Legal/scotus thread

I remember a press conference I saw for the police department giving a statement for the dui arrest of a cop or councilmen

He stood there and said “those tests aren’t always relatable” or something to that degree

And was like “if I was a lawyer in that town, I’d use video from that in every dui case I ever take from here on
 
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/01/31/is-ginni-thomas-a-threat-to-the-supreme-court



On January 19th, the Supreme Court rejected the former President’s request that it intervene to stop the congressional committee from accessing his records. Justice Thomas was the lone Justice to dissent.



Recusals on the Supreme Court are extremely rare, in part because substitutes are not permitted, as they are for judges on lower courts. Yet several other Justices have stepped aside from cases to avoid even the appearance of misconduct. Justice Stephen Breyer recuses himself from any case that has been heard by his brother, Charles Breyer, a federal judge in the Northern District of California. “It’s about the appearance of impropriety,” Charles Breyer told me. “Laypeople would think you would favor your brother over the merits of the case. It’s [done] to make people believe that the Supreme Court is not influenced by relationships.” Justice Breyer also recused himself from a case involving the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, because his wife had previously worked there.


For lawyers involved in cases before the Supreme Court, it can be deeply disturbing to know that Ginni Thomas is an additional opponent.
 
Last edited:
57Brave said:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/01/31/is-ginni-thomas-a-threat-to-the-supreme-court



On January 19th, the Supreme Court rejected the former President’s request that it intervene to stop the congressional committee from accessing his records. Justice Thomas was the lone Justice to dissent.



Recusals on the Supreme Court are extremely rare, in part because substitutes are not permitted, as they are for judges on lower courts. Yet several other Justices have stepped aside from cases to avoid even the appearance of misconduct. Justice Stephen Breyer recuses himself from any case that has been heard by his brother, Charles Breyer, a federal judge in the Northern District of California. “It’s about the appearance of impropriety,” Charles Breyer told me. “Laypeople would think you would favor your brother over the merits of the case. It’s [done] to make people believe that the Supreme Court is not influenced by relationships.” Justice Breyer also recused himself from a case involving the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, because his wife had previously worked there.


For lawyers involved in cases before the Supreme Court, it can be deeply disturbing to know that Ginni Thomas is an additional opponent.
Click to expand...

There are lots of cases where it would be better if a justice recused themselves. When they do, it's usually on cases where their vote isn't as important and often as a showing of neutrality more than anything. If it's a major abortion case, the legal teams could be made up entirely of the justices' spouses and not a single justice would recuse themselves. It's pretty annoying to those of us in the legal profession actually subject to conflict of interest rules.
 
Jaw said:
[tw]1486383904529518599[/tw]
Click to expand...

Figured he saw the writing on the wall. No chance a replacement gets passed if the Republicans retake the Senate (which is likely at this point). It'll be interesting to see if the replacement gets 50 votes. I think they will.
 
It will be fun to compare the hearings from whoever is nominated here to what we saw with Kavanaugh.
 
Yeah it's a bummer but I don't blame him. He has to be looking at the court and thinking about Ginsburg waiting too long and allowing a Republican to replace her. The three libs are in lockstep on everything major anyway, so this won't change anything. Now a second minority (Thomas doesn't count, you know) and third woman (same for ACB) can be appointed.

I hope Clarence shows the same wisdom the next time Pubs are in control. I wish he had done it the last time.
 
Jaw said:
Yeah it's a bummer but I don't blame him. He has to be looking at the court and thinking about Ginsburg waiting too long and allowing a Republican to replace her. The three libs are in lockstep on everything major anyway, so this won't change anything. Now a second minority (Thomas doesn't count, you know) and third woman (same for ACB) can be appointed.

I hope Clarence shows the same wisdom the next time Pubs are in control. I wish he had done it the last time.
Click to expand...

Thomas will be irreplaceable.

I don't think you can find a better judge than him which is sad because times running out for him.
 
As some have pointed out on twitter. The left now needs Manchin and Sinema to play ball.

Thats glorious.
 
They both will without any coercion. Unless the nominee is a total crazy you'll see a few Pubs vote for her too.
 
sturg33 said:
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Tw]1486398524233289730[/tw]
Click to expand...

This was a campaign pledge he made. Black women for VP and SC. We live in a country where he thought that promising to pick based on gender and skin color would give him a better chance of winning. And he still won.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top