Danger of choosing a pro-2nd Amendment Judge for SCOTUS?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aim1

member
Joined
Oct 24, 2015
Messages
2,310
If President Trump chooses a pro-2nd Amendment judge to SCOTUS that'd be great. However, would that judge have to recuse themselves from a 2nd Amendment case if it came to be heard by SCOTUS and they had been the judge that had ruled on that case when they were a judge in a lower court? If they had to recuse themselves, that could tip the case in the favor of anti-gun judges.


Take the case of the judge below.



http://www.9news.com/news/local/col...e-court-wrote-key-gun-rights-ruling/351874707




Colorado judge on Trump's short list for Supreme Court wrote key gun-rights ruling

Denver Business Journal , KUSA 3:36 PM. MST November 14, 2016

Over the weekend, president-elect Donald Trump said he would appoint a U.S. Supreme Court Justice who is a strong supporter of Second Amendment gun rights and who seeks to overturn the Roe vs. Wade decision recognizing a right to abortion.

Among the judges he may be considering is Colorado Supreme Court Justice Allison H. Eid, who in 2012 wrote the unanimous opinion striking down a ban on licensed concealed handguns at the University of Colorado Denver.
Click to expand...
 
Depends on the case I suppose. I've also been wondering how many cases RBG may end up having to recuse herself from.
 
Doesn't matter, they don't need to hear every cases brought to the court and can easily remand it back to the lower court, which ruled in our favor! :)
 
MEHavey said:
If they had ruled on THAT specific case: Yes. [recuse].
Any other case: No
Click to expand...

I was thinking in terms of the pre-election remarks she made about Trump. Wouldn't that pose a conflict of interest of any cases related to his proposed legislative agenda that could come up before the court?
 
If you read that it says "may be" I don't think Trump knows who he is going to pick and even if he does they will need to be vetted first. Sounds like a good choice though, proven track record.
 
I'm not sure. Plaintiff's or State's attorney on the same case, most definitely, but as a judge they are serving the same impartial role.

Mike
 
I'm not sure what your point is. Should he appoint anti gun justices? I would just be careful and pick ones that hadn't ruled on any major cases.
 
Well, seeing as Kagan wrote parts of the Affordable Care Act before ruling on its constitutionality...I'd say you raise a very legitimate concern, but one that will be promptly avoided in this brave new post-legal world we find ourselves.
 
I don't think having ruled at a lower level on the case would be grounds for recusal. Recusal is normally done when a judges impartiality can be in doubt. Having ruled on the same case at a lower level would not fit this example.

When a judge declares a mistrial for some reason, e.g. hung jury, the same judge can hear the same case again.
 
Oh, the other one is Ginsburg ruling on anything to do with Trump after basically stating she could never accept him as president. Oh, and Sotomayor failing to recuse herself on immigration cases despite being an activist for years on illegal immigrants' behalf.

Would be nice to have 9 justices who don't legislate from the bench.
Click to expand...
A president willing to submit to the laws and a Congress willing to make them would also be nice.

TCB
 
Last edited:
Aim1 said:
If President Trump chooses a pro-2nd Amendment judge to SCOTUS that'd be great. However, would that judge have to recuse themselves from a 2nd Amendment case if it came to be heard by SCOTUS and they had been the judge that had ruled on that case when they were a judge in a lower court? If they had to recuse themselves, that could tip the case in the favor of anti-gun judges.


Take the case of the judge below.



http://www.9news.com/news/local/col...e-court-wrote-key-gun-rights-ruling/351874707
Click to expand...
Ruth Bader Ginsberg already invited a suit to overturn Heller, the case that upheld the 2nd Amendment in Washington, D.C.

Do you think if such a suit came before the court she'd recuse herself? Not on your Nelly!

She's publicly attacked Trump -- that should disqualify her from sitting on any cases involving the President's policies or actions. Do you think she'll recuse herself? No way, Jose.
 
I'm not going to mince words...Kagan and Sotomayor didn't recuse themselves from cases they heard in lower courts...why should Trump's pick?
 
"Recusal" is pretty much purely an honor-system thing from what I understand, and like all honor-systems, is pretty much always ignored by everyone in practice. If judges were diligent about policing conflicts of interest, we wouldn't have half the precedent we have on the books, nor 95% of the government.

TCB
 
barnbwt said:
"Recusal" is pretty much purely an honor-system thing from what I understand, and like all honor-systems, is pretty much always ignored by everyone in practice. If judges were diligent about policing conflicts of interest, we wouldn't have half the precedent we have on the books, nor 95% of the government.

TCB
Click to expand...
The problem is, an ordinary judge might get his wrists slapped if he didn't recuse himself in a really blatant case -- but who's going to slap a Supreme Court Justice's wrists?
 
Having been a judge is good qualification to become a SCOTUS judge. That being the case your most qualified candidates will always be in a position to recuse themselves on cases they have decided on in the past. If they were not involved in that case they don't have to recuse themselves.

The more Pro 2A and conservative judges Trump gets to appoint the better. No matter what cases they ruled on on the past.
 
Since science and statistics play a huge role in court cases -- and since lawyers have no background in those disciplines -- wouldn't it be nice to see a non-lawyer on the court?
 
Aim1: So if a Judge appointed to the Supreme Court is known as one who supports the originalist views of the Constitution should they recuse themselves from all Constitutional matters? I don't believe that you, a. Put a lot of thought into your question before posting, or b. You have another agenda. Just my observation.
 
MaterDei said:
I don't think having ruled at a lower level on the case would be grounds for recusal. Recusal is normally done when a judges impartiality can be in doubt. Having ruled on the same case at a lower level would not fit this example.

When a judge declares a mistrial for some reason, e.g. hung jury, the same judge can hear the same case again.
Click to expand...
I vaguely recall Sodamayer not recusing herself from some sort of case she had been involved in when she was at a lower level. As such, I think it's not a mandatory thing n
 
Steel Horse Rider said:
Aim1: So if a Judge appointed to the Supreme Court is known as one who supports the originalist views of the Constitution should they recuse themselves from all Constitutional matters? I don't believe that you, a. Put a lot of thought into your question before posting, or b. You have another agenda. Just my observation.
Click to expand...


Since you apparently didn't read the question or have reading comprehension issues I'll assume you: b. Having an agenda.

The question was if a new SCOTUS judge had previously ruled on a case that they now had the chance to rule on again in the Supreme Court.

It did not ask about their views.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

U
  • Locked
2nd Amendment: Worse after Heller b/c of SCOTUS?
Replies
11
Views
859
VPLthrneck
V
A
  • Locked
With today's SCOTUS NY gun case being mooted is this a bad time to bring a 2nd Amendment case?
Replies
3
Views
451
boom boom
boom boom
U
  • Locked
SCOTUS Judges: New Ones
Replies
2
Views
376
Jeff White
J
A
  • Locked
Any potential 2nd Amendment cases that could be granted cert by SCOTUS this fall?
Replies
8
Views
718
denton
D
A
  • Locked
SCOTUS declines assault weapons ban case - how bad is this?
2 3
Replies
52
Views
4K
Red Wind
Red Wind
Back
Top