Also: In response to widespread DOJ requests for stays in civil litigation due to the shutdown, some plaintiffs are pushing back — and some judges are saying no.
The legal process played out as expected.. their game plan is the same successful actions they have used in the past and will continue to use in the future…they also have the Supreme Court lingering in the background prepared to rule if necessary..
It’s just the old “ Aces and Eights”.. the “ Deck is stacked “….ML💕Clair here
It is so galling that Aileen Cannon didn't recuse herself from the case about Trump's illegal retention of documents at Mar a Lago, and yet here we are with honest upstanding people doing the, I guess, right thing--but with the upshot being that we the people are possibly fucked. Unless we can hang together and somehow fumigate this cockroach nest. Thank you Mr. Geidner for keeping us up to speed, no matter how much we might want to close our eyes and scream.
We should not forget that Supreme Court Justice Thomas refused to recuse himself from several J6 cases despite his wife being deeply enmeshed in the seditious "Stop the Steal" effort.
On a happier note, kudos to Plaintiff's counsel in the TPS case. They hit the nail on the head calling out the Trump regime's BS. Well done!
Judge Simon is a man of principle, responding to simply the appearance of impropriety by recusing himself. Contrast that with, let's say, Clarence Thomas, whose wife's political and NFP business interests have inextricably intersected with SCOTUS cases, perhaps most notably Citizens United. As well, he attended at least one private retreat hosted by the Koch family that focused on business before the SCOTUS. Nevertheless, he has never ever entertained possibility of recusing himself notwithstanding the actual impropriety of his participating in those cases. Not only should he have faced impeachment and removal years ago, he never should have received approval by the Senate for a seat on our high court (which now is run by 6 people who apparently take being on the high court as permission to be high on power and unconcerned with Constitutional norms and the rule of law). Here's hoping the Trump appointee has the guts and gumption to do the right thing rather than cowtow to an authoritarian.
I'm no expert on judicial ethics, but this sounds like it has open-ended potential. I'd be interested in how other judges handled a comparable situation. Many judges have spouses with political and ideological positions that might in some fashion be connected to many cases.
I think a useful recusal process would provide third parties to advise the judge when it is best to recuse themselves. The judge might somehow have used such a mechanism. IDK.
The Trump Administration had a luck of the draw by having a Trump appointee replace him. (I assume they didn't know who would take over? Again, I can be wrong.) The judge, very well, see the voice vote, etc., might be fair. Trump appointees have ruled against him.
I do think the recusal was troubling, especially since the judge notes he is not ethically required to do it. That advances the gaming of the system. The judge's heart appears to be in the right place, but that in the long run has bad implications.
Oh my, if the DoJ spent as much effort upholding the law as figuring the angles …
The legal process played out as expected.. their game plan is the same successful actions they have used in the past and will continue to use in the future…they also have the Supreme Court lingering in the background prepared to rule if necessary..
It’s just the old “ Aces and Eights”.. the “ Deck is stacked “….ML💕Clair here
Ah yes, Wild Bill and the Roberts Gang!
Excellent work Chris. The corruptness of this regime has gone too far 😡
It is so galling that Aileen Cannon didn't recuse herself from the case about Trump's illegal retention of documents at Mar a Lago, and yet here we are with honest upstanding people doing the, I guess, right thing--but with the upshot being that we the people are possibly fucked. Unless we can hang together and somehow fumigate this cockroach nest. Thank you Mr. Geidner for keeping us up to speed, no matter how much we might want to close our eyes and scream.
We should not forget that Supreme Court Justice Thomas refused to recuse himself from several J6 cases despite his wife being deeply enmeshed in the seditious "Stop the Steal" effort.
On a happier note, kudos to Plaintiff's counsel in the TPS case. They hit the nail on the head calling out the Trump regime's BS. Well done!
Let's contrast this recusal with Supreme Court Justice Thomas' refusal to recuse from cases in which his wife is implicated. We fold too easily.
Thank you for paying attention so you can bring all this to our attention. I so appreciate your research
great, now do Thomas and Alito...
Judge Simon is a man of principle, responding to simply the appearance of impropriety by recusing himself. Contrast that with, let's say, Clarence Thomas, whose wife's political and NFP business interests have inextricably intersected with SCOTUS cases, perhaps most notably Citizens United. As well, he attended at least one private retreat hosted by the Koch family that focused on business before the SCOTUS. Nevertheless, he has never ever entertained possibility of recusing himself notwithstanding the actual impropriety of his participating in those cases. Not only should he have faced impeachment and removal years ago, he never should have received approval by the Senate for a seat on our high court (which now is run by 6 people who apparently take being on the high court as permission to be high on power and unconcerned with Constitutional norms and the rule of law). Here's hoping the Trump appointee has the guts and gumption to do the right thing rather than cowtow to an authoritarian.
A Trump judge would never recuse themselves. This is a needless own goal.
I'm no expert on judicial ethics, but this sounds like it has open-ended potential. I'd be interested in how other judges handled a comparable situation. Many judges have spouses with political and ideological positions that might in some fashion be connected to many cases.
I think a useful recusal process would provide third parties to advise the judge when it is best to recuse themselves. The judge might somehow have used such a mechanism. IDK.
The Trump Administration had a luck of the draw by having a Trump appointee replace him. (I assume they didn't know who would take over? Again, I can be wrong.) The judge, very well, see the voice vote, etc., might be fair. Trump appointees have ruled against him.
I do think the recusal was troubling, especially since the judge notes he is not ethically required to do it. That advances the gaming of the system. The judge's heart appears to be in the right place, but that in the long run has bad implications.