Simply because one is a judge doesn't mean you can't have negative personal opinions about a litigant.
However, it'll be a severe strike against you--an impeachable offense, really--that you make other members of the court brow-beatingly aware of your strong animus against the leader of the Executive Branch, a priori, without consideration of any merits or even standing.
It'll be a second impeachable strike against the CJ to declare he will insure the president will be kept from re-election by of the CJ's actions. (Strangely channeling Strzok's comments and animus.) We mustn't forget, CJ was talking about removing the court of last resort for an election case from PDJT's options to be heard.
But the CJ certainly pegs the sedition meter in declining to recuse himself in light of such previous statements when just such a court case concerning PDJT's re-election comes before the court, e.g. Texas vs PA.
Simply because one is a judge doesn’t mean you can’t have negative personal opinions about a litigant.
However, it’ll be a severe strike against you—an impeachable offense, really—that you make other members of the court brow-beatingly aware of your strong animus against the leader of the Executive Branch, a priori, without consideration of any merits or even standing.
It’ll be a second impeachable strike against the CJ to declare he will insure the president will be kept from re-election by of the CJ’s actions. (Strangely channeling Strzok’s comments and animus.) We mustn’t forget, CJ was talking about removing the court of last resort for an election case from PDJT’s options to be heard.
But the CJ certainly pegs the sedition meter in declining to recuse himself in light of such previous statements when just such a court case concerning PDJT’s re-election comes before the court, e.g. Texas vs PA
****************************
Excellent, supurb rx.
🦅🇺🇸