Justice Thomas’s wife has campaiged in her position at AHF against Obamacare. She alos receives a six figure salary for all her work with AHF. Now AHF has no measurable stake in the outcome so this is not a real conflict of interest, but many believe a SOTUS justice should not even approach a case with even a hint of conflict. Kagan’s case is different, but she also has no stake in the outcome. The question is not whether she favored O’care, but whether she in any way prepared the soicitor’s attorneys for arguing the case in court and whether she lied during her testimony when she denied having done so.Absent a smoking gun, and her email to Tribe is not it, she won’t recuse herself. If you go by the standard of appearance of conflict or hint of same, both should probably recuse themselves.
from the article
Justices are governed by federal law. Section 455(b)(3) of Title 28 addresses the specific case at hand: the recusal obligations of former government employees. It requires recusal where the judge “has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.” 28 U.S.C. §455(b)(3)...
“If you go by the standard of appearance of conflict or hint of same, both should probably recuse themselves.”
Yes, those are well repeated MSM talking points. I’ve heard them a million times.
1. Kagan had direct involvement.
2. CT had NO direct involvement.
So, how are they the same?
Or even comparable?
Or even worth consideration?
What is the precedent?
1. They aeren’t
2. None.
3. Ridiculous.
4. No case.
Next?