In a superb and spot-on essay, “Death of the Professions,” Laura Hollis writes,
The landscape of professional America should be a stalwart bastion of standards and commitment to truth. Instead, it is increasingly pockmarked by the impact craters of contemporary culture: the erosion of standards, the denial of truth, the capitulation to political pressure, and ideological lockstep borne of fear.
Ethics Alarms has tracked this accelerating phenomenon for quite a while now. Journalists and educators have been the most prominent examples, but may more are in almost as dire condition ethically: doctors, lawyers, historians, psychiatrists, and many others. I’m not including the ethics rot in pretend “professions” like acting, where, not untypically, a presenter in last night’s Tony Awards referred to Florida governor Ron DeSantis as a KKK “Grand Wizard” and got a huge ovation from the glitterati. (Morons.)
One would think that at least ethicists would be immune from this destructive malady, and, in so thinking, you would be dead wrong. I belong to an association of legal ethicists, and I estimate that at least 75% of them, probably more are Trump Deranged. Yesterday the groups’ listserv was alive with horror at the fact that Aileen M. Cannon, the federal judge assigned to the Justice Department’s criminal case against Trump, was appointed by Trump. This meant to many of my colleagues that she was unfit to preside, obviously biased, and had to be replaced. One of my favorite<cough!>participants wrote in part, “Unless I am wrong on the history, Judge Cannon is the first judge in the history of our country to be in a position to incarcerate the person who gave her her job….The fact that [Trump] appointed her is grounds for recusal. It creates an appearance of impropriety. That’s basic ethics.”
Most (again, not all) of the cyber-assembled dutifully accepted this as reasonable. It is worth recalling that the same group assailed Trump’s similarly silly complaint that a judge of Hispanic descent was unable to rule fairly on Trump’s illegal immigration policies, and my own belief that a judge in an undisclosed same sex domestic relationship should have recused himself in the case examining the Constitutionality of California’s same-sex marriage restrictions. Nobody mentioned the obvious hypocrisy, except me (they don’t like me very much), as I wrote in partial response that if a judge appointed by Trump was unethical to preside over Trump’s trial, it must also be “basic ethics” that “a judge who was appointed and confirmed by members of a party that has been openly trying to use questionable means to remove a President from first his office and later any position of political influence should not be permitted to decide whether that same individual can be in a position to take the White House from that party.”
I added, “One of the myriad reasons I would like to push a magic button and make Trump vanish into oblivion is what the visceral reaction to him has done to virtually every profession, including ours. The fact that so many here can’t see that is profoundly depressing.”
Today I was pleased to see that Ann Althouse was in one of her fiercely analyticalally moods as she neatly vivisected that claims that Judge Cannon should recuse herself or be forcibly removed from the case. She began by quoting perhaps the most prominent legal ethicist, Stephen Gillers, who wants Cannon to leave the case. (Yes, he’s on that listserv). In “Will the Judge in Trump’s Case Recuse Herself—or Be Forced To?/Federal law requires a judge to step away from a case in which her impartiality ‘might reasonably be questioned'” by the consistently anti-Trump New Yorker, Gillers said in part,
“The public may simply not trust the impartiality of the judge. Because public trust in the work of the court is a value as important as the work itself, the rule says that the judge should not sit when we can’t fairly ask the public to trust what the judge does. That rule is especially important in this case. One thing the prosecution can do is move to recuse Judge Cannon on the ground that, in light of her experience in the search-warrant case last year, her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. And who would make that judgment if the government does push for this recusal? The judge herself gets to make that decision in our system. If she denies the recusal, the government could go to the Eleventh Circuit and ask it to order her to recuse herself… a process called mandamus…. Mandamus efforts are rarely successful….What’s a trial? A trial is a competition between two sides over which story is true, right?…The prosecution has a story, the defense has a story, and the jury is going to decide whom to believe.”
Ann pounces: “It upsets me to hear a law professor say this about a criminal case. Where is the regard for the rights of the accused? Is Trump so powerful that he blots out what would otherwise be a firm commitment?”
No, he’s so hated by Gillers and others among my legal ethicist colleagues that they don’t believe he deserves the same consideration as normal defendants.
Reaching the same conclusion I did, Ann writes,
If the random selection [of the judge in the case] had been a Biden appointee, would that judge also have to recuse herself/himself? If Cannon were to recuse herself, and she is replaced by a Biden appointee — or an appointee of any Democratic President — wouldn’t Trump’s demand for recusal be at least as strong as the prosecution’s demand that Cannon recuse herself? We’d be talking about fairness to the accused.
I doubt Gillers or most of the ethicists on that listserv would be. It is clear that they believe that Trump doesn’t deserve fairness. She adds,
“The public may simply not trust the impartiality of the judge” — the public doesn’t trust the impartiality of anything here. That’s the problem with the pursuit of political goals through the criminal process… or the appearance that’s what you’re doing. The argument for recusal in this case is an argument about the appearance of partiality, but the appearance of partiality is baked into this case. Can anyone suggest how to unbake it?…In my view, we’re already too deeply into things that make people think this is politicized, so the better path is not to wade further in but to stop and pretend to believe what works well enough when everything else is falling apart: that judges are judges.
Exactly. But the narrative that judges—at least those appointed by conservatives— are simply corrupt hacks that just deliver they quid pro quo decisions they are expected to is the at the core of the Left’s strategy to undermine the Supreme Court. Naturally, they are applying it here. I would have once expected my colleagues to have the integrity to see the issue Ann’s way…and mine.
No more.
Ethics Alarms 
In June of 2020, I wrote an EA commentary about the United States approaching a tipping point. Some excerpts from it are given below in quotation marks.
“It is human nature that most people do not want the responsibility of governing. We are too busy working, caring for loved ones, and pursuing happiness to care about politics. Those that do want governing responsibilities typically exploit it for their own benefit. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely is a truism.”
“For true change to occur I believe we as a people must suffer more privation and exploitation until we reach a collective tipping point where continuation of the status quo is intolerable, or society totally collapses.” Obama’s desire to fundamentally change America comes to mind. “This has happened throughout history. The fall of the Roman Empire, the American Revolution, the French Revolution,” the US Civil War, “The Russian Revolution, the Weimar Republic, USSR to name a few. Sometimes the result of the tipping point being reached is positive, most times it is not. It will always result in innocents getting grievously hurt.”
“The reason Trump is reviled by both parties is not because he is an inarticulate narcissist. It is because he is not part of the club. He doesn’t know the rules he is supposed to play by to keep the charade going. He is in danger of pulling back the magic kingdom curtain and showing the electorate that Washington is all form and no substance who doesn’t give a rip about anyone but themselves.”
The indictment of Trump will cause the tipping point to occur. Once it was issued there is no undoing it. It is going to get ugly beyond belief. After years of programing and conditioning society’s reaction is predictable. Your fellow ethicists demonstrate how rational thought has left most of society. It has been replaced by unbridled bloodlust to destroy Trump or blindly support Trump. The Democrats’ goal to win regardless of the cost to the country however is the most egregious offense. In my mind.
1. In my mind as well. Not even close.
2. “Once it was issued there is no undoing it.” Absolutely true.
3. I can’t find that post. I found others of yours that month, but not that one.
4. “The reason Trump is reviled by both parties is not because he is an inarticulate narcissist. It is because he is not part of the club. He doesn’t know the rules he is supposed to play by to keep the charade going. He is in danger of pulling back the magic kingdom curtain and showing the electorate that Washington is all form and no substance who doesn’t give a rip about anyone but themselves.” a
a. Trump isn’t inarticulate at all. People understand exactly what he means.
b. Yes, it’s partially a class thing, but he’s also an asshole, and this does not match the Presidential template of George and Abe. A President represents the nation and its citizens, and many people don’t want to be represented by a creep.
c. Those who do 1) are creeps themselves or 2) don’t know a creep when they see one, or 3) don’t care, because they want to poke the system they find corrupt in the eye with a sharps stick.
5. Overly gloomy, but great comment.
Jack,
Thank you for the commentary. I kept a copy of the draft if you want. Maybe I never posted it but I swear I did.
My point in the lengthy 2020 commentary was that elected officials have no interest in solving the problems of the country. They focus on wedge issues and drum up discontent in the electorate for their own benefit in acquiring campaign contributions, personal wealth, and power.
Regarding “inarticulate” perhaps I should have said foul-mouthed or crass. I agree he is a carnival barker and huckster. Not remotely near the persona you want for your country’s leader.
Gloomy yes. I just don’t see any remotely clean way or temperate way out of this mess. Do you?
Tom,
I remember your post because I was going to write something along the same lines.
CM
Thanks, Chris. Senior moments were not in play.
People no longer want to poke the corrupt system with sharp sticks. Now they want to blow it up with dynamite and salt the earth to make sure it never grows back.
If some think that comment was gloomy, HA, hold my beer!
Tom P wrote, “The indictment of Trump will cause the tipping point to occur.”
This indictment is not the tipping point, we’ve already slid beyond our tipping point This is another point in the down hill slippery slope into totalitarianism where the Orwellian, hive-minded, social justice, woke, oxymoron “progressive” Democrats have intentionally applied more grease to the slope with their outright bastardization of the justice system to weaponize it against all their opposition.
I’ve been writing about the problems in our society & culture since 2019. I wrote in my Will The USA Survive The 21st Century Cultural Shift? blog post just over a year ago that “I think we are at a cultural tipping point where the United States can still “survive” if the totalitarian culture shift doesn’t shift more, even if it’s very contentious to the point of random political violence.” I think it’s clear that we have shifted more since I wrote that.
The political left has completely destroyed the solid foundation of human commonalities that have been the solid ground that has supported the Constitutional foundations that the United States was built upon. The effort to divide us has been going on since 2008 and I believe these efforts are now complete. We are now a broken and culturally divided people and a divided people will fall. The writing is on the wall, we are on the brink of a complete cultural collapse and that will likely lead to another very dark place in our history, all we need now is that proverbial catalyst. For God’s sake, don’t let the a loose cannon mouthed narcissist like Donald Trump be that catalyst, even if the political left tries to make a martyr our of him. Trump is not the epitome of everything that makes the USA what it is, fighting for “Trump” is not worth it; however, fighting for the USA and the Constitution is worth it. Choose your “battles” wisely and don’t be sucked into a movement that’s based completely on a person instead of the USA as a country.
Based on observation, it’s become very obvious to me that the Democrat’s lust for power is all consuming. They will say anything and destroy anything that gets their way. They will lie with impunity. Oxymoron “progressives” are literally anti status quo. The left’s hive mind will undermine any cultural norm that opposes them, they will shred any constitutional system that is a barrier to achieving their goals, and they will try to make any individual right unenforceable if it has the potential of getting in the way of their lust for power. In my opinion, the Democrats have become morally bankrupt and the tribal divisions that the Democrats have pushed for are complete. The left’s narratives are consistent. We’ve been told over and over again that if you oppose the political left, right down to a parent disagreeing with a school board, then you are the violent ones and evil terrorists; if you think their use of the word “terrorist” is just rhetoric and random, think again, it’s pure demonization propaganda and it’s immoral. I think the morally bankrupt Democrats are now looking to incite the kind of national emergency that they can use to completely squash individual rights and actively persecute their opposition (evil terrorists) with overwhelming force and do it all under the false facade of protecting the people.
”
The USA is in a dark place.
I do not believe that the majority of Trump voters actually care about Trump as a man, they care about him as a symbol. What is a symbol of? The fight against an oppressive, corrupt, weaponized government which ignores the good of the people, and deliberately foments chaos, division, and strife. A government that steals money from some people to bribe other people for votes. A government that institutes martial law in response to a flu. A government that conducts medical experiments on the population by force. A government that threatens to nuke citizens who won’t get in line. A government that spies on its citizens. A government that persecutes dissent, censors dissenting voices and crushes its opposition out of spite. A government that twists justice into a pretzel and institutionalized a two tired justice system. A government that prints money until it’s worthless as a method of taxation.
The political left are a problem, but the politicians on the right are an equally big if not bigger problem because they do not act as an actual opposition to the left. There is absolutely no one representing a large portion of the population. Just liars and corruption everywhere you look. Perversion and decay everywhere you look.
I would be less worried about Trump and more worried about who comes after Trump. People have been screaming at the top of their lungs for the elites to stop what they are doing and be reasonable. The elites have responded with a giant middle finger. Trump might be crass, impulsive and not think things through, but what he isn’t is an authoritarian. The next symbol probably will be if things continue the way they have been.
Essentially making Trump a martyr is a bad idea.
Trump already is a martyr. There isn’t any undoing that. He has been a martyr for a while now. He isn’t the only one. Nick Sandman is a martyr. Kyle Rittenhouse is a martyr. The ruling class has gotten very good at making people into martyrs.
“The writing is on the wall, we are on the brink of a complete cultural collapse and that will likely lead to another very dark place in our history, all we need now is that proverbial catalyst. For God’s sake, don’t let the a loose cannon mouthed narcissist like Donald Trump be that catalyst,”
Covid illustrated just how easily people can be manipulated, even against their will when overwhelmed with the proper levers of persuasion. Covid also demonstrated how easily government sponsored fear will turn neighbor against neighbor.
Mass psychosis and history would suggest a planned event/catalyst, the ultimate goal being to disarm those ornery non-compliant pesky red-necks. It is just a matter of when and how unless the neo-fascist proglibots (andtheirrepublicanlapdogs) have the patience to allow the boiling frog syndrome to play out. Those pesky elections will continue to test the patience of the elites playing Game of Thrones.
I’m on the same listserv; had a feeling you would post here about it. Couldn’t agree more.
That’s depressing too—I was hoping I was completely wrong.
Is Trump the disease? Or is he just a symptom? You’re absolutely right that he is a loud-mouth, a bully, a huckster, and an all-around jerk. However, he’s also the first president since Carter not to be part of the Washington establishment, and, unlike carter, he actually got stuff done, including a pretty impressive economy until covid hit. The establishment did not like the fact that he was showing them up and that he might disturb the comfortable system they had built. I think this builds on the media’s support of Carter, ironically, who brought a very thin resume to the table to get rid of Ford, who they never forgave for letting Nixon escape being tried and imprisoned, which is what they really wanted. I think the same is true of the democratic party, there are some on the other side that just having them out of office is not enough, they want them in prison. The bottom line is that they will do whatever it takes to get them there, even if it’s extreme. Carter wasn’t one of the Washington club, but he was a member of the democratic party, so they left him be despite the fact that he was almost criminally incompetent.
I think Tom is absolutely right that nobody in Washington gives a damn about doing anything for the American people at this point. They are interested in being a permanent elite class who hold power and get money flowing to them until they decide they’ve had enough and have enough cash stashed away that they can go into a (very) comfortable retirement. For some it stops even being about that, it’s just about the intoxication that comes with power and near-worship. For many others it just becomes about hatred of the other side. That’s why now you often see both parties stopping things from going anywhere in the name of denying the other side a win.
Now it’s gone to the point where it’s all about hatred of the other side and all about hatred of one man, for now. The Democratic Party is hoping to send a message of get out of our way or we will throw you into jail for the rest of your life. The message ultimately may end up being that what goes around comes around and if you become too popular or too powerful the other side will seek to destroy you personally and professionally and throw you into jail or worse. JK Rowling tweeted recently something to the effect of those who try to live their whole lives as hanging judges never think they’re going to find themselves in the dock. Suddenly when they do find themselves in the dock, they find themselves doing a Ralph Kramden impression.
Oh and ethics? Like science, like the law, like entertainment, at this point it’s just one more field that can be bent and used to serve the partisan cause.
The Revolution often devours itself until it’s Robespierre himself who finds his head on the block.
Exactly. The elites find the mob useful because it helps them to achieve their goals. Their arrogance convinces them they can control it until it is too late.
Robespierre found his head on the block, Michael Collins was shot dead by his own people, even Gandhi was gunned down by someone who shared the same cause and faith. Let’s also not forget Malcolm X was shot dead by other black radicals.
P.S. Robespierre getting the chop… and Marat being stabbed in his bath were only part of the end of the revolution that turned France into an early day Stalin’s regime. It really ended when Napoleon gave the revolutionaries “a whiff of grapeshot.” Are the mobs due a whiff of grapeshot soon?
Steve,
You are correct about the elite’s view of Trump. He is a disrupter. He emerged as the most dangerous man on the planet. He demonstrated you could win the Presidency without coming up through the ranks. Carter at least was a Governor before winning the presidency and coming after the Nixon/Ford disaster, the Democrats could have run Bozo the Clown and he would have won. That may be redundant. In Trump’s case, he went from citizen straight to the Presidency. He also came on the heels of Obama and his popularity.
Trump is also dangerous because yes, he actually got things done, and kept campaign promises all while being hobbled by Democrats, the media, and large portions of his own party. He even stole portions of the precious black vote. He needed to be stopped at all costs.
If you have to rig a trial to get the outcome you want, then the case must not be very strong. This case is mostly going to be fought in the court of public opinion, so undermining your credibility by pushing for a rigged jury isn’t very bright. It only makes it look like everyone knows it’s political persecution and one side is happy about it.
Rigged trial, not rigged jury. Although rigging the judge would help with rigging the jury.
Being neither a lawyer nor an ethicist, I confess to a little confusion.
Human nature being what it is, people are always going to blame the judge (or anything but the actual facts) if a case involving a political figure in particular goes against their belief, founded before the trial even begins and based on bias rather than evidence, of what the outcome should be—what a former mentor of mine called “premature evaluation.”
If Judge Cannon remains on the case and Trump is acquitted, the left will scream. If she recuses herself, and an Obama or (especially) Biden appointee takes over, and Trump is convicted, the MAGA crowd will go ballistic. Both these scenaria, alas, are unavoidable.
What can be done is to avoid the appearance of impropriety to as great an extent as possible… within reason. Surely there’s a difference of degree between someone who was appointed by a politician of a particular party and therefore may have some bias in favor of or opposed to a defendant on the one hand and someone who was appointed by the defendant himself on the other? Is this difference of degree sufficient to become a difference of kind? That’s hazier, but I think the case can be made.
There is, after all, a single judge in this case, not (at this point, at least) an appeals court or SCOTUS where even if there’s a clear majority of the jurists having been appointed by representatives of the same party, at least it’s usually the case that they weren’t all appointed by the same person.
Similarly, the divisiveness spawned by Trump’s narcissistic recklessness spawns good reasons both to indict him and not to do so. I can’t disagree that convicting him or even trying him in a criminal court will have a significant downside. But it’s also difficult to argue with Popehat’s Ken White, that not proceeding would be setting the precedent that the rich, the powerful, and the popular are indeed above the law. White calls it a Kobayashi Maru moment, a no-win scenario. That seems pretty accurate.
I also struggle with the whataboutism arguments that have sprouted up. I certainly agree that we don’t want to send a former president to jail for failure to pay a speeding ticket, but these charges are significantly greater than that. If Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden or Barack Obama have committed felonies and prosecutors can prove it, lock ‘em up. Pardoning them, as Ford did with Nixon, is an unlikely scenario, because there are few politicians willing to sacrifice their own popularity to do what they consider to be the best interest of the country.
More to the point, failure to prosecute Democrat X cannot be allowed to inoculate generations of Republicans in perpetuity (or vice versa). We can’t undo the past; we can try to make the present and the future as equitable as possible.
There isn’t a leading political figure in either party I’d trust to cat-sit while we’re out of town without fear they’d rifle through my personal papers or steal the bottle of the good gin. And it’s been a while since I voted for anyone above the municipal level, only against the even worse candidate on the other side. But the system is stacked against the honest, the deliberative, and those capable of nuance. Ultimately, we’ll all have to pay the price. This seems to be a moment when the bills become due. Whatever happens in the days ahead, it isn’t going to be good.
“not proceeding would be setting the precedent that the rich, the powerful, and the popular are indeed above the law. ”
I’d agree with you BUT FOR Comey’s obvious decision to soft-pedal the Hillary investigation (he never even interviewed her) and not recommend charges. I think that ship has sailed, and all this would show is that the rich, the powerful, and the popular, AS LONG AS THEY BELONG TO THE RIGHT PARTY, are indeed above the law. If they belong to the wrong party, they are toast.
“Whatever happens in the days ahead, it isn’t going to be good.”
Nope. It’s not.
The rich, the powerful and the well connected ARE above the law. They have been and will continue to be immune from the rules the little people are required to follow.
The precedent being set with Trump is that anyone who represents the little people with unwanted voices will be subject to laws that the rest of the rich and powerful are not subject to. The non-rich and non-powerful are no longer allowed any representation whatsoever in their government unless the government says they can be represented. Otherwise, they are to sit in a corner like good little slaves and keep their mouths shut.
Great comment, and I hope all of it can be discussed. I’ll just confine myself to this part:
“What can be done is to avoid the appearance of impropriety to as great an extent as possible… within reason. Surely there’s a difference of degree between someone who was appointed by a politician of a particular party and therefore may have some bias in favor of or opposed to a defendant on the one hand and someone who was appointed by the defendant himself on the other? Is this difference of degree sufficient to become a difference of kind? That’s hazier, but I think the case can be made.”
The justice system depends on what may be a comforting myth: if one accepts the duties of a judge, one will refuse to be influenced by personals biases, and if a judge can’t, he or she will be honest about it, and recuse. As a result, the “appearance of impropriety” in alleged conflict situations is limited to actual evidence of corruption, quid pro quo arrangements, and personal benefit by the judge. Judge’s can’t rule on cases involving their relatives, secret lovers, or in cases where they have a personal financial interest in the outcome. Close friendships and past business associations are more arguable, but in most cases, recusal is wise and in the best interest of maintaining public trust.
The fact that a judge was appointed by an individual in office has to be on the other side of the line. Every time a Supreme Court case involves a President’s policy or position, the participation of a Justice appointed by that President or a previous President with the same objectives could be called an appearance of impropriety. Obama based his entire administration on the success of Obamacare—no, his personal freedom wasn’t being decided, but Profiles n Courage is about elected officials who cared more about the nation than their own personal welfare. Moreover, a judge in a SCOTUS case actually decides the result, meaning his or her influence is far greater than that of a judge in a criminal trial, where a jury decides the case. (Hypothetical: what if Trump waived a jury trial and wanted the case to be decided by the judge he appointed?) If we are going to trust the system, we have to adopt the myth that judges, because they are judges, are not motivated by personal interests and bias but by dedication to the system, the public good,fairness and the law unless and until there is tangible evidence that they are not.
What will most certainly seem the bitterest of ironies to some, it may be the only savior we have remaining could very well be Trump.
Just to be clear, you thought this gay judge should have recused themselves from a case about same sex marriage correct?
Yes. Because the decision directly affected him in a personal way. He also didn’t reveal his domestic situation, which was relevant to whether he had a conflict or not.
Do you think judges who are half black and pass as white should recuse themselves from cases that would affect black people?
Also, it was decided the judge didn’t have to reveal his personal relationship because there’s no reason to think he can’t make an impartial decision simply because he may be affected by the law.
Yes, and in that case, it was a terrible decision driven by bias in favor of gays and in favor of policy he was going to bolster.
Your first paragraph is too silly for me to waste my time on.
Do you think a black judge should have to recuse themselves from a case concerning racial discrimination that could potentially benefit the black judge?
No, unless there was some law trying to re-institute slavery, or to prevent blacks from being judges—something that momentous and direct affecting not only him but his family.
Yes.
Do you think a black judge should have to recuse themselves from a case concerning racial discrimination that could potentially benefit the black judge?
Yes
Because he stood to personally benefit from it, yes.
That would mean if there had been a similar case against the marriage laws of Oregon or Nevada, and the venue for some reason was changed to his courtroom, there would not have been a conflict of interest.
Then the same logic applies to a female judge ruling over a case that would benefit women.
If the judge stood to PERSONALLY benefit from it, then yes.
Ok so only a male judge should preside on a case that could possibly benefit women personally?
You’ll have to come up with a more detailed analogy than that. For example, if a California judge had to rule on the Constitutionality of its crazy reparations plan, a black judge would be ruling on her own eligibility for lot of money. Uh-uh. No can do.
Ok so in your example, a black judge couldn’t preside on a case about reparations because they’re black and could potentially benefit?
Potentially PERSONALLY benefit. Stop being obtuse.
Duh. That’s the last one you get.
Great!
That goes against all case law regarding judges having to recuse themselves based on their gender or race.
1. I don’t care. The ethical thing would be to recuse in that extreme situation. The cases line up that way to avoid a slippery slope.
2. YOU’RE BANNED. I warned you to drop the topic It is the very essence of sealioning. You had a chance, and you blew it.
Bye. And if you try to sneak back, your unapproved comment will disappear rapidly.
I suppose Kat Doukas could go join the support group for former EA commenters that that asshole anonymous commenter “EA Survivor” suggested having on that let’s all hate Jack blog post by another blogger.
I feel bad about banning most of them. Not Kat.
No, it does not.
The criteria for recusal is if they would personally benefit.
They would be in a position to enter a judgment that directly, personally benefits them.
It is not, say, hearing an anti-discrimination lawsuit against private employer.
Could a black judge preside on a case directly concerning black civil rights?
Depends on the nature of the case. If it’s a generic civil rights statute case that just happens to involve black litigants, yes. If the judge stands to personally benefit if he rules one way or the other, then that’s a problem. Don’t make me throw a fish at you.
Weird comment but just TO CLARIFY…
According to you, a black judge should recuse themselves concerning a case about civil rights (say, employment discrimination or housing discrimination against blacks) that he could potentially benefit from…
I have that correct?
🦭🦭🦭
I’m done with your sealioning. Please go annoy somebody else.
But Steve-O, isn’t that what we expect from that style of internet troll. Maybe we should apply the Julie Principle, but then the commentariat would have to suffer the fool.
The trolling style of Kat Doukas, complete with constant sealioning, reminds me of how an old friend from High School “argues” whenever we get into discussions about politics. The styles are so exactly the same that there must be a Trolling For Dummies book out there with step-by-step instructions on how to do this.
Yeah, the next one is the end for Kat, who has been warned. I have little hop that we will see any improvement.
Yes.
It’s Kat, not bunny (little hop).
Honk! Honk! Wocka! Wocka! 😀
Just wanted to confirm you’re advocating for discriminating against judges based on race against all judicial norms.
Thanx
Kat Doukas should take this quote to heart, “It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.”
Kat Doukas,
You’ve shown yourself to be a very foolish commenter.
She’s GONE. What a jerk.
Read the room, Kat. We’re not buying what you’re selling.
That depends on the nature of the exact case.
Like what?
If there was a lawsuit alleging that a private employer discriminated against woman, a judge being female would not be a basi for recusal unless she either works for that employer, or recently applied for a job with the employer.
A male judge who has an immediate female relative that either works for the employer in question or recently applied for a job with that employer would have to recuse.
https://reason.com/2023/06/12/trumps-federal-indictment-presents-new-evidence-of-deliberate-deceit-and-obstruction/?comments=true#comment-10105988
On a related note.
https://www.blackburn.senate.gov/2023/6/breaking-under-blackburn-questioning-fbi-admits-biden-bribery-scandal-cover-up
Why not have a nice snap impeachment and find out if there is anything to this?
More from Michael Tracey.
Part of this comment thread became one commenter effectively being Out-Eeyored by another.
Well done!!!
Out-Eeyored: is when someone is excessively more pessimistic, gloomy, depressed, negative, and sarcastic as Eeyore while still being as insightful, observant, loyal, and wise as Eeyore.
I miss our “Eeyor”…
Yes, I miss luckyesteeyoreman too. Luckyesteeyoreman was insightful (as opposed to inciteful like some others) and had a good sense of humor.
“One of the myriad reasons I would like to push a magic button and make Trump vanish into oblivion is what the visceral reaction to him has done to virtually every profession, including ours. The fact that so many here can’t see that is profoundly depressing.”
No. It’s infinitely valuable that Trump forced the Democrats to stop hiding behind a facade.
Michael West wrote, “No. It’s infinitely valuable that Trump forced the Democrats to stop hiding behind a facade.”
Can you apply that same infinite value to the consequences of political left no longer hiding behind their facade and their reactionary politics are transparently pushing the country towards totalitarianism? This push from the political left towards totalitarianism was accelerated while Trump was in the White House. Like it or not, it’s a simple fact that what’s happening IS one of the consequences of Trump being President.
Is it a good thing to see behind the Democrats false facade, yes; is it a good thing that the totalitarian vipers have used their reactionary politics to divide the country to the point of massive civil unrest and are pushing the country over the edge of reality into the abyss of totalitarianism, I think not.
Uh. Yes.
Instead of sleepily plodding our way into totalitarianism in a kind of societal hospice like in Brave New World, being confronted with the stark reality of the Democrat vision either will be a wake up call for America’s inherent genetic predisposition towards liberty or it will go ahead and show us right here and right now that we’d rather be ruled instead of free.
The Democrats win in the end and get their totalitarian state if we’d stayed asleep for the whole process.
Yes. It’s way better to have the confrontation now than never.
Get your frock coat, your kepi, your cartridge box, and your musket, and let’s assemble on the village green.
I hope enough Americans actually awaken to the dangers and just completely vote the wretches out so
badly that the Democrat party is broken for generations. I worry that they’ve already got control of so much and can completely manipulate elections at this point that it is too late.
But I hope not.
But yes, if the day comes that it is too late because constitutional systems have been completely undermined, then yes, Americans must be ready to do it the more primitive way.
Why would the Democrat 2016 Witch Hunt to get Donald Trump need to rig the trial?
I’ve been reliably assured by leftists all over that this is it – there’s no chance he avoids conviction this time.
I know it’s the 19,456th time they’ve said this since 2016, but this time it’s “iron clad”.
In the context of recusals, benefit does not mean a remote, hypothetical, or speculative possibility that the judge might someday benefit from a judgment in the case. Rather, the judge or an immediate family member must have a concrete, particularized stake in the case, such as a judgment would either help or hinder a protectable legal interest.
A judge’s race, sex, ethnic descent, religion, or political affiliation couldtheoretically be a factor in whether or not a judge has a “concrete, particularized stake in the case”. In almost all cases, a judge does not have such a stake just because the judge shares a trait with one or more litigants.
Well and accurately stated.
Kat Doukas was clearly misrepresenting recusal precedent.
Of course. She also didn’t comprehend–or refused to— the distinction between a legally required recusal and an ethical recusal. The fact that a particular recusal isn’t required doesn’t mean recusal isn’t the most ethical course.