Mar 12, 2022·edited Mar 12, 2022Liked by Patterico
Justice Ginsberg's close association -- while on the bench -- with the NOW Legal Defense Fund was a matter of controversy at the time, but does not seem to have lead to any recusals, nor did briefs from the ACLU (where she previously had a leading role) cause her issues. Meanwhile Chief Roberts seems to recuse for mere stock ownership, which seems picky and discriminatory against affluent members of the bench, but maybe the law indicates he should. The only thing that most justices agree on is prior cases that they handled should not be reviewed by themselves.
So, should Justice Thomas recuse himself on any matter that his wife has a political position? Should a justice who has deep roots in an advocacy organization (NOW, NORML, GLAAD, etc) be required to recuse whenever a case that the organization briefs comes up? Or holds stock in a company impacted by a decision? Is the act of having lunch with a later plaintiff a problem?
Personally, I think that the line should be one of clear and convincing bias, other than the normal philosophical one. If (hypothetically) Justice Thomas owns stock in Smith & Wesson that's one thing. If he attends a fundraiser for their case, that's another.
Justice Ginsberg's close association -- while on the bench -- with the NOW Legal Defense Fund was a matter of controversy at the time, but does not seem to have lead to any recusals, nor did briefs from the ACLU (where she previously had a leading role) cause her issues. Meanwhile Chief Roberts seems to recuse for mere stock ownership, which seems picky and discriminatory against affluent members of the bench, but maybe the law indicates he should. The only thing that most justices agree on is prior cases that they handled should not be reviewed by themselves.
So, should Justice Thomas recuse himself on any matter that his wife has a political position? Should a justice who has deep roots in an advocacy organization (NOW, NORML, GLAAD, etc) be required to recuse whenever a case that the organization briefs comes up? Or holds stock in a company impacted by a decision? Is the act of having lunch with a later plaintiff a problem?
Personally, I think that the line should be one of clear and convincing bias, other than the normal philosophical one. If (hypothetically) Justice Thomas owns stock in Smith & Wesson that's one thing. If he attends a fundraiser for their case, that's another.
Whelan should now do Justice Thomas.