Recusal

Frey argued for actual bias: “I ask the Court to ask yourselves if you were in Justice Benjamin's situation, do you really think you would be incapable of rendering an impartial decision in a case involving Massey? Because if the answer to that is no, if the answer to that is you would not be incapable of rendering an unbiased decision, then there's no justification for saying that Justice Benjamin would.”

Olson: “Instead of the question that Mr. Frey was asking whether you, yourself, could be -- I would like to ask you to ask this question. If this was going to be the judge in your case, would you think it would be fair and would it be a fair tribunal if the judge in your case was selected with a $3 million subsidy by your opponent?”

Breyer, citing the amount of money, pending litigation, etc:
“All those things together make it a serious risk that there will be bias, even though an individual might not be. There is a serious risk. Call it a "probability"; call it an "appearance." Use the language that you want, but put them together, and they spell "mother."

Scalia: “But here we're being urged to adopt out of nowhere a new standard of probability of bias. That's not in the Constitution.”

Olson: “Justice Scalia, you mentioned that the words "reasonable search and seizure" are in the Constitution. The words "due process" are in the Constitution, and that is what we're talking about today.”
 

Home | History | Spending | Debate | Reforms | Poll | Resources | Grisham | Commentaries | JAS Brief | Quotes