Sherrilyn Ifill’s The Chief Strikes Out

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. Steven Lubet says:

    Excellent post.

  2. Clinton Bamberger says:

    I concur with Steve Lubet. Prof Ifill’s analysis of the comment by the Chief Justice is right on the mark.

  3. Stephen Wyse says:

    In Sutheland v. Massa there is currently pending before the S.Ct. a 455(a) recusal challenge – The Article III constitutional fitness to “Senior” judges was challenged and a “Senior” judge ignored the challenge and ruled against congress’s ability to under the DPPA to declare certain driving records private & that Missouri also could not declare 911 records private unless they meet an additional constitutional privacy test and that Defendant’s argument raising a matter of law did not entitle plaintiff to amend the pleadings to conform to that legal issue.

  4. Rick Garnett says:

    Prof. Ifill concludes by saying that “Justice Roberts has not yet made the case for why the Supreme Court should be exempt from the same ethics and recusal standards that govern those judges.” But, I did not read the Chief Justice’s report as asserting that the Court is or should be “exempt” from these “standards.” It seemed to me that he stated clearly that his colleagues consider questions of recusal using precisely those standards. The Chief’s point, as I understand it, was more that it would raise tricky constitutional questions for Congress to purport to subject the Justices to the recusal-related statutes. And, I understood him to be pointing out that Justices’ decisions about recusal cannot really be seen as reviewable in the way that lower-court judges can be. I guess I am missing what’s thought to be objectionable about his response.

  5. cleopheous says:

    preach to us about integrity? spare us