There were few if any black Africans in SA when the settlers arrived. They migrated there after the nation was built and European prosperity was available to black Africans within walking distance – since they didn’t have the sail or the wheel. Then, to keep from being over-run by blacks looking for jobs, the citizens of SA invented apartheid – but still provided free health care for the non-citizens.
Anyone interested in actual injustice should concern himself with Zimbabwe, Red China, Cuba, every Muslim country, etc.
The United States Supreme Court is the only court in the nation that does not satisfy a quorom with outside judges if necessary. Every other court appoints judges pre tem of needed. We need to change how the highest court does business to prevent occurances like this in the future.
I read an article on law.com a few weeks ago that argued for this and it made sense. As the lawyer that wrote the article pointed out in addition to being able to conduct business at all times appointing justices to the Supreme Court pro tem allows the nation to give potential Supreme Court justices a “trial run” (pun mine and intended).
Appointments would obviously be made following whatever rules the other courts follow. I don’t what what these rules are but they seem to work just fine.
If I remember correctly the article I read even discussed an equitable way to make the pro tem appointments. Too bad I can only read the free articles on law.com and can’t search their archives.
We also need to clarify the need for recusal based on stock ownership. An article on law.com today (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202421335045 – you’ll only be able to read it on 5/13 unless you are a member) has a few lines about this. They don’t posit much of a solution but at least somebody is thinking about it. I can’t agree with restricting a judge’s right to invest their money as they see fit just because they are a judge, but the amount of recusals over stock ownership is a little ridiculous. Maybe forcing them to own only mutual funds is the best way to go, I don’t know, but it needs to be looked into by some good ethics people.
A Supreme Court Justice’s fortune could be placed into a blind trust to prevent this from coming up. Then it would not be a problem requiring recusal. Otherwise, we would need a sort of a standing committee of qualified Republicans to make pro tem appointments. But I’m glad someone’s thinking about this.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
South Africa was better off under apartheid-regardless of your skin color.
And second “Apartheid” was legal in SA and internationally.
There were few if any black Africans in SA when the settlers arrived. They migrated there after the nation was built and European prosperity was available to black Africans within walking distance – since they didn’t have the sail or the wheel. Then, to keep from being over-run by blacks looking for jobs, the citizens of SA invented apartheid – but still provided free health care for the non-citizens.
Anyone interested in actual injustice should concern himself with Zimbabwe, Red China, Cuba, every Muslim country, etc.
The United States Supreme Court is the only court in the nation that does not satisfy a quorom with outside judges if necessary. Every other court appoints judges pre tem of needed. We need to change how the highest court does business to prevent occurances like this in the future.
I read an article on law.com a few weeks ago that argued for this and it made sense. As the lawyer that wrote the article pointed out in addition to being able to conduct business at all times appointing justices to the Supreme Court pro tem allows the nation to give potential Supreme Court justices a “trial run” (pun mine and intended).
That’s an excellent idea so long as only Republicans get to make the pro tem appointments.
Give it a rest Al, please.
Appointments would obviously be made following whatever rules the other courts follow. I don’t what what these rules are but they seem to work just fine.
If I remember correctly the article I read even discussed an equitable way to make the pro tem appointments. Too bad I can only read the free articles on law.com and can’t search their archives.
We also need to clarify the need for recusal based on stock ownership. An article on law.com today (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202421335045 – you’ll only be able to read it on 5/13 unless you are a member) has a few lines about this. They don’t posit much of a solution but at least somebody is thinking about it. I can’t agree with restricting a judge’s right to invest their money as they see fit just because they are a judge, but the amount of recusals over stock ownership is a little ridiculous. Maybe forcing them to own only mutual funds is the best way to go, I don’t know, but it needs to be looked into by some good ethics people.
A Supreme Court Justice’s fortune could be placed into a blind trust to prevent this from coming up. Then it would not be a problem requiring recusal. Otherwise, we would need a sort of a standing committee of qualified Republicans to make pro tem appointments. But I’m glad someone’s thinking about this.
I don’t think we are going to find qualified on either side of the aisle, Al.