Active Now

Randy D
Reverend Muhammadovsky
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » Why allow the individual to decide to recuse or refuse to recuse? Why not appoint an INDEPENDENT DECIDER to review and decide?

Why allow the individual to decide to recuse or refuse to recuse? Why not appoint an INDEPENDENT DECIDER to review and decide?

The amy dame refused to commit to recusing herself from deciding anything about the 2020 election. We KNOW the reason for the fast track half-a**ed dog and pony show is so that she WILL be on bench to decide the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the dumb cluck duck protesting.

She is not competent. She is not trustworthy. She is not honest. She is not independent. She is not she is not she is not she is not.

Posted - October 15


  • 23184
    Section 455(b) (1) provides that a judge should disqualify himself in any proceeding in which he has “a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” 
    Section 455(b)(2) mandates that a judge must disqualify himself when “in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it.”
    As for §455(b)(3), disqualification is currently required whenever the judge “has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.”
    Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §455(b) (4), a judge must disqualify himself if he knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy, or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by its outcome.
    Finally, § 455 (b)(5)(i) prescribes judicial disqualification whenever the judge, his spouse, a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or a spouse of such a person is a party to the proceeding or an officer, director, or trustee of one. see here.

    These are the reasons given for recusal.  If an party in a case believes one of these 5 reason apply to a judge, they can make a motion to have the judge/justice recused/dismissed. The DOJ has a Dept of Ethics which evaluates the motion and gives written permission to make the motion if by a government attorney. 
      October 15, 2020 7:45 AM MDT

  • 7115
    It seems that AG Barr has closed that office since he became the AG. 
      October 15, 2020 11:08 AM MDT

  • 23184
    Nope it is exists and is in operation.
      October 15, 2020 12:26 PM MDT

  • 7115

    Why didn't you post part a of that Section?---it's the primary situation in which a justice must recuse himself or herself:

    28 U.S.C. § 455

    (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

      October 15, 2020 11:23 AM MDT

  • 23184
    I posted the 5 specific reasons their impartiality might be reasonably questioned. 
      October 15, 2020 11:41 AM MDT

  • 7115
    And totally ignored the overarching principle from which the enumerated list is derived.

    You own a business which sells items.  As such you are into sales and merchandizing.  Caveat emptor ( the principle that the buyer alone is responsible for checking the quality and suitability of goods before a purchase is made) is the principle that a merchandiser goes by in earning his living. 

    And for a merchandizer, full discloser of a product's unreliability is frequently against his best interests---and not all information relative to making a purchase is disclosed unless that buyer asks.

    This site respects opinions simply because they exist---the opinions themselves come with no guarantee.

    I like to see the "whole truth" posted---partial truths are frequently misleading. 

      October 16, 2020 3:50 PM MDT

  • 96576
      October 16, 2020 2:43 AM MDT