Politics And Current Events

[dodint]

Recuse because of a photo? That’s incredibly stupid.

Justices are ethically obligated to avoid the appearance of impropriety even if there is no actual improper underlying act.

[faftorial]

Recuse because of a photo? That’s incredibly stupid.

Justices are ethically obligated to avoid the appearance of impropriety even if there is no actual improper underlying act.

[faftorial]

Recuse because of a photo? That’s incredibly stupid.

Justices are ethically obligated to avoid the appearance of impropriety even if there is no actual improper underlying act.

Are you and nobody still on the outs?

[dodint]

Took me a minute to recall what you're referring to, so I reckon all is good.

[faftorial]

Took me a minute to recall what you're referring to, so I reckon all is good.

[Shyster]

Recuse because of a photo? That’s incredibly stupid.

Justices are ethically obligated to avoid the appearance of impropriety even if there is no actual improper underlying act.

That's true, but I see no way merely appearing in the same picture with someone creates any appearance of impropriety. We don't require judges to live like hermits and never appear with other people.

[MR25]

I guess that would make sense, if those people weren't part of an organization that is currently part of a case being seen by the Court and have an interest in the Court's decision.

[count2infinity]

If it truly is just a photo that they’re in, then yeah... they should t have to recuse themselves. That’s just crazy talk. If it’s more, then yeah, they should consider it.

[Shyster]

I guess that would make sense, if those people weren't part of an organization that is currently part of a case being seen by the Court and have an interest in the Court's decision.

They're an amicus, not a party. Anyone can file an amicus brief. In the case in question (Bostock v. Clayton County), 42 other parties submitted amicus briefs, including, in fact, the Southern Poverty Law Center itself. Would it also be improper if those justices were to take a picture with, say, a couple board members of the SLPC?

[MR25]

Yes?

[faftorial]

Yes.

[grunthy]

Should RBG recuse herself from any case that involves the trump administration or trump in general? After all she did make some politically charged comments about him.

[Shyster]

Judges are not required to turn around and run whenever they run into someone who might be associated with a party, let alone an amici. If that were the case, judges could hardly ever leave the house. The mere act of being in the same place at the same time as another person—and even being photographed in that same place and time—does not mean that the judge is somehow biased in favor of that person or party or cannot fairly adjudicate a dispute involving that party.

[dodint]

Yeah but did she take a picture with him?

Gottem.

[dodint]

Judges are not required to turn around and run whenever they run into someone who might be associated with a party, let alone an amici. If that were the case, judges could hardly ever leave the house. The mere act of being in the same place at the same time as another person—and even being photographed in that same place and time—does not mean that the judge is somehow biased in favor of that person or party or cannot fairly adjudicate a dispute involving that party.

As a matter or ethics, sure.

To the situation here, what's your point? Do you think the justices were coerced somehow? That they're doing this against their will? After all, it was they who recused themselves using the most intimate understanding of the circumstances. What are you getting at?

[MR25]

Have they recused? The article just said someone was requesting that they do so (the wording in the tweet was kinda vague).

[faftorial]

[dodint]

Oh, well, there you go. I didn't look at the tweet at all, just told nobody why any judge is obligated to recuse themselves in cases of the appearance of impropriety. I assumed given the uproar that they already had.

My bad.

Having actually clicked through to the article, yeah, this is dumb. Weird they happened to pick out two of the more conservative justices. Gee.

[Willie Kool]

[grunthy]

She should say very popular with people that don’t understand how the economy works, and don’t care if it is set fire to causing a stock market crash.

Do people actually believe they have just billions sitting around to pay taxes with?

[MWB]

What’s the purpose of all the “Jeffrey Epstein didn’t hang himself” stuff on social media?

[dodint]

To remind everyone that he didn't, even if major media has 'forgotten' he and his crimes existed.

[MWB]

It’s not working.

[faftorial]

What’s the purpose of all the “Jeffrey Epstein didn’t hang himself” stuff on social media?

I've seen this too. The Clintons/Trump had him murdered.

[faftorial]

is there a more loathsome TV personality than John Solomon?