Someone should ask him: would you recuse in a case in which you had a significant financial stake in the success of one of the parties? Or in which one party was his wife or child? If he says 'yes', he violates this principle. If he says 'no', that should be disqualifying.https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1037832380185231360 …
-
-
1/ On further reflection, this would be a good tactic to use to dismantle the "oh, I couldn't possibly comment on an issue that might come before me" thing. (Of course they can't comment on *actual cases*, but legal hypotheticals are different.) Just ask this:
-
2/ "If a case came before you concerning the Constitutionality of the government declaring Lutheranism to be the official religion of the United States, how would you rule?"
-
3/ "Do you believe that the government has the right to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law?" "If the government passed a law requiring citizens to quarter soldiers in their homes in time of peace, would that be constitutional?"
-
4/ The idea that a nominee cannot answer questions about legal principle without prejudging possible future cases implies that s/he cannot answer questions like the ones I just listed. But that's absurd.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
these gop are so corrupt they will still confirm this man... he should not be able to be on the supreme court period!! he has even purgered himself at least 4 times.. that in itself should disqualify him
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.