Pa. boards of election in lawsuit over mail ballot deadline makes motion for Barrett to recuse

[bigtree]

Kyle Griffin @kylegriffin1
One of the Pennsylvania boards of election involved in the lawsuit over the deadline for receiving mail ballots — now back before the Supreme Court — has filed a motion seeking to have Amy Coney Barrett recuse herself from the case. https://t.co/4pM1NyLpCq?amp=1

The Luzerne County Board of Elections says her impartiality can reasonably be questioned “given the circumstances of her nomination and confirmation.”

The board cites the unprecedented closeness of her confirmation to Election Day and the statements by the president who nominated her.

“All of this raises a terrible ‘appearance’ problem which can only engulf the Supreme Court in a political stew with poisonous consequences for the independence and perceived integrity of the judiciary,” the board argues.

The justices decide for themselves whether to recuse in any individual case.

Link to tweet

[FBaggins]

1. Little chance of that... but the impact could be the same

As you pointed out, the justices decide fir themselves. And there’s little real rationale for her to do so (conflict on the part of the president who appointed a judge is not conflict on the part of the judge).

BUT... while the rest of the court usually has no say in the matter... they might this time. Because this case was already heard. The only reason to take it at all was because there are now nine justices. If the rest of the court (and it would take some conservatives) thought that m she shouldn’t get involved... they could decline to review their prior lack of a ruling.

At least two of them have signaled that they want to change the PA results. It would only take one more (plus Barrett) to rehear the case.

[bigtree]

2. I think she has a good point

...Trump and Barret are joined at the hip. Everyone can see this.

Trump has repeatedly warned, without basis in fact, of the risk of widespread voter fraud this election and encouraged the swift confirmation of Barrett, in part so she could be seated in time to rule on voting litigation.

“I think this will end up in the Supreme Court. And I think it’s very important that we have nine justices,” Trump said in a Sept. 23 news conference. “It’s better if you go before the election, because I think this scam that the Democrats are pulling — it’s a scam — the scam will be before the United States Supreme Court. And I think having a 4-4 situation is not a good situation.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/522938-pennsylvania-county-asks-barrett-to-recuse-herself-from-mail-ballot

[FBaggins]

3. Unfortunately... such a standard doesn't exist

If it did... she couldn’t hear any cases at all.

Which has a certain appeal (pun intended) but isn’t going to happen.

[bigtree]

4. this is unprecedented

...blatant appearance of impropriety

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[FBaggins]

5. And not a blessed thing can be done about it

If she were to get on AF1 and fly around the country with Trump for the last week of the campaign... that could be impeachable conduct. But every SCOTUS justice is appointed by a president who cares about the rulings they will hand down... likely ran on what type of judges they would appoint... and has a White House photo op with them when they are nominated and again when they are confirmed.



Plenty of people think that Trump should never have been elected. Lots of those believe that he never was elected. That every judge he puts on a federal bench is illegitimate and should not be able to hear cases.

But that isn't how it works.

[bigtree]

6. it may well not be 'the way things work'

....but it damn well should be.

Maybe stop trifling with me on this. You're representing the conflict in the simplest of terms, and we know from the corruption of this man - of the corruption from the Federalist Society who churns these nominees out for republican presidents - that there is something deeply wrong with the closeness of this president to the Judiciary, with his closeness to this nominee.

It may not be readily apparent, but you don't need to look far past the process which put her on the bench to conclude that it's dirty. This isn't the integrity we deserve for a lifetime appointment to a branch of our government, and if it's not out of order, it should be.

This is wrong and there's no goddamn excuse.

[FBaggins]

7. You're looking for deus ex machina

Can't help with that. Sorry.

You're arguing as though I'm saying how things "should" be or what we "deserve". I'm not. I'm simply saying that the only person to convince re: whether she should recuse herself... is herself. There is no way to force it even if we all agree.

Except (as I mentioned above) that the rest of the court could in this specific case effectively "recuse" her by not taking the rehearing in the first place.

[bigtree]

8. I highlighted that in the op. She has to decide to recuse

...but what we do here in speaking out against these clear conflicts isn't delusion. It's advocacy.

No one here needs you to tell them their efforts or expectations are hopeless. What is the actual point in that?