"If the full Court or any subset of the Court were to review the recusal decisions of individual justices," they wrote, "it would create an undesirable situation in which the Court could affect the outcome of a case by selecting who among its members may participate." The justices argued in their joint statement this week that proposals to force members of the court to recuse themselves under specified circumstances, publicly elaborate on the recusal process and subject their decisions to review could create more harm than good. But then - as now - he also forcefully defended the institution from what he saw as undue meddling by other, co-equal branches of government. He promised at the time to study the question of whether to have a code of judicial conduct that is applicable only to the Supreme Court. "They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through a rigorous appointment and confirmation process." "I have complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted," Roberts wrote in his 2011 year-end report on the federal judiciary. More than a decade ago, amid a similar wave of headlines alleging misconduct by several justices, Roberts worked to fend off a similar political push for regulation.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |