Posted on 09/26/2025 9:04:00 AM PDT by ransomnote
![]() |
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Who assigns cases????
He WON’T RECUSE because that would be the RIGHT THING TO DO!
Push this up the chain. The DOJ must know about this.
It’s a big club and you ain’t in it.
This is a clear conflict of interest.
He shouldn’t be given the opportunity to recuse himself.
He should be removed immediately.
Is federal judicial refusal or not always and only up to the individual judge to recise themselves or not, on an honor system, subject only to removal from bench by congressional impeachment?
A judge must recuse themselves from a case if there is a conflict of interest, which includes any situation where their impartiality could reasonably be questioned, even if it’s just an appearance of bias rather than actual bias. The legal standard focuses on whether a reasonable person might doubt the judge’s ability to be fair. This process ensures fairness, maintains public confidence, and upholds the integrity of the judiciary, with federal and state laws often outlining specific grounds for disqualification
We’ve been here before. Their side never recuse themselves, while our side “does the right thing”.
Thank you. Should we expect this be followed to the letter or twisted and ignored to suit partisan leanings in these times? What is the recent history of this concept in actual action?
“randomly assigned”
“potential” bias
“Recusal is the legal process by which a judge, juror, or other adjudicator steps aside from participating in a case due to potential bias, conflict of interest, or appearance of impropriety. This practice is fundamental to ensuring fairness and impartiality in legal proceedings, preserving the integrity of the judiciary, and maintaining public confidence in the legal system. Historical and modern legal frameworks outline specific grounds for recusal, such as personal or financial conflicts of interest, prior involvement in a case, or demonstrated bias.”
This is a direct conflict.
See the irony? “maintaining public confidence”.
His case is put in the court of a judge who owes him.
Incredible.
The court
Well, he could have refused as soon as he was assigned. But he didnt.
Recused not refused
Another “random assignment.”
Boo this. Case may be thrown out now.
Is a Managing Assistant U.S. Attorney in charge of hiring law clerks? I honestly don’t know. It seems like their job is more focused on advising US Attorneys in their district.
Rats never recuse, rats never resign.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.