SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Trump may not be a close friend of Barrett's, but his personal freedom is potentially at risk if Biden wins, when Trump would no longer be immunized from criminal prosecution. (Photo: Chen Mengtong/China News Service via Getty Images)
Why Amy Coney Barrett Must Recuse Herself From Election-Related Cases
The choice is simple: She must recuse, and welcome Trump’s scorn.
Oct 27, 2020
More than 60 million votes have been cast and multiple election-related disputes are already making their way through the courts. Newly-confirmed Justice Amy Coney Barrett should recuse herself from these decisions.
Surprisingly, the Supreme Court is the only court in the nation--state or federal--that operates without a formal code of ethics. Although a federal statute requires that a justice must disqualify herself in any matter where "impartiality might reasonably be questioned," little guidance exists about what circumstances fall under that phrase. And, in any event, whether or not an individual justice will recuse is subject to that justice's unilateral choice, which no one can challenge.
And even when a justice does take that action, rarely is that choice explained. (A bill introduced into Congress earlier this year -- the Twenty-First Century Courts Act -- would make this process more transparent.)
Where to start and where to end?
Some speculate that Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, also Trump appointees, should sit out the deliberations too. And if recusal is required for them, then Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, as appointees of the Obama-Biden administration, arguably should abstain as well. Justice Clarence Thomas's impartiality also has been questioned, given the animosity between Joe Biden and him over the scandal surrounding the confirmation hearings for Thomas, where Biden presided. This would leave Chief Justice John Roberts along with Justices Samuel Alito and Stephen Breyer to decide the election's fate. It is unlikely that any of these justices would remove themselves, even though they would seal the fates of men who were directly involved in their appointments.
Barrett, however, faces a far different situation. President Trump demanded her immediate confirmation without delay precisely because he wants her to cast a vote when, as he predicts, a dispute about the presidential election arrives at the Supreme Court. Trump has stated unequivocally that he will contest the election if Biden prevails.
Barrett's confirmation places her among the most-rushed since the mid-1970s at barely a month, second only to John Paul Stevens (19 days) and well under that of the other women sitting on the court (Sotomayor, 66 days; Kagan, 87 days) as well as Trump's other appointments (Gorsuch, 65 days; Kavanaugh, 88 days). That expedited consideration would allow Barrett to hear arguments, set for Nov. 10, on Republican efforts to destroy the Affordable Care Act in the midst of a pandemic. The president's views on that lawsuit could not be clearer: He forecast a "big WIN for the USA!" if the act were "terminated by the Supreme Court."
It is reasonable to infer that, in Trump's mind, Barrett must repay his appointment by refusing to recuse, and then by voting both to secure his election and to gut the ACA. And we know he will view these votes as the ultimate test of her loyalty. When then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions listened to ethicists and refused to participate in matters involving the presidential election campaign, Trump said: "Sessions should have never recused himself, and if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he took the job and I would have picked somebody else." His unrelenting and even posthumous attacks on Sen. John McCain's vote against repeal of the ACA are legendary.
Yet Sessions recused under the same standard governing federal judges: because his "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
If there were ever a circumstance where impartiality might be reasonably questioned, Barrett's confirmation will lay it out for all to see. She will have received a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court in the midst of an election that the president expects to be resolved by her, in his favor.
Barrett's mentor, Justice Antonin Scalia, once faced recusal involving his personal ties to Vice President Dick Cheney. The two had gone duck hunting, flying together on Air Force Two, suggesting to some that Scalia's impartiality was in doubt. Scalia declined to recuse, writing that "friendship" is not a basis "for recusal where official action is at issue, no matter how important the official action was to the ambitions or the reputation of the Government officer." But he acknowledged that "friendship is a ground for recusal of a Justice where the personal fortune or the personal freedom of the friend is at issue."
Trump may not be a close friend of Barrett's, but his personal freedom is potentially at risk if Biden wins, when Trump would no longer be immunized from criminal prosecution.
Barrett may ignore calls for recusal. Or, like Sessions, she may agree that her impartiality could reasonably be questioned and face the withering attacks the president would likely inflict. The choice is simple: She must recuse, and welcome Trump's scorn.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 New York Daily News
Renee Knake Jefferson
Renee Knake Jefferson is the Doherty Chair in Legal Ethics and Professor of Law at the University of Houston and an author of "Shortlisted: Women in the Shadows of the Supreme Court."
More than 60 million votes have been cast and multiple election-related disputes are already making their way through the courts. Newly-confirmed Justice Amy Coney Barrett should recuse herself from these decisions.
Surprisingly, the Supreme Court is the only court in the nation--state or federal--that operates without a formal code of ethics. Although a federal statute requires that a justice must disqualify herself in any matter where "impartiality might reasonably be questioned," little guidance exists about what circumstances fall under that phrase. And, in any event, whether or not an individual justice will recuse is subject to that justice's unilateral choice, which no one can challenge.
And even when a justice does take that action, rarely is that choice explained. (A bill introduced into Congress earlier this year -- the Twenty-First Century Courts Act -- would make this process more transparent.)
Where to start and where to end?
Some speculate that Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, also Trump appointees, should sit out the deliberations too. And if recusal is required for them, then Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, as appointees of the Obama-Biden administration, arguably should abstain as well. Justice Clarence Thomas's impartiality also has been questioned, given the animosity between Joe Biden and him over the scandal surrounding the confirmation hearings for Thomas, where Biden presided. This would leave Chief Justice John Roberts along with Justices Samuel Alito and Stephen Breyer to decide the election's fate. It is unlikely that any of these justices would remove themselves, even though they would seal the fates of men who were directly involved in their appointments.
Barrett, however, faces a far different situation. President Trump demanded her immediate confirmation without delay precisely because he wants her to cast a vote when, as he predicts, a dispute about the presidential election arrives at the Supreme Court. Trump has stated unequivocally that he will contest the election if Biden prevails.
Barrett's confirmation places her among the most-rushed since the mid-1970s at barely a month, second only to John Paul Stevens (19 days) and well under that of the other women sitting on the court (Sotomayor, 66 days; Kagan, 87 days) as well as Trump's other appointments (Gorsuch, 65 days; Kavanaugh, 88 days). That expedited consideration would allow Barrett to hear arguments, set for Nov. 10, on Republican efforts to destroy the Affordable Care Act in the midst of a pandemic. The president's views on that lawsuit could not be clearer: He forecast a "big WIN for the USA!" if the act were "terminated by the Supreme Court."
It is reasonable to infer that, in Trump's mind, Barrett must repay his appointment by refusing to recuse, and then by voting both to secure his election and to gut the ACA. And we know he will view these votes as the ultimate test of her loyalty. When then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions listened to ethicists and refused to participate in matters involving the presidential election campaign, Trump said: "Sessions should have never recused himself, and if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he took the job and I would have picked somebody else." His unrelenting and even posthumous attacks on Sen. John McCain's vote against repeal of the ACA are legendary.
Yet Sessions recused under the same standard governing federal judges: because his "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
If there were ever a circumstance where impartiality might be reasonably questioned, Barrett's confirmation will lay it out for all to see. She will have received a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court in the midst of an election that the president expects to be resolved by her, in his favor.
Barrett's mentor, Justice Antonin Scalia, once faced recusal involving his personal ties to Vice President Dick Cheney. The two had gone duck hunting, flying together on Air Force Two, suggesting to some that Scalia's impartiality was in doubt. Scalia declined to recuse, writing that "friendship" is not a basis "for recusal where official action is at issue, no matter how important the official action was to the ambitions or the reputation of the Government officer." But he acknowledged that "friendship is a ground for recusal of a Justice where the personal fortune or the personal freedom of the friend is at issue."
Trump may not be a close friend of Barrett's, but his personal freedom is potentially at risk if Biden wins, when Trump would no longer be immunized from criminal prosecution.
Barrett may ignore calls for recusal. Or, like Sessions, she may agree that her impartiality could reasonably be questioned and face the withering attacks the president would likely inflict. The choice is simple: She must recuse, and welcome Trump's scorn.
Renee Knake Jefferson
Renee Knake Jefferson is the Doherty Chair in Legal Ethics and Professor of Law at the University of Houston and an author of "Shortlisted: Women in the Shadows of the Supreme Court."
More than 60 million votes have been cast and multiple election-related disputes are already making their way through the courts. Newly-confirmed Justice Amy Coney Barrett should recuse herself from these decisions.
Surprisingly, the Supreme Court is the only court in the nation--state or federal--that operates without a formal code of ethics. Although a federal statute requires that a justice must disqualify herself in any matter where "impartiality might reasonably be questioned," little guidance exists about what circumstances fall under that phrase. And, in any event, whether or not an individual justice will recuse is subject to that justice's unilateral choice, which no one can challenge.
And even when a justice does take that action, rarely is that choice explained. (A bill introduced into Congress earlier this year -- the Twenty-First Century Courts Act -- would make this process more transparent.)
Where to start and where to end?
Some speculate that Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, also Trump appointees, should sit out the deliberations too. And if recusal is required for them, then Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, as appointees of the Obama-Biden administration, arguably should abstain as well. Justice Clarence Thomas's impartiality also has been questioned, given the animosity between Joe Biden and him over the scandal surrounding the confirmation hearings for Thomas, where Biden presided. This would leave Chief Justice John Roberts along with Justices Samuel Alito and Stephen Breyer to decide the election's fate. It is unlikely that any of these justices would remove themselves, even though they would seal the fates of men who were directly involved in their appointments.
Barrett, however, faces a far different situation. President Trump demanded her immediate confirmation without delay precisely because he wants her to cast a vote when, as he predicts, a dispute about the presidential election arrives at the Supreme Court. Trump has stated unequivocally that he will contest the election if Biden prevails.
Barrett's confirmation places her among the most-rushed since the mid-1970s at barely a month, second only to John Paul Stevens (19 days) and well under that of the other women sitting on the court (Sotomayor, 66 days; Kagan, 87 days) as well as Trump's other appointments (Gorsuch, 65 days; Kavanaugh, 88 days). That expedited consideration would allow Barrett to hear arguments, set for Nov. 10, on Republican efforts to destroy the Affordable Care Act in the midst of a pandemic. The president's views on that lawsuit could not be clearer: He forecast a "big WIN for the USA!" if the act were "terminated by the Supreme Court."
It is reasonable to infer that, in Trump's mind, Barrett must repay his appointment by refusing to recuse, and then by voting both to secure his election and to gut the ACA. And we know he will view these votes as the ultimate test of her loyalty. When then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions listened to ethicists and refused to participate in matters involving the presidential election campaign, Trump said: "Sessions should have never recused himself, and if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he took the job and I would have picked somebody else." His unrelenting and even posthumous attacks on Sen. John McCain's vote against repeal of the ACA are legendary.
Yet Sessions recused under the same standard governing federal judges: because his "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
If there were ever a circumstance where impartiality might be reasonably questioned, Barrett's confirmation will lay it out for all to see. She will have received a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court in the midst of an election that the president expects to be resolved by her, in his favor.
Barrett's mentor, Justice Antonin Scalia, once faced recusal involving his personal ties to Vice President Dick Cheney. The two had gone duck hunting, flying together on Air Force Two, suggesting to some that Scalia's impartiality was in doubt. Scalia declined to recuse, writing that "friendship" is not a basis "for recusal where official action is at issue, no matter how important the official action was to the ambitions or the reputation of the Government officer." But he acknowledged that "friendship is a ground for recusal of a Justice where the personal fortune or the personal freedom of the friend is at issue."
Trump may not be a close friend of Barrett's, but his personal freedom is potentially at risk if Biden wins, when Trump would no longer be immunized from criminal prosecution.
Barrett may ignore calls for recusal. Or, like Sessions, she may agree that her impartiality could reasonably be questioned and face the withering attacks the president would likely inflict. The choice is simple: She must recuse, and welcome Trump's scorn.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.