It should at least be consistent within a jurisdiction.
I am of the opinion that judges should recuse themselves more often than they do. I am not comfortable with Reinhardt’s position, nor Thomas’.
As a practical matter, judges like Reinhardt, Thomas and Scalia are political judges much of the time. Less so at the appeals court than supreme level, but personal politics of the judges are very important to getting them their appointments.
None of the above. It’s a defensible but biased assessment, offered to counter an equally defensible and equally biased assessment.
I think posters in this thread are not making an adequate distinction between self-interest and having an opinion or ideology.
I don’t think you can call having an ideology a bias. Everyone has an ideology, and I would think we would want judges who have an ideology as regards to the law rather than those that don’t. And we would expect the (legal) ideology of the judge to influence how they rule on a given issue. That’s how it’s supposed to work. The only difference in belonging to an organization like the ACLU is that one is overtly identifying the ideology. That’s a good thing, IMO.
By contrast, a financial self interest is another matter. No one would think it’s acceptable for a judge’s financial self-interest to influence how they rule on a given case.
So IMO, partisan identification is OK, unless it’s a case that happens to directly influence the group of which the judge is a member. Financial incentives are not.
The problem with that is that partisan politics cover everything. Was the entire Supreme Court supposed to recuse itself in Bush v. Gore?
Why not? That would have let the Florida Supreme Court decision stand.
Because the entire US Supreme Court is political and should have recused themselves, leaving the Florida Supreme Court decision, rendered by eminently neutral non-political judges, stand.
I see that my posting was actually ambiguous – but Bricker’s response is sarcastic, so it’s becoming hard to follow the argument at this point.
I meant that, as a practical matter, there is no problem in the whole Supreme Court recusing itself (unless it’s a matter where the S.C. has original jurisdiction) – the lower court’s decision would stand, in this case that of the Florida Supreme Court.
But my learned friend Bricker is right: I know very little about its make-up, but it seems likely that the Florida Sypreme Court, like any state supreme court, is at least as partisan as the SCOTUS. And this is part of the reason why it’s highly desirable for courts to be non-partisan, because on occasion they are called on to be a court of disputed returns, which inevitably involves partisan politics.
They could both be right. The cases are unrelated. Even when a judge is neutral despite appearances, he/she should recuse themselves if the appearance of bias will reflect on the case, justifiably or not. Judges have no right to preside over a case, the public interest is more important.
Yes, absolutely true. Sorry for the sarcasm.
Well, yes and no. The judges are appointed by the Governor and are subject to recall election every six years until they reach 70, when they have to retire.
However, we have a statewide judicial nominating commission which is mostly controlled by the Bar, which submits the candidates among which the Governor gets to pick. As a result our judges are largely centrist.
Thanks, Really Not All That Bright – that sounds like a pretty good system to appoint non-partisan judges.
Yep, true they have their own political views and they’re not exactly representative of the population of England (and Wales) in general. But they’re not involved in any political activity which I think is important. In the case of Bush v. Gore even if it was decided fairly given the overt political alignments of the Judges involved how can anyone have any real confidence in their decisions?
Yeah, it was a good system. Too bad Jeb Bush kicked it in the nuts and now the Republican Legislature wants to curb-stomp it into oblivion.
I’m going to take this rare opportunity to disagree with gonzomax.
However, it’s unclear from the quote given in the OP that the the g-meister was calling for Thomas to recuse himself from any particular case.
At the time of this decision, it was widely said that the FL supreme court was fairly liberal. This is probably why “Jeb Bush kicked it in the nuts and now the Republican Legislature wants to curb-stomp it into oblivion”.
Note that to a liberal, liberals are centrist, so your statement is highly subjective.
I see. A henhouse guard picked by the foxes is centrist.
No, the Legislature wants to fuck with the Court because the Court has been insisting that they actually follow the fucking FL Constitution.
It’s all about the damn amendments that the Legislature keeps trying to shoehorn onto the ballot to try to prevent or repeal other amendments (the ones put on by signature drives). The problem is that they keep adding misleading language to the ballot summary. The Court has (rightfully IMHO) shot them down several times and now it’s time for the payback.
The most egregious this year was the fight over the redistricting amendments. The Republicans have gerrymandered this state to within an inch of its life. The people (and the Democratic Party) finally got tired of it and put a couple of amendments on the ballot to attempt to restore some sanity to the process. The Republican’s response was to add ANOTHER amendment to the ballot which would have had the effect of gutting the first two amendments, but then put in language that made it sound like you had to pass all three for anything to happen. It was blantant power (re)grab and the Court blew the whistle.
And honestly, you think the Florida Bar has been putting a bunch of liberals on the Court? Seriously? The only “liberal” attitude the Bar has is opposition to tort reform (for fairly obvious reasons).
As I said, it’s a subjective judgment.
Actually I think the bar is thought to be pretty liberal, on the whole.
But I was actually commenting on the FL SC at the time of the 200 elections. At that time, it was widely accepted that the court was liberal, per my memory. (Looking around a bit now, I see that all seven members had been appointed by Democrats.)
It depends on the degree of crazy
I don’t even know what you’re trying to say here.
Your memory is faulty. And you seem to have missed the part where the Democrats had to choose from nominees selected by a largely independent commission.
It’s certainly not a perfect system. It is a good one.