USSC decisions

has this ever happened before?

 

Kyle does not sound like an impartial reporter.

 

Only a king with infinite immunity can force the Scrotes to recuse themselves

 

and he's wrong because...?

and it wasn't just Thomas, multiple other justices asked much the same thing.

 

but the other justices do not have a wife who is accused of being a J6-er. so, your argument that Thomas will overturn because of his wife falls flat in the face of the other justices' opinions.

 

the left attempts to delegitimize all political opposition, and Thomas is no exception

his legal arguments are hardly engaged with at all

 

Poking my head into this thread... and I've learned whole new things about conflict of interest.

I was always told, like in jury duty, that if (e.g.) a policeman is involved in the case in any way, and I am related to the policeman, including by marriage, then I have to admit this and I am not appropriate for the jury in this case. I would be automatically recused. Even if "tried my best" to be impartial, the appearance is what we must avoid for society to trust the verdict. That always made sense to me.

But now Clutchfans experts telling me we have to update this: Not only can I be placed on the jury now if I'm like a brother to an investigator or conspirator in a trial, but I can prove that I'm unbiased if any other single juror votes the same way I vote. This is amazing. Basically a new law:

Conflict of interest only exists if the person with the appearance of a conflict votes in the opposite way of every other judge and/or juror involved in the case. - Clutchfans experts.

So a SC justice minimizing an attack on an election certification process is completely fine because another justice had a similar take. It's only a problem if every single other justice had the opposite take. Nice! Y'all have found a great way to basically eliminate conflict of interest for ever. We can all serve on family members' jury trials, or have uncles who are judges forgive speeding tickets, etc, as long as we can't find a case where every single other person involved would disagree with the decision.

Wow!

 

oh snap, Gorsuch went there

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us...tion-case-with-trump-implications-2024-04-16/

Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared wary that a broad reading of the law could encroach on non-violent protests, emphasizing the maximum penalty of 20 years in prison under the obstruction charge.

"Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial, or access to a federal courthouse, qualify?" Gorsuch asked Prelogar. "Would a heckler in today's (Supreme Court) audience qualify, or at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify?"​