I love @repraskin’s piece. The point - as I’ve been saying for some time - is that recusal is not abt letters & mtgs w/members of Congress. It is a tool available to PARTIES in litigation & is part of a litigant’s due process rights. In the immunity case the party is the UNITED STATES (you & me).
We are entitled to zealous representation.I would have liked to see the SG file a motion to recuse & to receive a ruling-not a ltr- from the justices. Same for the parties in the Sec 3 case. The silence from attys representing the party in the immunity case is acquiescence to the improper conduct.
As litigators we are being cowed and browbeaten into sitting on tools necessary to protect our clients’ due process rights. If the SG is too afraid to seek recusal, how can any other litigant before this Court be expected to have the courage to do so?
So then the SG has participated in furthering what these offending justices want. To be left alone and not have to answer - with actual facts and evidence and arguments made by skilled lawyers - for their conduct. And to make seeking recusal look like a political, rather than a litigation tool.
ABSOLUTELY! First, we must never surrender in advance; never surrender as a goddamn "courtesy."
Second, litigants' RIGHTS to seek recusal exist to improve the ecology of the judiciary, to the collective good of us all. Rights die from disuse. ⚖️
Really really insightful.
Have you thourght about bridging to Mastodon? All you have to do is follow @ap.brid.gy
I think the people on Mastodon and the Fediverse would love to see your posts and hear what you have to say.
