Posted on 10/07/2005 6:06:03 AM PDT by libstripper
From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [Laws in effect as of January 24, 2002] [Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between January 24, 2002 and December 19, 2002] [CITE: 28USC455]
TITLE 28--JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
PART I--ORGANIZATION OF COURTS
CHAPTER 21--GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO COURTS AND JUDGES
Sec. 455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
* * * (3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
* * * (e) No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.
Under subsection (b)(3) quoted above, she could not participate in deciding any WOT case where she had given advice to President Bush. Given the extensive breadth of her legal work in the Whtie House, there's a good chance she advuised him on most of the legal aspects of the WOT. To that extent she can't legally decide cases inovolving the WOT. Thus, she's removed from the most vital national security cases where her vote could be essential.
Even more important, this raises a serious question about her judgment as a lawyer and potential Supreme Court Justice. When she was intervied for the position she should have caught this problem and declined the offer because she whould have to recuse herself in the very cases that would be most important to win if we are to win the WOT. At best this is sloppy lawyering inappropriate for a Supreme Court justice. At worst, she let her ambition to become a justice override her loyalty to President Bush.
Could be but Bush is history. He's a lame duck waiting for a strong Republican to step forward for 08. You may want to work toward ensuring that Republican is not a RINO.
2) You are overstating the potential problem. If a case came before the Supreme court that she specifically gave counsel to the President on, i.e. how far interrogation techniques could go in a case suing the United States for torture, then yes she would have to recuse herself. But that does not mean a blanket disqualification on anything remotely related to the WOT.
The leading candidate so far is Rudy. You think he'd be any better than Bush? I could get behind a Giuilani-Rice ticket. I don't think Condi, as much as I like her, is ready for the Presidency in '08.
I believe this is pure name recognition at this point. Where is Allen? Where is Brownback? Nobody knows who the hell these people are right now. The Miers nomination represents an opportunity for someone to break with Bush over something that isn't the war. Of course, instead we could just chew each other up and go back to being a minority party... I've seen that show before. It never comes out well.
Oh man...don't mention Condi you'll bring the full wrath of the "true conservatives" down upon your head. Come to think of you'd better leave out Rudi.
Maybe but it seems like it will be an important point for her oponents in the hearings.
You being one of them. But Roberts has also worked at the Whitehouse. I'm sure we could come up with a list of reasons why he would have to recuse himself as well (theoretically). I don't think this argument is going anywhere. You'll have to hope for something else.
It would be nice if you would at least learn to spell the Woman's name right. Her name is not Meirs, it is Miers. Would you spell Donald Rumsfeld as Rumsfield?
You don't know nearly as much as you think.
That section of the US Code has been dead for years--how many times has Ginsburg recused herself????
How to manage the illegal immigration issue will also be a core issue in the next Presidential election unless the Republicans deal effectively with it in the near term and it will hit the Senate and House as much as it does the Presidency. It is an issue that could give a third party broker power if this Republican Leadership is not careful and no one really wants that.
Congress through impeachment, if no one else. If she didn't recuse herself in a recusla situation, she'd be directly violating this statute and Congresss would have grounds for impeachment.
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.