Whoa: @FixTheCourt says that 7 out of 9 — as in, all but Kennedy and Thomas — are likely recused due to the funds in which the justices are invested:https://twitter.com/FixTheCourt/status/981260960437596160 …
-
-
Show this thread
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Holy shit. Somebody is about to retire. Jesus. I hope it's not Kennedy.
-
This is about recusal issues.
-
Just so. Thank you.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Because the Justices have financial interests in parties?
-
The idea that anyone can serve in Congress, a PAS position, as Prez/VP, or as a judge and have ANY non-index fund-like investments boggles my mind more and more each and every day.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
They're not suggesting that one of the members is gonna quit or die, are they??

-
Recusal
-
Chris has put in the thread this is about investments the Justices have. He has quote tweet another account which is explaining it.
-
I saw it thx.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
For those curious what the referenced 28 U.S. Code § 2109 says... One would imagine this would result from predicted recusals rather than Kennedy and Thomas predicting death or illness.https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2109 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But wait. One vacant seat does not create the lack of a quorum. They heard cases while Scalia's seat was vacant.
-
A quorum sufficient for the Court to hear a case is six justices. 28 U.S.C. § 1.
-
Someone else pointed out that they must be expecting recusals.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
New conversation
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.