Ginsberg Recusal

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Ruth Ginsberg performed same-sex marriages. Is she obligated to recuse herself as Kagan did with ObamaCare?

 

[Sean]

No.

/thread.

 

[eyer]

Ruth Ginsberg performed same-sex marriages. Is she obligated to recuse herself as Kagan did with ObamaCare?

Kagan neither recused herself from the 2012 case or the Obamacare case currently being decided by the Court...

...she most certainly should have in both cases, as most certainly Ginsburg should've with the same-sex marriage case, and as should all Justices per statue:

U.S.C. § 455 : US Code - Section 455: Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(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. (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; (2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it; (3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy; (4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of 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: (i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party; (ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding; (iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; (iv) Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding. (c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household. (d) For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated: (1) "proceeding" includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation; (2) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system; (3) "fiduciary" includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian; (4) "financial interest" means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that: (i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a "financial interest" in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund; (ii) An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a "financial interest" in securities held by the organization; (iii) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a "financial interest" in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest; (iv) Ownership of government securities is a "financial interest" in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities. (e) No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification. (f) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/28/I/21/455

For an example of Justices recusing themselves, consider:

...the most instructive example that I could find of justices recusing themselves was in the tragic case of the appeal of the killer of Michael Luttig's father. J. Michael Luttig was an appellate judge in the 4th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, and at one time was himself on a short list of possible appointments to the Supreme Court.

But earlier in his life, Luttig had clerked for Justice Scalia before Scalia was appointed to the Supreme Court, and Luttig had also worked in the George H.W. Bush administration, where Luttig advised nominees David Souter and Clarence Thomas on their Supreme Court confirmations in the Senate.

In 1994, Luttig's father was shot and killed in a carjacking in Texas, and the perpetrator was arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to die. The appeal worked its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, where three of the nine justices on the Supreme Court, Justices Scalia, Souter, and Thomas, decided to recuse themselves from hearing the case. Apparently those justices felt that their professional relationships with the victim's son brought their impartiality into question. No one had ever alleged that the recusing justices had ever known or even met the victim in this case, but the fact that the victim's son had clerked for one of the justices, and had advised two of the justices on their conformations in the Senate, convinced the justices that they should recuse themselves.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/06/elena_kagan_the_obamacare_recusal_that_wasnt.html

 

[ChinaBandit]

Someone should evaluate Ruth for dementia.

I, for one, am concerned about senile old farts left to discern the pros and cons of cases like this.

 

[Sean]

Someone should evaluate Ruth for dementia.

I, for one, am concerned about senile old farts left to discern the pros and cons of cases like this.

LOL. The Notorious RBG has a sharper mind at eighty two than you have ever had or ever will.

 

[Bert Notorius]

i say we wait until we get a republican in the white house to replace her, or him, whatever.

 

[phrodeau]

So any of the Justices who ever performed any kind of marriage should recuse themselves. Why single out Ginsberg?