Posted on 12/31/2011 8:24:14 PM PST by Nachum
In the face of a growing controversy over whether two Supreme Court justices should disqualify themselves from the challenge to the 2010 health care overhaul law, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Saturday defended the court’s ethical standards.
The chief justice’s comments came in his annual report on the state of the federal judiciary. In it, he made what amounted to a vigorous defense of Justices Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan, who are facing calls to disqualify themselves from hearing the health care case, which will be argued over three days in late March. He did not, however, mention the justices by name.
“I have complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through a rigorous appointment and confirmation process.”
Federal law requires that judges disqualify themselves when they have a financial interest in a case, have given advice or expressed an opinion “concerning the merits of the particular case” or when their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” For lower court judges, such a decision can be reviewed by a higher court, but the Supreme Court has no such review.
(Excerpt) Read more at patdollard.com ...
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
I’m beginning to think that the problem with the SCOTUS is Roberts.
That was an irrational comment. The problem is 4 liberal justices on SCOTUS and more to come if Obama is reelected. I
That was an irrational comment. The problem is 4 liberal justices on SCOTUS and more to come if Obama is reelected.
Whatever.
If they have to strangle this monstrosity 5-4, so be it.
Get ready for the big screw job.
His statements are what is called foreshadowing.
Obama: “What headline did you send the NYTimes to use?”
Aide: “Chief Justice Roberts Defends Kagan, Thomas Hearing Health Care Case”
Obama: “Say, that’s pretty good!”
First of all, Roberts lies-—Kagan has no integrity and she should NEVER have been confirmed.
And if she doesn’t recuse herself—she will be in violation of Federal Law. (But then, she lied when she took the oath of office—like her puppet master muslim did.
Since the likes of Kagan and Sotomayer are so brilliant, wouldn't you think that the MSM would display their written decisions for all the world to see?
Are they out there? Maybe I just don't know about it. Can someone point me in the right direction?
Roberts is just being a good leader. He is standing up for the institution of the Supreme Court.
It has always been a politically-oriented court.
I always cite the slavery issue and how the court did an about face within about 2 decades.
Much of the history of SCOTUS is filled with just such about faces.
If the Constitution didn’t change during a two-decade timespan, then it was the interpretation that changed.
At the march towards liberalism is a “ratchet”; it never gets more conservative, it just holds the line for a while, then gets more liberal.
Now we have a government that far exceeds it’s Constitutional limitations. It remains to be seen if we can actually get a SCOTUS to ratchet government back at all towards the Constitution.
The court getting involved in forcing Federal big-goverment handouts continues to expand, as does the court siding with a perceived “popular” view on “rights”. It’s much more difficult to be the “parent” who has to play “bad cop” and either a) limit how much the government has to splurge, b) tell a large, politically powerful group what they don’t want to hear or c) tell people they have to behave.
If there is a major grassroots revival of conservatism then a SCOTUS may react according to b) if it’s balanced or right-leaning and go along with the idea of reintroducing some limits on government.
IMHO...
Roberts is a liberal, get used to it.
Geez, you're just as cynical as I am.
It always seems that the Supreme court is "just so", teetering between "liberal" and "conservative".
And Oh, that dirty little word "conservative", those who think the law of the land, i.e. Constitution, means what it says.
Just enough of one, or the other, to appease the ignorant masses, no matter who's in charge.
God, it's frustrating, and sickening.
Amen!
Unfortunately Roberts doesn’t get to hire his associates.
Roberts and the rest of the Justices should be able to convince Kagen to stand down, especially if things are going to go 5-4 anyway.
Anybody here actually read the article?
Geeez !
Typical NYT slanted headline
BS Kagen has no business hearing this case!!!
I guess Roberts is, after all, just another politician with a law degree.
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.