Comments on: The argument in the Caperton judicial recusal case http://www.folo.us/2009/03/04/the-argument-in-the-caperton-judicial-recusal-case/ Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:40:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Nature Lover http://www.folo.us/2009/03/04/the-argument-in-the-caperton-judicial-recusal-case/#comment-69349 Nature Lover Thu, 05 Mar 2009 05:24:34 +0000 http://www.folo.us/?p=11996#comment-69349 Set, point, match, Massey Coal. I see no way round it. Unfortunately for equity. NL Set, point, match, Massey Coal. I see no way round it. Unfortunately for equity.
NL

]]> By: NMC http://www.folo.us/2009/03/04/the-argument-in-the-caperton-judicial-recusal-case/#comment-69238 NMC Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:13:48 +0000 http://www.folo.us/?p=11996#comment-69238 Senatobiason, that was explicitly discussed during the argument, used by those arguing against a due process based recusal standard. Senatobiason, that was explicitly discussed during the argument, used by those arguing against a due process based recusal standard.

]]> By: lotus http://www.folo.us/2009/03/04/the-argument-in-the-caperton-judicial-recusal-case/#comment-69229 lotus Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:45:17 +0000 http://www.folo.us/?p=11996#comment-69229 somslawyer just sent in another SCOTUS case, <a href="" rel="nofollow"><em>Wyeth v. Levine</em></a>, denying FDA preemption of state law claims and carrying this Thomas concurrence: "... I write separately, however, because I cannot join the majority's implicit endorsement of far-reaching implied pre-emption doctrines. In particular, I have become increasingly skeptical of this Court's 'purposes and objectives' pre-emption jurisprudence. Under this approach, the Court routinely invalidates state laws based on perceived conflicts with broad federal policy objectives, legislative history, or generalized notions of congressional purposes that are not embodied within the text of federal law. Because implied pre-emption doctrines that wander far from the statutory text are inconsistent with the Constitution, I concur only in the judgment." somslawyer just sent in another SCOTUS case, Wyeth v. Levine, denying FDA preemption of state law claims and carrying this Thomas concurrence:

“… I write separately, however, because I cannot join the majority’s implicit endorsement of far-reaching implied pre-emption doctrines. In particular, I have become increasingly skeptical of this Court’s ‘purposes and objectives’ pre-emption jurisprudence. Under this approach, the Court routinely invalidates state laws based on perceived conflicts with broad federal policy objectives, legislative history, or generalized notions of congressional purposes that are not embodied within the text of federal law. Because implied pre-emption doctrines that wander far from the statutory text are inconsistent with the Constitution, I concur only in the judgment.”

]]> By: Senatobiason http://www.folo.us/2009/03/04/the-argument-in-the-caperton-judicial-recusal-case/#comment-69226 Senatobiason Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:35:38 +0000 http://www.folo.us/?p=11996#comment-69226 Would a "debt of gratitude" be cause for recusal if a case involving a President or former President came before a Supreme Court Justice - or any federal judge - he appointed to the bench? Would a “debt of gratitude” be cause for recusal if a case involving a President or former President came before a Supreme Court Justice – or any federal judge – he appointed to the bench?

]]> By: NMC http://www.folo.us/2009/03/04/the-argument-in-the-caperton-judicial-recusal-case/#comment-69149 NMC Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:17:25 +0000 http://www.folo.us/?p=11996#comment-69149 If I were Frey, I would have said something like this: Look, counsel opposite has virtually admitted that this case is a one-off thing without general application to the supposed crisis of money in judicial races. He says that it wouldn't apply to trade group money. He said it wouldn't apply to a plaintiffs bar vs. defense bar fight. Those are the sorts of problem that is happening in state after state, and he admits there isn't a general principle he's seeking that covers them. His general principle comes down to "my case looks really bad but there's nothing tangible about the judge, so give us a mushy rule that will cover it." Frey had an argument but does not come close to making it. Olson gets battered about a lot but handles himself very well. If I were Frey, I would have said something like this: Look, counsel opposite has virtually admitted that this case is a one-off thing without general application to the supposed crisis of money in judicial races. He says that it wouldn’t apply to trade group money. He said it wouldn’t apply to a plaintiffs bar vs. defense bar fight. Those are the sorts of problem that is happening in state after state, and he admits there isn’t a general principle he’s seeking that covers them. His general principle comes down to “my case looks really bad but there’s nothing tangible about the judge, so give us a mushy rule that will cover it.”

Frey had an argument but does not come close to making it. Olson gets battered about a lot but handles himself very well.

]]> By: lotus http://www.folo.us/2009/03/04/the-argument-in-the-caperton-judicial-recusal-case/#comment-69147 lotus Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:15:51 +0000 http://www.folo.us/?p=11996#comment-69147 Thanks for this, NMC. Thanks for this, NMC.

]]>