New Supreme Court Justice to hear only half of cases

Eliot Rosewater · 19-10-2010 10:10PM #1

The latest addition to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, has recused (removed) herself from 24 of the 51 cases on the schedule due to conflicts of interest.

Random source: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/43690/

Am I the only one who thinks this a little ridiculous? Surely it doesn't bode well for the institutional strength of the Court if one of its justices will be missing half the time, leading to a couple of 4-4 judgements.

Overheal · 20-10-2010 12:17AM

I think its astronomically better than the alternative, which would become a Supreme Court with no integrity.

20-10-2010 05:05AM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The latest addition to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, has recused (removed) herself from 24 of the 51 cases on the schedule due to conflicts of interest.

This decision by Kagan was consistent with the US Code that governs US Supreme Court Justices, and demonstrates that she was attempting to act ethically within those guidelines.

See USC, Title 28, Part I, Chapter 21, § 455 Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge. Link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/455.html

"As the former Solicitor General in the Justice Department, it was Kagan's job to supervise all pending appeals at the high court, and she has withdrawn from those cases in which she was involved or which might present a conflict of interest."

Source: http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-04/politics/scotus.new.term_1_military-funerals-westboro-baptist-church-fred-phelps?_s=PM:POLITICS

Such actions to excuse themselves from a potential conflict of interest, etc., by US Supreme Court Justices were not all that uncommon. See Recusal Report:
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/legaltimes/PubArticleLT.jsp?id=1159952725304&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1

Eliot Rosewater · 20-10-2010 09:05AM

I think ye may have misunderstood me. Obviously her recusing herself is proper given her history. What I am surprised is that someone who would have to recuse herself so much made it onto the Supreme Court in the first place. I thought that the selection process would include considering someone's ability to sit as many cases as possible.

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

"As the former Solicitor General in the Justice Department, it was Kagan's job to supervise all pending appeals at the high court, and she has withdrawn from those cases in which she was involved or which might present a conflict of interest."

So is this only for the first few months? The Time snippet gave the impression it was something long-term.

20-10-2010 10:03AM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

So is this only for the first few months? The Time snippet gave the impression it was something long-term.

The Justices are appointed for life, so once her conflict of interest cases have been adjudicated, she should be just like the other justices generally recusing herself less frequently; i.e., as often as the Justices did in the Recusal Report cited earlier.

InTheTrees · 20-10-2010 05:18PM

Clarence Thomas still hasnt asked one single question.

kaiser sauze · 28-10-2010 09:12AM

InTheTrees wrote: »

Clarence Thomas still hasnt asked one single question.

OK, I have to ask: really??

InTheTrees · 28-10-2010 06:05PM

kaiser sauze wrote: »

OK, I have to ask: really??

Not a one. (although I get my info from pretty liberal sources so I could be wrong!):

"I have some very active colleagues who like to ask questions. Usually, if you wait long enough, someone will ask your question. The other thing, I was on that other side of the podium before, in my earlier life, and it's hard to stand up by yourself and to have judges who are going to rule on your case ask you tough questions. I don't want to give them a hard time." -Thomas.

New Supreme Court Justice to hear only half of cases

Comments