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!
Boy. It had been suggested Clarence Thomas recuse from anything Trump because of his wife Ginny’s political activism. All he had to do was refuse to do so. Ummm.
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.
Felonpotus people argued differently when Ginni Thomas's roles in far-right causes didn't mean Thomas should recuse himself in some cases before the SC. Two sets of rules in judicial decisions, one for the maga cult, one for the anti-authoritarians.
Just because that particular judge was a Trump appointee does not mean he will go along with them. There are many good judges who didn’t and were original Trump appointees. We have to wait and see. If he follows the law, and not the politics, Oregon should win.
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.
"an employee should not participate in a particular matter involving specific parties which he knows is likely to affect the financial interests of a member of his household, or in which he knows a person with whom he has a covered relationship is or represents a party, if he determines that a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would question his impartiality in the matter."
"An employee is prohibited by criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. 208(a), from participating personally and substantially in an official capacity in any particular matter in which, to his knowledge, he, his spouse, general partner or minor child has a financial interest, if the particular matter will have a direct and predictable effect on that interest. The statutory prohibition also extends to an employee’s participation in a particular matter in which, to his knowledge, an organization in which the employee is serving as officer, director, trustee, general partner or employee, or with whom he is negotiating or has an arrangement concerning prospective employment has a financial interest. "
"Where an employee knows that a particular matter involving specific parties is likely to have a direct and predictable effect on the financial interest of a member of his household, or knows that a person with whom he has a covered relationship is or represents a party to such matter, and where the employee determines that the circumstances would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts to question his impartiality in the matter, the employee should not participate in the matter unless he has informed the agency designee of the appearance problem and received authorization from the agency designee in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section."
Note in that 1st one - where the standard is " a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would question his impartiality in the matter." I.e. even if it's not a conflict, if a reasonable person would question it, consider it a conflict.
Note: I am not a lawyer, this is my lay interpretation. For legal questions, consult a lawyer.
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.
Boy. It had been suggested Clarence Thomas recuse from anything Trump because of his wife Ginny’s political activism. All he had to do was refuse to do so. Ummm.
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.
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...
Felonpotus people argued differently when Ginni Thomas's roles in far-right causes didn't mean Thomas should recuse himself in some cases before the SC. Two sets of rules in judicial decisions, one for the maga cult, one for the anti-authoritarians.
He should not have recused himself. Did Thomas recuse himself when his wife was involved with the Jan 6th insurrection?
We have got to stop playing by rules the other side doesn't honor. People will die because of our 'fair play'.
Just because that particular judge was a Trump appointee does not mean he will go along with them. There are many good judges who didn’t and were original Trump appointees. We have to wait and see. If he follows the law, and not the politics, Oregon should win.
She. Not he.
Pronouns do matter.
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.
I know the executive branch requirement is to not involve yourself in anything that either is a conflict of interest OR could cause the appearance of a conflict of interest. The actual CFR (5 CFR 2635, Subpart E) - https://www.oge.gov/web/OGE.nsf/0/A8ECD9020E3E384C8525873C0046575D/$FILE/SOC%20as%20of%2085%20FR%2036715%20FINAL.pdf
Some paragraphs that might apply:
"an employee should not participate in a particular matter involving specific parties which he knows is likely to affect the financial interests of a member of his household, or in which he knows a person with whom he has a covered relationship is or represents a party, if he determines that a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would question his impartiality in the matter."
"An employee is prohibited by criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. 208(a), from participating personally and substantially in an official capacity in any particular matter in which, to his knowledge, he, his spouse, general partner or minor child has a financial interest, if the particular matter will have a direct and predictable effect on that interest. The statutory prohibition also extends to an employee’s participation in a particular matter in which, to his knowledge, an organization in which the employee is serving as officer, director, trustee, general partner or employee, or with whom he is negotiating or has an arrangement concerning prospective employment has a financial interest. "
"Where an employee knows that a particular matter involving specific parties is likely to have a direct and predictable effect on the financial interest of a member of his household, or knows that a person with whom he has a covered relationship is or represents a party to such matter, and where the employee determines that the circumstances would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts to question his impartiality in the matter, the employee should not participate in the matter unless he has informed the agency designee of the appearance problem and received authorization from the agency designee in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section."
Note in that 1st one - where the standard is " a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would question his impartiality in the matter." I.e. even if it's not a conflict, if a reasonable person would question it, consider it a conflict.
Note: I am not a lawyer, this is my lay interpretation. For legal questions, consult a lawyer.