns 'of the people' now faced with oppression of First Amendment Rights due to the disparity of wealth among citizens and corporations. The USA's Justice System is supposed to be where all social and political pressures are nullified to bring about 'justice,' but, considering the poor outcomes of The Citizen United decision the quality of 'leveling the playing field' is absent. It is my opinion, not The Courts opinion, there is profound loss of justice for the citizen invoked by one person majorities that side with Commerce vs Justice.
A citizen has the power to cast a vote and where corporations and currency are viewed to stand equally with citizens there is literally dual representations at the ballot box. One for the actual vote of 'a superpac player' and one for those influencing that vote with heavy handed monetary pressure brought about through 'faux' rights established by Supreme Court precedent. Money doesn't vote. Corporations don't cast votes. The influence by The Court is warped that causes democratic processes to be nullified by plutocratic influence. I propose The Robert's Court is unable to discern what Democratized Freedom of Speech of a 'citizen vote' actually is in the digital age of power married to money.
If a citizen has one vote, why does money and corporate officers and employees have more than one? And why does 'unknown sources' of money become influential in sovereign elections. I sincerely believe there is a compromise of the nation's sovereignty by the Citizens United decision.
...Roberts released his 16-page report (click title to entry - thank you) Saturday. It is his seventh since he was appointed as the nation's top justice in September 2005.
The chief justice uses most of his report to address the issue of judicial recusal, in hopes of dispelling "some common misconceptions."
Though Roberts does not cite specific cases or names, he could be addressing partisan urgings that Kagan and Thomas not hear the health care lawsuit....
The chief justice uses most of his report to address the issue of judicial recusal, in hopes of dispelling "some common misconceptions."
Though Roberts does not cite specific cases or names, he could be addressing partisan urgings that Kagan and Thomas not hear the health care lawsuit....
