Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) has introduced legislation aimed at allowing current justices to 'vote in' on a majority basis, retired SC Justices when there are recusals so that the full court hears the cases presented.
To keep my readers informed, recusals occur when SC Justices have conflicts with companies, issues, etc. from the cases that are being heard - call it a conflict of interest. A current example of this occurred when new Justice Kagan had already submitted briefs on some cases because of her Solicitor General role. Others include SC Justices owning stock of companies that are presented in the case being heard, etc.
Currently, there are three SC Justices to choose from: O'Connor, Stevens, and Souter that the court would be able to choose from should this legislation pass.
Except for the SC, most states allow a 'fill-in' when federal judges are recused.
On one hand, it establishes the full court and a majority opinion is once again achievable. On the other, what is the unintended consequence of this decision?
Grace & Peace.
PLW
No comments:
Post a Comment