I don't think there's cause for all 9 of the justices to have recused
themselves. But Scalia, whose son works for the law firm representing the
Republicans in the election cause, and Thomas, whose wife would have rather
direct ties with an incoming Republican administration, had compelling basis
on which to recuse themselves.  On what grounds would you expect Kennedy,
O'Connor, Rehnquist, Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter to have bowed
out? Their nominations to the court were all ratified by the Senate.

Tim Romano


----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Edwards" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: USA elections


> Remember the fiasco in the UK when a Lord of Appeal hearing the Pinochet
> case omitted to declare his association with a charity connected with
> Amnesty International, which had been permitted to intervene in the
> proceedings to make representations in favour of extradition? The House of
> Lords ruling, to which Lord Hoffmann was a party, had to be rescinded and
> the whole thing gone through again with a differently constituted House.
> (The second time around they again ruled in favour of extradition but on
> narrower grounds).
>
> Surely on this principle all nine members of the Supreme Court in Gore v
> Bush should have recused themselves?
>
> Richard Edwards
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
>