Quote:
Originally posted by notcasesensitive
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4554682/
While I don't necessarily disagree overall with his position that recusal is not necessary, I find the part of his reasoning that if he recuses himself it could result in a tie odd. I mean, should that play into the analysis at all? Is it somehow better to have an interested judge on a panel to end a tie in favor of his friend than it would be to have the court unable to reach a decision due to a tie?
|
My sense, when I read that, was that it kind of ties in to his fairly arrogant approach to life, in that he fails to see any compelling legal reason for recusal, and, while he might entertain the idea in a not-so-close case just to appease the idiots who are wrong about the law, (his thoughts, remember), he's not going to give in to stupidity in a close case.
I think he's right on the legal reasons, and on his analysis of history, but, damn, what a dumb trip to go on. Perception, even when it's wrong, counts, and he just caused problems for no good reason.
