I am sure there are some famous recusals in the record.
I know Chief Justice Marshall recused himself in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee.
He left it for Justice Story to threaten the Virginia Supreme Court with contempt. They backed down, but I digress.
Taney was strongly pro-southern. Apparently he lamented in a letter the failure of the southern states to secede in 1856. Of course the dissent in the Prize Cases only avers that Congress and not the president is the proper agent to put down rebellion and insurrection; Taney is not on the record in a court case, so far as I know, that secession was legal.
I'd say that there is at least reason to question Taney's objectivity now, and President Lincoln had plenty then.
You deny that, but you are not even in shouting distance of objectivity yourself.
Walt
There certainly are, but that in no way means Taney had to recuse himself from Merryman. To date you have posted absolutely no substantial reason for Taney to have done so in the Merryman case - only your grievance that you don't like his political pursuasion.
Your entire argument on the matter, Walt, would be akin to me saying that John Paul Stevens is a leftist and since I don't like leftists, John Paul Stevens' votes and rulings don't count. As much as I disagree with Stevens' politics, such a belief would be absurd just as your argument against Taney is absurd.
Taney was strongly pro-southern. Apparently he lamented in a letter the failure of the southern states to secede in 1856.
And John Paul Stevens is strongly pro-leftist. He's still a sitting judge though and under the Constitution he gets his vote on the court whether I like his politics or not.
I'd say that there is at least reason to question Taney's objectivity now, and President Lincoln had plenty then.
There's reason to question John Paul Stevens' objectivity - he tilts heavily to the left. There's reason to question Antonin Scalia's objectivity - he tilts heavily to the right. Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg? No objectivity there as they all tilt heavily to the left. Rehnquist and Thomas? They tilt heavily to the right. Even the court's two "moderates" are not objective. O'Connor and Kennedy lean to the right of center. If political leanings disqualified a justice from ruling on a case, then each and every one of the members of the current court would not be able to rule. Simply put, there'd be no court. So again your line of reasoning is absurd.
You deny that
No Walt. Unlike you, I'm perfectly content with the reality that all judges have political leanings and judicial philosophies.
but you are not even in shouting distance of objectivity yourself.
Once again, you lecturing others on objectivity is akin to Jesse Jackson giving a sermon on the sin of adultery.