Democrats Criticize Justice Barrett for Declining to Recuse from Case of Koch-Funded Group that Spen

[Calista241]

Source: Law and Crime

Democrats Criticize Justice Barrett for Declining to Recuse from Case of Koch-Funded Group that Spent Heavily on Ads to Confirm Her

Democrats criticized Justice Amy Coney Barrett over her decision not to recuse herself from a case that the Supreme Court heard on Monday morning involving a conservative group who financially supported her confirmation last year.

“Justice Barrett is ignoring important ethical standards to rule on a case that could open our democracy to further infiltration by dark-money influence, perhaps permanently,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) told Forbes. “Her choice to press forward in spite of recusal laws also creates a troubling new precedent, and undermines public confidence in the integrity of the Court.”

The nation’s high court heard oral arguments in two consolidated cases stylized as Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Rodriquez and Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta on Monday morning. The companion cases both concern First Amendment challenges to a California law which requires some opaque nonprofit groups to divulge certain donor information to the IRS.

The lead petitioner in the case is a nonprofit run by billionaires David Koch and Charles Koch. During Barrett’s relatively painless confirmation process, the group spent in excess of $1 million on ads boosting her image.

Read more: https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/democrats-criticize-justice-barrett-for-declining-to-recuse-from-case-of-koch-funded-group-that-spent-heavily-on-ads-to-confirm-her/

---

[JudyM]

1. Good luck. Conservative justices are above the law, donchaknow.

Conflicts of interest mean nothing to them.

[RVN VET71]

13. Above the law and beneath contempt

[JudyM]

15. Our only hope may be public shaming, as Whitehouse seems to be making a move to do. More, please!

[RVN VET71]

19. True, but can you shame the shameless?

[catrose]

3. Justice Quack Quack Scalia didn't have to recuse himself in his buddy's case, so why should she?

I'm sure Kegs won't either. It's the Republican way.

[brush]

20. Both of them strict constructionists. In his case just...

posturing idiocy, as if 18th century men could foresee technological and philosophical development far into the 21ft century as if their 18th century ideas, beliefs and writings require no adjustments and upgrades (for instance: arms then were one-shot muskets requiring minutes to reload v current arms which can shoot up to 900 rounds per minute).

In Coney Barrett's case it seems a kowtowing to a man, her influencer (Scalia). just just as is the case in the male-dominated religious sect she belongs to. And not only that, who can have any respect for a woman adhering to a philosophy so archaic that women, and she is a woman, were considered property of their husbands.

A strict constructionist woman.

Ridiculous.

[ancianita]

4. Then she can be impeached for whatever conflict of interest her actions represent.

[Polybius]

5. No she can't

It sucks but it's been done countless times before, and there's no law against it.

[Calista241]

11. Only if Dems can make it a believable "high crimes and misdemeanors" violation

ruling against things you like, as long as it's reasonably based in law is not a violation. The optics of impeaching a justice or a judge for something like that is terrible for us.

[LiberalFighter]

6. Grounds to impeach. Of course, it won't go anywhere.

[Martin68]

7. Conservative judges refusing to recuse themselves from cases involving serious conflict of

interest is an issue that must be addressed. It has become a major problem. What avenues are there to enforce conflict of interest rules? They are very detailed and well-enforced in the federal workforce, but not in the courts or the upper levels of authority.

[Justice matters.]

8. Solution: Nominate 4 judges to expand SC to 13 instead of 9.

Do it before the mid-terms while it could be done.

[RVN VET71]

14. I'd like to see the number 6

I think a SCOTUS of 15 for a nation of 333,000,000 is reasonable.

And I’d like to see Merrick Garland as the first new nominee.

I’m dreaming. I know it won’t happen. Nothing is going to happen unless 2022 gives the Dems total control over the Senate and the House. And I’m not optimistic.

[Midnight Writer]

9. And who paid off all of Kavanaugh's debts just before his confirmation?

I don't look for an unbiased reckoning from these Justices.

[pecosbob]

10. Impeachment of a judge is a political action, not a legal action...no law needs to be broken

You only need votes in the Senate and the will to cast them.

[Grimelle]

12. She is a pill.

[Grins]

16. I know Sotomayer has recused herself, has any "conservative" justice? Ever?

Esp. Scalia and Thomas, both of whom had BIG conflicts!

[former9thward]

17. This is a list from 2016.

It is the most recent I have.

In that term all Justices, except Ginsberg, recused themselves. Most Kagen 98
Least Ginsburg 0

The others: Kennedy 1, Scalia 2, Thomas 2, Roberts 9, Breyer 17, Sotomayor 17, Alito 31

http://fixthecourt.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/OT15-cert.-stage-recusals-7.11.16-1-pg.pdf

[Calista241]

18. A few times, though there are some obvious failures to recuse.

Clarence Thomas recused himself from United States v Virginia because his son attended VMI. The male only attendance policy at VMI was later struck down by the Court 7-1.

Scalia recused himself from Elk Grove Unified School District v Newdow. Scalia had disagreed with the 9th circuit's decision publicly in a speech. The Court later unanimously (8-0) overturned the 9th Circuit by claiming Newdow lacked standing.

Failures to recuse:
Both Alito and Breyer failed to recuse themselves for Feng v Komenda. Breyer owned $250k and Alito owned $50k worth of United Technologies stock, the company which acquired Rockwell Collins which was a party to the case.

Scalia did had 2 obvious conflicts which he failed to recuse for. Hamdan v Rumsfeld, and Cheney v District of Columbia. Judge Gilbert Merrit, on the 6th circuit, wrote that Scalia should have recused himself from Bush v Gore, since Scalia's sons worked with law firms that supported the Bush campaign, though not directly with the challenge in Bush v Gore. Gilbert's claims were fought by Republicans as Gilbert was highly regarded as a potential SCOTUS nominee by the Gore administration if the election had gone the other way.

Thomas did not recuse himself from ACA related cases even though his wife lobbied against the bill.