Tim,

My question was probably a bit too rhetorical (and not terribly
well-informed, as I was unaware of the system of ratifying appointments in
the Senate; I thought seats on the court were in the president's gift).

I read somewhere that O'Connor is reported to have told friends that the
only reason she hasn't retired is that she doesn't want to be replaced by a
Democrat nomination. Is this to be believed?

I guess my point is that I find it odd that judges whose party political
sympathies are not only known but were generally the reason why they were
appointed should find themselves able to sit on a case with party political
ramifications.

Although I'm not learned in the law of the US I'm persuaded by Ginsburg's
opinion that the majority view was formed by fitting the law to the desired
result rather than the other way around.

Richard Edwards


>From: Tim Romano <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: - Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine
>    <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: USA elections
>Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:35:30 -0500
>
>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 Lords ruling, to which Lord Hoffmann was a party, had to be rescinded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.
> >
> >

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.