POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

Yes, it absolutely works both ways.

 

If it doesn't meet "your" standards it will be political. When I say that I'm on a soap box.

 

I have zero doubt people get political favors through the legal system, but I saw Republicans push out Santos and Democrats push out Al Franken. Nothing is universal. This dude from NY could be not guilty of these accusations, too. He seems like a [penis], but that isn't illegal. We'll see where it goes, however much I care to follow it.

 

I never said anything about if he gets off it will be political. You said the guy would get off because he's a Democrat, nothing else. You don't even wait to see evidence, arguments, decisions, etc. I stated I'll wait to see those before I form an opinion in your hypothetical Supreme Court case. You are on record, so to speak.

 

The ones he appointed. Judges, including justices, recuse themselves from cases where they have a conflict of interest regularly. Here's a discussion on it from 2 years ago:

 

Did Obama appointed justices recuse themselves when arguing about Obama care? Primary Kegan?

 

That isn't a conflict of interest. Nobody is asking justices to recuse themselves on laws or actions passed by the Trump Administration, just in cases related to Trump himself since they owe their position to him.

 

She helped prepare legal defense for Obama care when she was Solicitor General.

 

Interestingly enough, she ruled against part of Obamacare with Roberts. She also recused herself from a ton of cases in her first 50 or so. I think she probably should have done so for the Obamacare cases, for propriety's sake, but it was not as clear a situation as you suggest.

Regardless, this is still very different than her ruling on Obama himself, the person she owes her position, same as the three justices currently on the Court for Trump.

 

It was a huge deal for Obama so she should have definitely recused herself. Just an example of how it doesn't always happen. Also if the courts are so pure then it shouldn't matter who appointed them. On the flip side shouldn't it be a conflict of interest if you donated money to a person to defeat the person you are overseeing a trial for? Would that not be some bias against a person?

 

You're doing some circuitous arguing to get to a conclusion you already wanted, these justices not recusing themselves from participating in cases regarding Trump. Nobody has made an argument about purity of the court or whatever that angle is supposed to be. Justices expressing opinions and working towards those opinions is pretty much everyone. Plus, donating money to a person, although I feel this shouldn't occur, does not make a justice feel beholden to that person the way owing your job to them would.

So, let's forget about those things and make it a real simple determination.

Should a judge be able to make a ruling on the person for whom they owe their position as judge? Yes or no?

 

What makes giving a person a job so special? Why is that your bar? Someone voting against someone and donating money to a political opponent is just nothing? Lots of things can make a judge bias what makes the job thing so special and all you care about?

 

Me giving someone a donation doesn't create any semblance of obligation on my part whereas someone giving me a job does. I don't think a justice should give money to a candidate, but it isn't going to potentially alter their opinion on them. This also, is not the only bar, but a very, very clear one. If the guy standing before you, awaiting judgment, is the one who put you in this position to make the judgment, you are quite clearly compromised in this instance.

So, yes or no? Do you think these justices should recuse themselves in the Trump case?

 

Obligation to what? Everytime a person gets a job it's a quid pro quo? I think they should recuse themselves as should the people that are clearly bias against a person on trial, a thorough process should be done to make sure there is no bias or connections to the defendant. Neither is any different unless talking to you.

 

How many jobs allow you to sit in legal judgment of the person who hired you?

Just say you want these people to not recuse themselves because you want them to rule in favor of Trump and be done with this charade of you making absurd arguments like this one.

 

Who are these people?

 

Also read my last post. I said they probably should recuse themselves but I also think just giving a person a job is not the only reason a person should recuse themselves. That is your argument. Apparently thats all that does it. Weird. Nice charade you are running as well.

 

Charade? What? Who ever said this was the only reason? Shit, I even said Kagan probably should have recused herself in the Obamacare case a few posts above here. I'm curious as to where you got the notion it was ever said this was the only reason to recuse oneself.

The only thing I might argue is this is the best reason to recuse themself. There is quite a bit more than simply "giving a person a job" going on here, too, as noted for various reasons.

 

Best reason? How about being family? Why not just ask the person that was given the job by the defendant if they can be fair and partial while residing over the case. That's basically all they do for a judge with bias or a juror with bias.

 

That is all they do and I am suggesting that isn't enough