- - ACLU screwed up
( http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=147922)
| JustRalph |
10-07-2018 07:51 PM |
ACLU screwed up
The ACLU ran ads against Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
Today legal eagles are saying that as long as Kavanaugh is on the court, they will now have to recuse themselves from any case that goes to the Supremes
This could be a real screw up
|
| chadk66 |
10-07-2018 08:25 PM |
very interesting. well they've never been accused of being very smart
|
| boxcar |
10-07-2018 08:39 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadk66
(Post 2381264)
very interesting. well they've never been accused of being very smart
|
Maybe the can finagle a special hearing just before one of their own former comrades -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
But to be fair and balanced: Ol 'Ruthie lamented how Kavanaugh was treated in the Senate. So, she has this going for her. :ThmbUp:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...naugh-hearing/ |
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadk66
(Post 2381264)
very interesting. well they've never been accused of being very smart
|
OR American. |
| davew |
10-08-2018 05:49 AM |
maybe the ACLU will argue Kavenaugh needs to recuse himself
|
| rastajenk |
10-08-2018 07:28 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom
(Post 2381276)
OR American.
|
Or civil. |
| chadk66 |
10-08-2018 08:41 AM |
all true. they're like unions. they've outlived their usefulness in this country.
|
| barahona44 |
10-08-2018 09:09 AM |
I seriously doubt that the ACLU would have to recuse itself.The right to choose counsel and to appear in court is written in the Constitution (6th and 7th Amendments).
|
| Dave Schwartz |
10-08-2018 11:50 AM |
Last night I brought this question up to a lawyer who I have great respect for. (He's a Libertarian, not that it matters.)
Based upon his opinion, this article is exactly backwards.
He said that a greater likelihood was that if the ACLU brings a case, it is Justice Kavanaugh that would be recused, because to do otherwise, would prevent the clients unfettered access to the highest court in the land.
|
| boxcar |
10-08-2018 11:52 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz
(Post 2381487)
Last night I brought this question up to a lawyer who I have great respect for. (He's a Libertarian, not that it matters.)
Based upon his opinion, this article is exactly backwards.
He said that a greater likelihood was that if the ACLU brings a case, it is Justice Kavanaugh that would be recused, because to do otherwise, would prevent the clients unfettered access to the highest court in the land.
|
Huh? How does that make sense? Who spoke out against whom here? Who is goring the ox here? |
| AndyC |
10-08-2018 12:16 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz
(Post 2381487)
Last night I brought this question up to a lawyer who I have great respect for. (He's a Libertarian, not that it matters.)
Based upon his opinion, this article is exactly backwards.
He said that a greater likelihood was that if the ACLU brings a case, it is Justice Kavanaugh that would be recused, because to do otherwise, would prevent the clients unfettered access to the highest court in the land.
|
So given that scenario it would behoove attacking any judge who you feel might vote against your position. Just throw anything out there and the judge will have to recuse. |
| barahona44 |
10-08-2018 02:52 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
(Post 2381490)
Huh? How does that make sense? Who spoke out against whom here? Who is goring the ox here?
|
People have the right to criticize.It's called the First Amendment.If someone is slandering and lying, there are legal recourses to seek relief.
And didn't Judge Keganaugh:D lash out at "Senate Democrats" during the hearings? Sounds like he's being a bit of a matador himself. |
| Dave Schwartz |
10-08-2018 03:20 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
(Post 2381490)
Huh? How does that make sense? Who spoke out against whom here? Who is goring the ox here?
|
Quote:
So given that scenario it would behoove attacking any judge who you feel might vote against your position. Just throw anything out there and the judge will have to recuse.
|
I completely agree with both of you.
Just passing on what my friend said.
Does anyone know if there is a precedent for this or anything like it?
Just a thought... If there is no precedent, imagine that the high court might have to hear arguments on who should be recused before a particular case represented by the ACLU could be heard.
And the thick plottens. |
| Jeff P |
10-08-2018 03:35 PM |
I don't profess to know the answer one way or the other.
That said, a Google search of the phrase "precedent judge recusal" (without the quotes) turned up the following article about a Supreme Court Ruling from March, 2017:
March 7, 2017 07:06:18 am | Taylor Isaac
Supreme Court clarifies correct standard for recusal of judge:
https://www.jurist.org/news/2017/03/...al-of-a-judge/
Quote:
The US Supreme Court [official website] on Monday reversed [opinion, PDF] a case due to the lower courts’ analysis that focused on the presence of actual bias as opposed to an objective probability of actual bias. In Rippo v. Baker [SCOTUS blog materials], Michael Rippo discovered that the judge hearing his criminal case was the subject of a federal bribery investigation, and Rippo believed the same district attorney’s office that was prosecuting him was playing a part in the judge’s bribery investigation. Rippo sought to disqualify the judge based on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but the judge declined to recuse himself. A later judge denied a motion for a new trial, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. The state courts again denied Rippo’s argument in later proceedings based on the failure to show evidence of actual bias. The Supreme Court reversed, stating that precedent dictates recusal at times where actual bias is absent. “Recusal is required when, objectively speaking, ‘the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decision maker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.'” Due to this, the previous judgment was vacated and Rippo’s case was remanded for further proceedings.
|
-jp
. |
| Dave Schwartz |
10-08-2018 03:46 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff P
(Post 2381585)
I don't profess to know the answer one way or the other.
That said, a Google search of the phrase "precedent judge recusal" (without the quotes) turned up the following article about a Supreme Court Ruling:
March 7, 2017 07:06:18 am | Taylor Isaac
Supreme Court clarifies correct standard for recusal of judge:
https://www.jurist.org/news/2017/03/...al-of-a-judge/
-jp
.
|
That's a great answer, and makes a lot of sense. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:17 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
|
|
