Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: William Tell
From reading the Kelo decision, I can guar-on-d*mn-tee that clever lawyers for urban and rural areas will come up with new cases to push the envelope on what constitutes "public use" under the new permissions from the Court. You've heard the saying, "Nothing can be made foolproof, because fools are so ingenious." Well, the same applies to lawyers.

Besides, on a case that sharply and closely divided, there's always the chance that the Court will overrule the Kelo case. In either event, a potential Justice who expressed the opinion that he/she would uphold/reverse Kelo, would disqualify that Justice from serving on that future case.

Trust me, it's a huge no-no.

John / Billybob

34 posted on 07/17/2005 7:12:18 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob (Will President Bush appoint a Justice who obeys the Constitution? I give 85-15 odds on yes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]


To: Congressman Billybob
Congressman Billybob said: "...a potential Justice who expressed the opinion that he/she would uphold/reverse Kelo, would disqualify that Justice from serving on that future case.
Trust me, it's a huge no-no.

My point is that there is a difference between answering a question regarding a hypothetical case (or a real one) which might reach the court in the future versus expressing an opinion in agreement with the dissent in a case already decided. We have over two hundred years of precedent by prior Supreme Court decisions. Is it the case that no opinion can be stated regarding the correctness of any such decisions without being bound to recuse oneself in a similar case?

The Dred Scott decision was a federal affirmation of the power to return a slave to his owner in a slave state. Is that decison out-of-bounds for comment? The issue of ownership of "property" having crossed state lines is still liable to come up.

From a practical point-of-view I can see where an appointee might use the claim that he wishes to avoid a future obligation to recuse in refusing to answer a question. Isn't a Supreme Court Justice the final arbiter of when he must recuse, short of impeachment? Are there any examples of a Justice recusing on the basis of opinions stated during confirmation, apart from some actual conflict-of-interest or prior direct involvement in a case?

And finally, thanks for taking your time to respond. My future degree from UFR (the University of FreeRepublic) will be highly prized.

35 posted on 07/17/2005 10:44:58 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson