« Law - "Examining the Consequences of Mortgage Irregularities for Financial Stability and Foreclosure Mitigation" | Main | Environment - Ohio agriucultural waste, dumped in Indiana »
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Courts - Recusal: "Judging Whether to Be the Judge"
Recusal was the subject of Adam Liptak's NY Times "Sidebar" column yesterday. “Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this application.” Liptak writes that Justices Kagan, Breyer and Sotomayor:
used essentially the same language in noting their own recusals from other cases last week. None of them explained why.That is both routine and in its way quite odd. In other parts of the justice system, there is general agreement on a couple of points. One is that you should not be a judge in your own case. The other is that courts gain legitimacy by explaining the reasoning for their decisions. * * *
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was dismissive of the idea [that the full court should review recusal motions] in 2004 when senators asked him about Justice Scalia’s duck-hunting trip.
“While a member of the court will often consult with colleagues as to whether to recuse in a case, there is no formal procedure for court review of a justice in an individual case,” Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote. “This is because it has long been settled that each justice must decide such a question for himself.”
You could call that second sentence reasoning, but you would be being generous.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 16, 2010 10:11 AM
Posted to Courts in general