Quantcast
Home / DC News / Congress looks for judicial recusal solution

Congress looks for judicial recusal solution

Lawmakers discuss Supreme Court ruling, judges’ bias at hearing

WASHINGTON - Members of a House Judiciary subcommittee searched for ways to curb federal judges who refuse to step aside in cases where a conflict of interest is apparent, saying such refusals deny litigants a fair chance in court.

One comment

  1. “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny” (James Madison, Federalist No. 48, Feb. 1, 1788).

    In this context, the benchmark for accountability for criminal or tortious acts of government employees, as well as judges is United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 (1882), that states,

    [n]o man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives. (Emphasis added).

    However, as my 38 years of federal civil litigation confirms, both judges, and government attorneys have placed them above and outside of the Rule of Law, and accountability.