“Recusing themselves from conference means they recuse themselves from having a vote on whether to hear the case.”
__
Good lord, don’t you understand this at all?
There was no vote. There was no conference. It is understood that some cases will be deadlisted unless a single justice expresses an interest in it, in which case a response will be requested.
When not a single justice expressed an interest in these cases, they remained on the deadlist. There was no vote. They simply died a natural death because not a single justice wanted to pursue it any further.
And, as I’ve already pointed out, no one’s jobs would have been at stake, so there would not be those grounds for recusal anyway.
What do there have to be 4 of, in order for the case to be heard?
(That is, unless the 2 people whose job is at stake in the case recuse themselves and then there need to be only THREE, and those 3 know who they are and would then bother to ask to pursue it farther).
Call it whatever you want, but if Scalia, Thomas, and Alito knew that they had the power to make it happen they would pursue this. As long as Kagan and Sotomayor keep their fat rear ends into this business Scalia, Thomas, and Alito know they can never get anywhere with it. Not when it is first brought to them, not when it’s presented for conference. The issue is a deck stacked against those three, and the people who are stacking that deck so that 3 is never enough.... are the judges who won’t recuse themselves from a case where their position is at stake.
And you’ve never said if that’s OK with you - for a judge to decide the case against herself. Is that an OK thing to you? Consider it just as a hypothetical if you don’t believe that’s the situation here. Is it OK for a judge to decide the case brought forth against herself?