Justice Barret recuses herself.

She didn’t recuse and the reason I heard was because she didn’t have time to give the papers a sufficient review before the case was decided.

I don’t know when the materials were delivered to SCOTUS but if all the other justices had them before she did, that seems not only like a legitimate reason but actually the responsible thing to do.

There are other things to get upset about. Trump’s corruption. His dishonesty. His abysmal failure as president. His effort to undermine and delegitimise the election.

This is not one of the things to worry about.

 

We promise to give your completely irrelevant opinion all the weighty consideration it so richly deserves....wait for it....

 

Perhaps she will soon rule on the protected status of certain marsupials in the outback? lol

 

That is totally incorrect. She did.

This Thread is not about Trump. It is about a person I regard as totally unsuitable to be a Justice, and I will have my say on that.

 

It must feel lonely standing on that slippery slope all by yourself.

 

Sure, and we'll all have a laugh about it.

Just as an aside, how did you end up so personally invested in American politics?

 

I think his posting here shows quite clearly that he does not know the difference. Furthermore, rather than understanding a proper recusal for the appropriate and responsible act that it is, he equates it with "running away". That ought to give you some baseline for judging his comprehension of the situation.

 

You should write your congress critter with your concerns, maybe even ask to be included in the process where such scholars determine who is fit to serve on the SCOTUS.

 

She would earn your respect if she killed herself, who you fooling ?

 

Get ready for this answer "When America farts, we smell it". *edit....Nailed it

 

I am have explained that a zillion times. When Trump farts, the whiff extends down here. I have other answers as many would have seen already, but that will do.

 

Well, enjoy the whiffs then. Up here we'll be voting.

 

That's california fires..

 

No. She will earn my respect when she recuses from hearing any case where the covenants she signed up to with People of Praise are before SCOTUS.

 

sure she can read it but they have already been in involved she hasn’t and made a ruling

 

what makes that group a covenant? i would expect her to recuse herself from cases they are a party to.

 

Yeah, we know you really live on the south side of detroit michigan

 

Ok. I am not enamoured of her judicial history and I think the Republicans were complete dishonest in installing her, but from what I’ve read about her she seems legally qualified.
But go ahead and have at her. IMHO this is not the reason to pick on her.

And I don’t think she recused herself. That implies a conflict of interest. My understanding is she didn’t have sufficient time to review the materials. She had less time than the others. No big deal, but if you want to criticize her for this, be my guest.

 

It's not as simple as reading the record and picking up the case of a retired divorce or criminal judge that has to adjudicate the same proceedings 1,000 times in a year. This is new case law. She has to conference with the other justices, and then they have to bring her up to speed in regards to the group's preliminary decision and analysis for the draft opinion. Her vote might not change any decision, she would have to bring her clerk up to speed, and she would not be able to add any benefit to the Court without extensive research. She would prevent the court from accurately expediting the decision. A judge that recuses themself on such an occasion is acting under professional responsibility for Judges and Attorneys.

 

It is a good thing your respect is not required for her to rule on any case.

 

I doubt she has had time to pick her clerks yet. Regardless, her vote wouldn't have changed the outcome since it was a 5-3 decision.

 

On my second day in the single most important job of my lifetime, I would first want to get my own staff organized (clerks, clerical, etc.) and THEN sit down and read up on pending business.

It is ridiculous and petty beyond imagining that she avoided anything. Democrats, please grow a skin.

 

Wombats vote Democrat. They've got a lobby.

 

Say what?

 

The important part is not that she recused herself (she should have anyway due to the inability to review the case). The important part is that the SC struck down the GOP challenge. The scary part is that 3 judges dissented. It is almost predictable who those three were. Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch. The only surprise is that Kavanaugh did not join them.