To: freepersup
As much as I hate to say this, kagen and sotomayor will not recuse themselves (unethically without a doubt), and again this will not get through conference.
Makes me sick...
20 posted on
02/27/2011 9:30:24 AM PST by
Danae
(Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
To: Danae
I think they have to be recused Hemenways motion was not heard/denied thus should be granted..we shall see...
22 posted on
02/27/2011 9:41:37 AM PST by
rolling_stone
( *this makes Watergate look like a kiddie pool*)
To: Danae
Is this the first time that a formal motion's been made to recuse the conflicted appointees? It was ethically up to both of them to recuse themselves voluntarily in the previous cases where they were seen as having a conflict of interest and they failed the test miserably. Filth. I can see these two spurious ‘Justices’ recusing themselves only if they know that there is not a majority on the Court with the heart to move the eligibility issue forward. If, they do recuse themselves and there are then five Justices remaining, is the majority now only three (required) to grant certiorari? This could be a crack in the armor, and a primary reason why they would not recuse themselves.
31 posted on
02/27/2011 11:57:19 AM PST by
freepersup
(Today, we raise our glasses of spirits and mugs of ale high- to Budge.)
To: Danae; Hotlanta Mike
This is the reason they have attacked Thomas so viciously this week.
"Hey Clarence Thoms doesn't recuse himself from issues affecting his "friends" ...why should Kagankommie and and the world's smartest Latina?"
91 posted on
02/27/2011 9:03:49 PM PST by
Kenny Bunk
(Odd, but I never had to ask, "Who, or what exactly is Dwight Eisenhower?")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson