Skip to comments.E.J. Dionne: Justice Scalia must resign
Posted on 06/27/2012 11:48:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
click here to read article
Sorry, I’m not understanding you. I’m talking about recusal from hearing a case, not from the correct decision IN a case. A judge whose impartiality might reasonably questioned, such as by his/her having previously publicly stated a personal opinion on the underlying issue, must self-recuse, e.g., Kagan’s email to Larry Tribe celebrating the passage of Obamacare.
The WaPo actually pays this monkey to write?
So-called "progressives," such as Dionne, use the tools of dissembling and mischaracterization in order to distort and attack. We must not fall for their methods, but expose and repel them.
Can’t say I would cry if certiant federal “justice” were knocked off.
Not that I am advocating or would advocate such an unlawful act. I simply don’t see their lives as more valuable than any other man(whom I do not know) live.
While there can be no question as to the enhanced danger they place themselves into in their frequent judgments having the effect of rendering injury not only to individuals but large segments of the American people.
I don’t feel that in itself entitles them to the expense of such special protection. Indeed it should be noted that I take similar issue in regard to the president on whom I am thoroughly convinced we are made to spend far too much money.
Were you making a pun or was that an honest mistake?
Nice quote; though I think the section number might be wrong, Google’s book section had it as 1914.
But aren't the comments that this guy is whining about precisely about the non-uniform application of such laws? And it's ridiculous to say that any statement made outlining a [political] opinion should result in the need to recuse on that topic.
You owe monkeys an appology. A monkey banging on a keyboard would have a better chance of having something interesting to read than a Dionne. How is that circulation doing?
Pray for America
I do wish sometimes that SCOTUS justices would go beyond merely saying things are unconstititional, and say what that implies: that they are illegitimate. The Court has no authority to make things be constitutional or unconstitutional. If the court is doing its job legitimately and it says something is constitutional, that something will be constitutional. Likewise if it is doing its job legitimately and it says something is unconstitutional. On the other hand, the notion that a Supreme Court declaration that something is unconstitutional necessarily implies that the thing actually is unconstitutional only holds if one assumes that the Supreme Court will always do its job legitimately; given the number of 5-4 decisions on what should clear-cut cases, such an assumption would seem dubious at best.