Why Alito must recuse himself from cases involving Donald Trump. (Page 1/7)
BingB MAY 22, 06:24 PM
On January 17, 2021 a US flag was flown upside down outside the home of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. This is supposed to be a sign of extreme emergency, but it was a common action by Trump supporters after he lost the 2020 election.

Alito admits the flag was flown upside down "in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs." Justice Alito claims his wife did it.

A judge is usually required to recuse himself from cases where there is AN APPEARANCE of bias. There is no more clear appearance of bias than flying a United States flag upside down in support of a specific individual. It was his house. He allowed it to happen. He bears some responsibility. If they walked in and found a him sitting beside a big pile of cocaine he could not escape culpability just by saying "That all belongs to my wife".

I am not saying that I know Alito is biased in favor of Trump. But to preserve the sanctity of the ruling of the SCOTUS he needs to recuse himself from any cases involving Trump. Especially any having to do with January 6th.

Conservatives would still have a majority on the court. If he does not recuse himself he is just giving the left something to whine and cry about.
Raydar MAY 22, 09:29 PM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:
...
If he does not recuse himself he is just giving the left something to whine and cry about.



As if "the left" ever needed a reason...
randye MAY 23, 01:50 AM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:


....to preserve the sanctity of the ruling of the SCOTUS he needs to recuse himself.....

If he does not recuse himself he is just giving the left something to whine and cry about.






You Leftists are already whining and crying. You never stop.

You're simply useful idiots waiting to be told what to whine and cry about next.

.


No provision in the Constitution gives the Legislative, (or Executive), branch authority to regulate the Judicial branch / Supreme Court - PERIOD

This fact only galls you Leftists when you are unable to obtain via the courts what you cannot obtain via legislation.

.

Justice Alito has already communicated that he WILL NOT recuse himself and you Leftists are livid that you are powerless to force him to.

https://www.reuters.com/leg...tax-case-2023-09-08/

.


You Leftoids NEVER stop whining and crying about SCOTUS Justices refusing to recuse themselves:

https://fixthecourt.com/202...r-conflict-interest/


Leftists gotta Leftist

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 05-23-2024).]

82-T/A [At Work] MAY 23, 08:08 AM
It's obvious to me that you do not understand the general intent of why a recusal would even take place.

In most local counties and courts where judges are directly elected by the citizens, most of them are literally stating whether or not they are Democrat now. The obviously Republican ones don't seem to be advertising this... but I routinely see "Democrat Judge running for district..." on campaign signs. There's nothing illegal about this, even though they're supposed to be impartial.

The reason I say this is because your reasoning is completely asinine. Every judge obviously votes for politicians. How someone votes should have no bearing on how they decide law. Law decisis requires that you be impartial and be objective within the confines of the law and statutes. It says literally nothing in the vein of what you're reasoning here.


What I do see though, is you are already aware that even if convicted of any of these nonsense charges, that it'll go to the Supreme Court and get thrown out.

I'll say this... your kind should absolutely continue what you're doing. PLEASE convict him. Even better... put him in jail. See how that works out for you and your kind.
ray b MAY 23, 10:12 AM
any judge put on a court by a person
should never rule on any case involving that same person
as that is a clear case of CON-flict of interest

but judge cannon does not get it

WHY

ALITO IS A PIG
ALMOST AS BAD AS CLARENCE UNCLE TOM THE BRIBED BY A MOTORHOME CROOK
ray b MAY 23, 10:56 AM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

It's obvious to me that you do not understand the general intent of why a recusal would even take place.

In most local counties and courts where judges are directly elected by the citizens, most of them are literally stating whether or not they are Democrat now. The obviously Republican ones don't seem to be advertising this... but I routinely see "Democrat Judge running for district..." on campaign signs. There's nothing illegal about this, even though they're supposed to be impartial.

The reason I say this is because your reasoning is completely asinine. Every judge obviously votes for politicians. How someone votes should have no bearing on how they decide law. Law decisis requires that you be impartial and be objective within the confines of the law and statutes. It says literally nothing in the vein of what you're reasoning here.


What I do see though, is you are already aware that even if convicted of any of these nonsense charges, that it'll go to the Supreme Court and get thrown out.

I'll say this... your kind should absolutely continue what you're doing. PLEASE convict him. Even better... put him in jail. See how that works out for you and your kind.



SO YOU COUNT ON THE SCUM HE PUT ON THE COURT
NOT DOING THE CORRECT THING AND RECLUSING ?

TRUE PARTY FIRST SCUM THERE
82-T/A [At Work] MAY 23, 12:12 PM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:

SO YOU COUNT ON THE SCUM HE PUT ON THE COURT
NOT DOING THE CORRECT THING AND RECLUSING ?

TRUE PARTY FIRST SCUM THERE




Lol, Ray, that's not at all what I said.

I said there's nothing to recuse himself for. Simply being a voter of a specific political party does not mean that he needs to recuse himself. If that was the case, then all the justices should have recused themselves from the Dobbs v. Jackson that overturned Roe v. Wade. But again... it shows the ridiculousness of this argument. It's merely "political reaching" from the left. The Supreme Court's job is to validate whether something is constitutional... or whether there exists precedence.

Even at the common-law level... nothing that Trump is being charged with lead to him being convicted.

To that point, Hillary, Biden, Huma, etc... none of them were charged (or even went to trial) for their retainment of classified documents... ALL of whom had FAR LESS legal authority to retain these documents than Donald Trump did. At a minimum, Trump was still president at the time of transfer, AND he was storing them in a SCIF. None of that applied to Biden or Hillary. The sheer fact that neither of them were convicted, Donald Trump immediately would get a pass due to the sheer precedence.
BingB MAY 23, 04:23 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
I said there's nothing to recuse himself for. Simply being a voter of a specific political party does not mean that he needs to recuse himself. If that was the case, then all the justices should have recused themselves from the Dobbs v. Jackson that overturned Roe v. Wade.


I never said anything about "voting Republican". I am talking about specifically supporting Donald Trump's assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.

It is not about "party affiliation". It is about making a specific statement about a specific issue that is going to be decided in part by the SCOTUS.
82-T/A [At Work] MAY 24, 09:33 AM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:

I never said anything about "voting Republican". I am talking about specifically supporting Donald Trump's assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.

It is not about "party affiliation". It is about making a specific statement about a specific issue that is going to be decided in part by the SCOTUS.




Fred, it makes no difference what someone "believes." The purpose of the Supreme Court is to identify constitutionality and adherence to law. If the Supreme Court justices determine (and issue proof that) there is no precedence to convict Donald Trump on anything... based on the fact that James Comey literally said about Hillary, "No reasonable prosecutor would bring a case," then I can assure you that Trump will be let off the hook as well. What Hillary did was exceptionally, EXCEPTIONALLY bad. It was with information for which she was not even the information owner. She had CIA, NSA, and DIA documents... not even within her authority to pass around (much of it was ORCON). This was entirely different for Donald Trump, who at the time had PREMIER / SOLE authority over all classified information, and had within his power to literally wave his hand over a pile of documents and declassify them (whether that is morally or ethically right or wrong is not my point). Not to mention he stored all of this in a certified SCIF.

Also, Fred, I'm going to address this again... because it is exceptionally annoying. Are you a U.S. citizen, and DO YOU live in the United States? If yes, then why do you keep putting the period after the end quote? This is incorrect English. If it's intentional, then I'll drop it. If you're doing this because you just don't know any better, then please look it up. This is as bad as misusing affect / effect, or then / than. Can you please address this? It's ridiculous. If you're Canadian, or live anywhere other than the U.S., then I take it back.
BingB MAY 25, 01:00 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Also, Fred, I'm going to address this again... because it is exceptionally annoying. Are you a U.S. citizen, and DO YOU live in the United States? If yes, then why do you keep putting the period after the end quote? This is incorrect English. If it's intentional, then I'll drop it. If you're doing this because you just don't know any better, then please look it up. This is as bad as misusing affect / effect, or then / than. Can you please address this? It's ridiculous. If you're Canadian, or live anywhere other than the U.S., then I take it back.


I read once that women are attracted to an Australian accent. So I use Australian punctuation to attract the ladies.

Notice how none of the women here are complaining?