According to the law, conflict of interest disqualifies lawyers from handling cases. that doubles for juddges?

the republican judges on the supreme court have sworn not to rule in cases involving conflict of interest. that negates the bush v. gore decision in 2000, and disqualifies bush, cheney, diebold, alito, roberts, kennedy, thomas, and scalia, doesnt it? when they took their oaths, one of their solemn promises was not to make rulings in cases that had any personal affects on them. two repulican judges had family members employed by bush. for those simple minded uneducated people who say get over it, it was 8 years ago, etc. slavery was a hundred and forty years ago. have we gotten over it? you go take a look are things equal?According to the law, conflict of interest disqualifies lawyers from handling cases. that doubles for juddges?
Supreme court judges are appointed for life so they owe nothing to any parties. Secondly I bet everyone has a cousin or two who works some politician or another so what? Face facts Gore lost, falling chads butterfly ballots whatever, Those things happen in all elections and are unavoidable. Do you really think the 90 year old lady running a polling station is involved in a giant conspiracy? Gore brought great shame to himself and the country any true leader would have realized that the integrity of the process is more important than any one election and would have gracefully conceded. If democrats really thought it was such a big deal I don't see them passing to many election reform while they are in control of congress. Reasonable people can debate the need for the electoral college but the Florida results were turned into hyperbole by those exploiting the undereducated. The Kennedy- Johnson camps committed the most notorious voter fraud in history and even Nixon was man enough to do the right thing.According to the law, conflict of interest disqualifies lawyers from handling cases. that doubles for juddges?
I didnt like either one of them. I like Gore better now that bush has been in power. But I see where you are going. You do bring up some valid points. And it will be a black eye on the Supreme Court for decades to come.





When history looks at the scandals of the Bush administration, they will bring in that decision of the supreme court. I dont think history will ever forget what happend. I dont see any issue at all for you bringing it up. I agree with everypoint you made.





Here are a few takes of what happend the hours after this happend. Nothing wrong with reading them 6 1/2 years later so we can reflect on what went wrong.





http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcr鈥?/a>





You were right on the law. There is federal law on ';recusal'; for all U.S. Judges, including the Supreme Court Justices:





28 USC 455 reads, in part:





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





(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:





(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;





(4) 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 the outcome of the proceeding;





(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:





(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;





(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;





(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;





(iv) Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.





As the U.S. Supreme Court, itself noted, in Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 548 (1994), ';what matters 'is not the reality of bias or prejudice, but its appearance.' Quite simply and quite universally, recusal was required whenever ';impartiality might reasonably be questioned.';





http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/12鈥?/a>





I could go on. But I dont need to the story will go on for Decades to come. Thanks for the reminder, how even the Supreme Court can create our history in advance.





Thanks for making me think.
I'm not sure I understand question, can you restate?
Wrong.





Conflicts of interest do not disqualify attorneys.





And unless the ';republican judges have family members employed by Bush'; means that they work for his household and are, in fact, employed directly by Bush, then your supposed conflict of interest isn't.





Perhaps to take a course on constitutional law and actually read a book...
Things will never be equal because we are not equal.
you dont honestly believe that do you?