HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » A Supreme Court case deci... » Reply #7

Response to alwaysinasnit (Original post)

Mon Oct 19, 2020, 07:27 AM

7. The problem is that the example is a judge who ran for reelection

Such judges usually have to run again and you could reasonably assume that they'll need to raise more money and might be biased toward those who donated large amounts previously.

That's substantively different from saying that a judge can't be impartial in cases involving the executive that appointed them. Once a justice is on the bench, that person no longer has any power over them. That's one of the reasons that the founders made these seats lifetime appointments.

Not only would there be FAR more recusals, but history doesn't indicate that it's a problem. Lots of judges have ruled against the people who appointed them.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Please login to view edit histories.