tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8750244306663708036.post4152843171028388124..comments2024-03-28T13:22:19.837-07:00Comments on Pa Rock's Ramble: Judicial Ethics for DummiesPa Rockhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16747526882424245608noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8750244306663708036.post-84291775083847262182009-03-04T11:41:00.000-07:002009-03-04T11:41:00.000-07:00When I first heard about this case my gut reaction...When I first heard about this case my gut reaction fairly well reflected your posting. But you know how inquisitive I can be.<BR/><BR/>The briefs for the parties are found on the Supreme Court site. Petitioner filed an orginal brief and a reply brief. Respondent filed their response brief.<BR/>The are online under merit briefs for February. I know it was March, but I found it in February, listed as March 3rd. That site is:<BR/> http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/feb09.shtml. <BR/><BR/>The argument seems to be centered on actual vs. probable bias.<BR/><BR/>The question is: what does the Fourteenth Amendment require?<BR/><BR/>You will also find 13 amicus briefs filed by friends of the Court. 10 of those were in support of the Petitioners Caperton, Harman Mining, and Sovereign Sales. 4 were in support of Massey Coal. 2 were in favor of neither party.<BR/><BR/>The first of those, from the Conference of Chief Justices, urged the Court to issue an expansive decision outline going beyond the actual bias or pecuniary interest standards. They want to understand the constitutional criteria for disqualification<BR/><BR/>The second of those was for the Supreme Court of Louisiana. They urged the U.S. Supreme Court to give no credence to a discredited law review article from Tulane University School of Law.<BR/><BR/>I think the standard is and should remain that the Court is to avoid the appearance of impropriety.xobekimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11116310733654658420noreply@blogger.com