QUESTION: MUST BUSH SC JUSTICES RECUSE THEMSELVES?

[The Sushi Bandit]

if he, the VP and AJ are one trial for crimes while in office?

That would leave 2 less sitting to hear arguements. How would the new mix of 7 lean?

[kenny blankenship]

1. Who will make them?

Because there's no way Roberts and Alito would bow out without being forced to.

[robinlynne]

3. exactly. Remember Bush vs Gore? Bush's lawyer was Scalia's son, and even

then he didn't recuse himself.

[MADem]

6. Wasn't Ted Olsen lead dog, though? He was well rewarded... NT

[robinlynne]

8. could be. I only know Scalia's son was not only in the crew but spoke...

[IDemo]

2. It would make me happy if they also reclused themselves

but recuse is the word you're after. I think it is their decision whether or not to, and I wouldn't be too optimistic at this point of any Bushie doing the ethical thing.

[The Sushi Bandit]

4. Thanks for catching the typo

spell check is great but english has tooo many words!

[The Sushi Bandit]

11. come on people--- we need more imput

this is an important question!

[TahitiNut]

13. Malfunction. Need input. Attractive! Nice software.

[hang a left]

12. It IS their decision. They can still be impeached.

Won't hold my breath though

[MADem]

5. I don't think so. It's a nice concept, though.

They wouldn't, in effect, be ruling on their pals George or Dick, anyway. They'd be ruling on the CONSTITUTIONALITY of a lower court ruling, if we're talking about criminal prosecutions.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

7. He who posesses few or no clues, will not too easily himself recuse. n/t

[The Sushi Bandit]

9. 28 USC 455 reads, in part:

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate 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;

(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:

(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;

(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

(iv) Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

As the U.S. Supreme Court, itself noted, in Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 548 (1994), "what matters 'is not the reality of bias or prejudice, but its appearance.' Quite simply and quite universally, recusal was required whenever "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

Of special note is the fact the opinion in Liteky v. United States was delivered by Justice Scalia with four other Justices joining including Justices O'Connor and Thomas.

[The Sushi Bandit]

10. K&R