Serious Q for @rickhasen: If candidate for judicial office pledges to end controversial practice during campaign, why isn't there obligation to recuse when issue comes before court? (In case, incidentally, brought by group to which speech was made.)
-
I'm not a recusal expert and I haven't seen the comment. I suppose it could depend upon whether it violated judicial candidate speech rules as well as the recusal standard.
Also looks like from this document that the recusal argument was waived https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17A795/34218/20180202135701728_17A795%20Opposition.pdf …pic.twitter.com/b793O2ghdj
-
-
That would certainly be relevant too. Quite possible justices should have recused if asked, but no longer an issue due to waiver.
-
Yeah, you can't wait to see the result and then ask for recusal as a second bite at the apple. This isn't like a free play after the flag in football.
-
Their argument is that they didn't have info until now. I don't know whether that's true.
-
were the comments made at a public forum?
-
I believe so.
-
so that makes this a tough argument
-
Not a situation where sandbagging seems like an obvious explanation, given that the Dem majority on the court was obvious.
-
You can judge for yourselves on his gerrymandering comments: here's the video from the 2015 candidate forum (yes, there's a transcript, but we're known for preferring video),https://youtu.be/713tnbv55mU?t=18m5s …
- 1 more reply
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.