Raskin argues DOJ can force recusals of Alito, Thomas in Jan. 6 cases

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4692965-raskin-argues-doj-can-force-recusals-of-alito-thomas-in-jan-6-cases/mlite/

36 comments

  3. Almost-literal Devil’s Advocate:

    Boy if I’m president, I’d be forcing every judge I disagree with the recuse.

  4. > the federal statute mandating judicial disqualification for questionable impartiality, 28 U.S.C. Section 455

    Any reason they’re not using this against Cannon yet?

  5. Neil and Donkey Dong are down for the vibes, Roberts is too weak, while Barrett is going to complain about the shrill tone of the minority opinion while siding with the boys.

    Not that this would ever happen anyway. Garland will just keep the orchestra in tempo while the ship goes down.

  6. Clickbait

    >“The U.S. Department of Justice — including the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, an appointed U.S. special counsel and the solicitor general, all of whom were involved in different ways in the criminal prosecutions underlying these cases and are opposing Mr. Trump’s constitutional and statutory claims — **can petition the other seven justices** to require Justices Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves not as a matter of grace but as a matter of law,” Raskin continued.

    The DOJ can’t force the SC to do anything. What are they gonna do? Sue them?

  7. Garland is absolutely asleep at the wheel. At this point I believe he has to be acting out of malice.

  8. Democrats need to fight, not just wag fingers and clutch pearls. This has been a problem now for a few decades.

  9. I mean, nothing that Raskin wrote is accurate. The DOJ can’t force anything – that would be a clear separation of powers issue, and should be appropriately rejected by the courts. The idea that the Executive could take such action against the Judiciary is absurd, and certainly not something that anyone should want if a guy like Trump is in office.

    As for [28 U.S. Code § 455](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455), it provides no mechanism by which other justices, even if they were so inclined, can force a justice to recuse himself. All that code says is the conditions under which a justice “shall disqualify **himself** in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

    EDIT: Premature save

    It’s not even clear that a motion under 28 U.S. Code § 144 would be within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. It certainly hasn’t ever been done before and, again, potentially opens a pandora’s box of retaliatory disqualifications.

  10. Impeachment is the only mechanism to do anything with a Supreme Court justice. I think everyone knows that’s not happening anytime soon if ever. It’s happened once in our history. In the early 1800’s. So that inability is as much on the people as anything.

  11. The law isn’t lacking, the will of the elected officials is lacking

  14. Grasping at anything to try and regain power, typical Democrat, losers

  15. I expect that the 3 liberals would rebel against it. Nothing causes them to circle the wagons like a threat to their Supremacy.

  17. Befuddled Garland will NEVER do anything like this. He’s too much of an institutionalist.

  18. If the tables were turned a GOP appointed DOJ would’ve already done it

  19. Who would decide if that is constitutional or not, Alito?

  20. I’ll say it again (again)… The idea that anyone in the Justice system is selected based on their political leanings is fucking absurd. It literally defies the foundation of what justice must be.

  22. What if we fire proton torpedoes into a two-meter-wide thermal exhaust port that leads directly to the Supreme Court station’s power core?

    Just kidding….we’re screwed.

  23. Still waiting on Garland to do anything on the rest of the Jan 6 planners and plotters. He’s worthless ,along with his ” I don’t want to be seen as political” .Well guess what sparky, you blew it . Don’t have the stones to do whats needed , step down .

  24. Merrick Garland needs his fainting couch.

    Can’t believe Raskin is so oblivious to deference

  25. Both of them are obviously compromised, and in no way fit to rule on this specific topics (Trump and January 6.). This might be the best path to take, to reign in a captured institution. Very sad to see this has happened to the Supreme Court. Hopefully things can change in time.

  26. “You must remember that the Supreme Court has only the authority that we give it.” -Gloria Steinem

  27. for reference, here is [28 U.S. Code § 455 – Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455)

    The section that, to me, seems to be the most relevant is:

    > (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

    To a layperson like me, I think its pretty it pretty clear his “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” It doesn’t even have to actually be in question either. It could be that Alito genuinely can be impartial in these cases, but the problem is it **looks like** he might not be able to be impartial.

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

    Even if his excuse is “my wife handles the flag stuff” it’s sure looks like his wife might have “an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”

    However, I think a fair counterpoint to this section is that simply being supportive of J6 and its perpetrators doesn’t rise to the level of having an interest “substantially affected,” and if you push on that issue alone, she might be protected under the 1st Amendment right to free association provided she herself has not committed any crimes in her support of them.

    For example, some people support the Bundy ranchers [who took over a National Wildlife Refuge Building.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge) What they did was illegal, but waiving a flag in support of their actions, provided you don’t also do something illegal while doing that, isn’t going to land you in any hot water.

  32. THEN FUCKING DO IT! We have obvious corruption on naked display. Rip that bandaid off so we can start to heal

  33. Yes, all it will take is a brave, competent, and proactive attorney general.

    So it is definitely not happening now.

  34. For those looking to identify dictators, fascists and authoritarians in the government, here you go, US Rep Raskin is your best example.

  35. How does the supreme court not have checks and balances. They aren’t even elected this is not how a democracy is suppose to work.

  36. I rather doubt it.

    I mean, there might be some line written somewhere implying it, but good luck enforcing it.

Leave a Reply