Replies

If you were to read the brief you might notice that it asks that the appellate judges on the panel whose opinion you posted recuse themselves, having ‘embraced’ the lower court’s bias.

It’s the SECOND SENTENCE .. not too deep into the brief:

“They also request of the members of this Court, particularly those who have embraced the bias of the court below, that they consider their obligation to recuse themselves if they present even an appearance of bias under that statute.”

So how much DID you read or comprehend? You caught them out on the improper use of a single word? tsk tsk.

When was the last time that you heard of ANY case in entire history of American jurisprudence in which a judgement was rendered, an appeal was filed, an appellate level judgement was rendered and THEN the original trial court AND the appellate court recused themselves AFTER THE FACT?

“When was the last time that you heard of ANY case in entire history of American jurisprudence in which a judgement was rendered, an appeal was filed, an appellate level judgement was rendered and THEN the original trial court AND the appellate court recused themselves AFTER THE FACT?”

The very well known Microsoft case in this very court made it very clear that under 28 U.S.C. Sec 455, as opposed to 28 USC Sec 144, a party may raise the issue of bias on the part of the District Court judge as long as the case is pending in the Court of Appeals.

Your question seems to assume that this case is not still pending in the court of appeals. As long as it is under reconsideration, it is still pending in the Court of Appeals.

Section 455 REQUIRES a judge him/herself to recognize even the appearance of bias to the objective observer. Robertson clearly derived his bias from extrajudicial sources, and he did it in spades. The panel that upheld Robertson aimply adopted his bias without any analysis; the SCOTUS opinion they cited does not uphold them. Therefore, as Col. Hollister claims, they ‘embraced’ his bias.