,
3 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
He’ll appeal it all the way up, where he hopes that two justices will remember how to say “thank you.”
Justices should recuse from a case directly and substantially affecting the personal financial interests of the president who appointed them.
cnn.it/2wbOjwE
Justices should recuse from a case directly and substantially affecting the personal financial interests of the president who appointed them.
cnn.it/2wbOjwE
One of the most important ethics issues in the Gorsuch and Kavanagh confirmation hearings was when they would recuse from a case involving the personal financial interests of the man to whom they owe their seats on the Court.
A financial advantage bestowed on a president by a person he appoints is an illegal bribe or gratuity if there is a quid pro quo between the financial advantage and the appointment. A judge should recuse from a case involving the personal finances of a president who appoints him.
