|
|
10-07-2018, 07:51 PM
|
#1
|
Just another Facist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Now in Houston
Posts: 52,785
|
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
__________________
WE ARE THE DUMBEST COUNTRY ON THE PLANET!
|
|
|
10-07-2018, 08:25 PM
|
#2
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5,414
|
very interesting. well they've never been accused of being very smart
|
|
|
10-07-2018, 08:39 PM
|
#3
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadk66
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.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...naugh-hearing/
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
10-07-2018, 08:48 PM
|
#4
|
The Voice of Reason!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,853
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadk66
very interesting. well they've never been accused of being very smart
|
OR American.
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
|
|
|
10-08-2018, 05:49 AM
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,638
|
maybe the ACLU will argue Kavenaugh needs to recuse himself
|
|
|
10-08-2018, 07:28 AM
|
#6
|
Just Deplorable
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lebanon, Ohio
Posts: 8,068
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom
OR American.
|
Or civil.
|
|
|
10-08-2018, 08:41 AM
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5,414
|
all true. they're like unions. they've outlived their usefulness in this country.
|
|
|
10-08-2018, 09:09 AM
|
#8
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Diez meses en Port St. Lucie, FL; two months in the Dominican Republic
Posts: 4,355
|
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).
__________________
"But don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to. "
Fleetwood Mac, Oh Well, Part 1 (1969)
|
|
|
10-08-2018, 11:50 AM
|
#9
|
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,909
|
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.
|
|
|
10-08-2018, 11:52 AM
|
#10
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz
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?
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
10-08-2018, 12:16 PM
|
#11
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,285
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz
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.
|
|
|
10-08-2018, 02:52 PM
|
#12
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Diez meses en Port St. Lucie, FL; two months in the Dominican Republic
Posts: 4,355
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
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 lash out at "Senate Democrats" during the hearings? Sounds like he's being a bit of a matador himself.
__________________
"But don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to. "
Fleetwood Mac, Oh Well, Part 1 (1969)
|
|
|
10-08-2018, 03:20 PM
|
#13
|
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,909
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
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.
|
|
|
10-08-2018, 03:35 PM
|
#14
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: JCapper Platinum: Kind of like Deep Blue... but for horses.
Posts: 5,290
|
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
.
__________________
Team JCapper: 2011 PAIHL Regular Season ROI Leader after 15 weeks
www.JCapper.com
Last edited by Jeff P; 10-08-2018 at 03:47 PM.
Reason: added links to the quoted text from the article
|
|
|
10-08-2018, 03:46 PM
|
#15
|
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,909
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff P
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|