WTF, Sonia?

[SoCalDem]

Republican-appointed justices NEVER recuse..Why are Dem-appointeds the only ones who seem obligated to do it?

Norms and rules are sooooo passé.. Even though we would have lost anyway 5-4, at least stay in the fight, Sonia...what are they gonna do..fire you?




https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/sotomayor-sit-out-colorado-faithless-electors-supreme-court-case-n1154856


March 10, 2020, 2:28 PM PDT
By Pete Williams
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor will not participate next month when the court hears one of two cases that could change a key element of the system America uses to elect its president — the Electoral College.

The court disclosed Tuesday that Sotomayor took herself off a case from Colorado involving a challenge to a state law directing how presidential electors must cast their votes because of a personal friendship with one of the challengers. That friend, Polly Baca, was one of three electors who argue that they ought to be able to vote for the candidate of their choice instead of the person who won the popular vote in the state — what's known as a "faithless elector."

In a letter to the lawyers in the case, the Supreme Court's clerk, Scott Harris, said Sotomayor concluded that "her impartiality might reasonably be questioned due to her friendship with respondent Polly Baca." The letter said Sotomayor and her clerks failed to catch the potential conflict when the case was first brought to the court.

snip....

[Skittles]

1. Sonia is friends with one of the challengers

she is doing the right thing

[SoCalDem]

2. true, but still WTF

[Skittles]

3. we know repukes don't do the right thing

that piece of shit Ginnie Thomas is a glaring example

[friendly_iconoclast]

4. "Republican-appointed justices NEVER recuse..." is not true

As see *.pdf link:

https://fixthecourt.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/OT18-recusals-chart.pdf


Justice Sotomayor is doing the right and proper thing

[RockRaven]

5. The old "appeal to hypocrisy" is not a good argument, especially when one is in the minority...

If it is going to be an overtly partisan decision in the end, then there is no point in compromising important ethical standards because the other side does it too. Leave that behavior to them, and use it as fuel for campaigns and legislative acts to reform the judiciary.

[tritsofme]

6. I'm not sure why you expect this case to break along partisan lines?

But she is certainly doing the right thing by refusing.

[LenaBaby61]

8. I'm not sure why you expect this case to break along partisan lines?

My friend said the same thing to me, and I ask him if he trusted those right-winged white federalists males plus lap-dog Clarence Thomas to do ANYTHING consistently to help them lose any parts of their right-winged to Nazi power and dominance here in the USA over the poor, minorities, liberals/progressives, disenfranchised or women? This current bumper crop of folks placed on the courts throughout the country by Moscow Mitch et al are YOUNG, mostly unqualified, WWJD freaks, federalists, flat out racist or anti-women/abortion. I told my friend, "HOPEFULLY there will be a few rulings that will go our way, but I'm not expecting MANY because the courts were stacked on purpose by Moscow Mitch, tReasonous fatso, and the party of putin (Formerly the GOP).

He replied "Shit .... Never mind."

[tritsofme]

9. Ok...but how does that apply to this particular case?

I don’t see how ruling either way here would necessarily favor one party over the other.

It seems like the type case with a unanimous decision, or even some oddball pairings not at all related to the party of the justice.

[stopdiggin]

7. I think you're really off on the wrong foot here

recusal is absolutely proper.

[lagomorph777]

10. Details of Electoral College don't matter; the whole thing has to go.

[onenote]

11. Given that the OP's statement that Republicans never recuse is demonstrably false

it might behoove the OP to delete. Or at least edit.