You are misreading my post and the statute.

Section (a) of the statute states:

Your analysis is something like: "Larry Tribe is widely acknowledged as a reasonable person on these sorts of questions. He believes that Thomas's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Therefore, Justice Thomas must recuse himself."

But that isn't how objective, "reasonable person" tests are applied in the real world. Tribe's opinion might tell us something about what the right answer is. But the mere fact that Tribe has that opinion isn't a dispositive answer to the test. That's why I noted that reasonable lawyers can disagree about whether an objective, reasonable person standard is satisfied.

Section (b)(5)(iii) of the statute states:

This piece of the statute isn't a reasonable person test at all. This section turns on what Thomas knows, and in this particular circumstance, his knowledge and his subjective belief are close to the same thing.

In any case, you should keep in mind that I am not shilling for Thomas. I told you that I likely would have recused myself if I were Thomas.

I'm not going down this rabbit hole again. No one is asking you to accept my opinion on questions of U.S. law simply because I am lawyer. That said, my belief that I have a better overall understanding of U.S. law than you do is not a logical fallacy. My belief that my legal training and my real world experience are part of the explanation for why I understand U.S. law better than you do is not a logical fallacy.

This is where our disagreement lies.

Again you seem to be saying (at least as I read it) that as long as there is dispute with regards to the 'reasonableness' then the judge does not have to recuse.

Person A thinks he sees clear bias and thus the Justice should recuse.

Person B thinks that is no bias and the Justice is fine to saty.

And as long as the Justice agrees with Person then they should stay.


If that is your view and it is correct then that is a terrible statute and near useless one too as short of each and every recusal dispute being litigated first to get a dispositive answer the statute has almost no meaning to the person being judged by a Justice who has deemed HIMSELF to have no conflict.


I maintain the intent of the Statute has NOTHING to do with that ultimate resolution of the question 'is it correct or not that the person has a conflict'?

That simply does not matter and what was intended by the Statute was that the judge recuse regardless if indeed reasonable people on the other side could see a conflict.

So even if Rococo or Thomas did not agree there was a conflict and thought Tribe, et al, were wrong, they would still say 'but Tribes arguments are reasonable even if i think they are wrong and he is a reasonable person even if I think he has come to the wrong conclusion and thus I will recuse'.

You seem to be saying no to that.


I believe the intent of 'recusal at even the perception of bias' was ALWAYS intended to make the accused or the one sitting under the judgment of a Justice NOT feel like they were being judged by someone with a bias against them. And they careful worded it to 'perception' as opposed to 'proof' of bias for that specific reason.

They did not want people being tried to feel the system was stacked against them.

YOu are flipping that and saying what ultimately matters is the Justices perception of bias and as long as he says 'I am all good with it', that is what matters. I maintain the opposite is true.

Are you unaware of the Barrett decision I cited up thread?

She is the one who sits over the 7th Circuit for emergency appeals and deemed in her sole discretion that the SC would not hear the case, it would not be stayed and the 7th Court ruling would thus stand.


That is done often by Justices and Roberts who sits over the DC circuit could have done that in this case.





jjjou, a lawyer, says I am factually wrong and Roberts has no power and their is no org chart that would show Roberts has that power to make that decision and he must involve the entire SC as he has no say over them.


I say he is factual wrong. There is an exact org chart I could point and at the top of each District court the org chart shows a singular SC Justice who has first say to any emergency appeals and whether they will be granted or not.

Do you agree with my factual interpretation or jjjou's?

I never said anything remotely close to this.

I never suggested anything to the contrary.

I never said this either.

Everyone is confused because you said earlier that Thomas sits over emergency appeals from the DC Circuit. Now you are saying that Roberts sits over emergency appeals from the DC Circuit (which is correct).

In any case, I still don't understand why the fact that Roberts hears emergency appeals from the DC Circuit has any relevance here. This was not an appeal from the DC Circuit. It was an appeal from the 11th Circuit. Thomas hears emergency appeals from the 11th Circuit, just as Barrett hears appeals from the 7th Circuit.

Alright well clearly you are not really interested in chat and just interested in saying things understood or not that are not questionsed.

When I say this " at least as I read it" as i did quite deliberately it is both an acknowledgement that i am only giving you my take and also inviting you to correct it.

Instead you come back with just 'I never said any of that' and no attempt to help me understand then what you said and what I am getting wrong.

Without further info points by you, I have nothing from you to change my view so if in the future you see me repeating my view please do not complain as everyone, including you will form assumptions about what another is saying and then query to see if they are getting it right and a simply 'no' with no elaboration does not nothing to help clear what the misunderstanding is.

How am I supposed to elaborate on the fact that I never said something? I said what I said, not what you wrote. Everyone can read the posts.

the above is neither true nor accurate.


Here is SPECIFICALLY the engagement with jjjou that is being referenced.



Now I have not looked up to see if mistakenly jumping between the conversation with you about Thomas and recusal and this dispute with jjjou if in a subsequant post I did not accidentally use the others name but it is clear that would just be a mistake and THIS IS ABOUT ROBERTS and jjjou position that i am a moron for thinking there is an org chart that puts Roberts over the DC Court.

I would bet that are actual org charts in government showing Roberts as the top tier above the DC district court.

Do you disagree?

Sorry to say but i cannot even take that a serious question. I think you are in full on trolling, derail mode and not sure if iit is due to our exchange specifically or because you want to check out and not answer my question about jjjou and that will be the excuse you use.

But if you are seriously in asking me how you can answer you never said, I would invite you to watch any law show where lawyers pose questions based on their assumptions and the person is not only invited to reply, to agree, to disagree or to clarify, but often ORDERED to do as a hostile witness if they will not.

You are pushing an idea that 'only things said specifically are instructive' as opposed to the inferences and conclusions drawn and then questioned as the issue is teased out.

You are basically asking me 'how can you elaborate on a question I might ask you like this...'

QP - Rococo based on your long elaboration in that post, I am drawing the following takeaways about your view. A, B, and C. Can you elaborate that and whether or not i am right or wrong in how I am hearing you.

Rococo - I can give no answer to that as that is not what i said


Bullshit, you can absolutely elaborate and address what then you see as wrong with clarification.

And for the record this is how the SC website addressed this, which no one should deny constitutes an org chart.
And that is the specific break out of what sits above this.

it would be a box above the US. Courts of Appeal and the Full Supreme Court, where for these requests for emergency stays take place and they ONLY proceed up to the Full court if the SINGULAR Justice hearing it deems it should. That Justice can reject it as ACB did and happens more often than not.

Why are we talking about the DC Circuit? This was a decision from the 11th Circuit. The "singular justice" that you refer to above for emergency appeals from the 11th Circuit is Thomas, not Roberts.

That's why I am confused.

Sorry. I'm not playing the game where you attribute positions to me that I never espoused and then put the burden on me to explain why you are wrong. My earlier posts were clear. Repeating them would accomplish nothing.

You are very confused.

I had changed gears and asked you SPECIFICALLY about the Roberts ruling in regards to Trump taxes going to Way and Means committee and the Trump team filing for a full SC hearing and the DC Circuit court refused to hear it or grant a stay but then Roberrs, who sits over that court, decided to grant the stay.

It was all clearly stated and then quoted for you but for some reason you keep going back to the other issue we were discussing with Thomas.

Just to be clear, since i quoted it already for clarity and yet you did not see it, see the bolded words above.

And below you will see jjjou saying basically Roberts is not the boss, or the one who will decide if this gets a stay now, or goes to the full court or is dismissed without doing so, and he also says their is no org court that would show Roberts having any such power over the DC and only the full Supreme does.


Do you think the below is an instance of jjjou being a lawyer and thus I should just cede that he is correct in this matter of law? Or does this help show why such blanket type assertions, instead of arguing issues and making the case is dumb as lawyers can and do get things wrong. Jjjou, more than most.

Fair enough. Don't ever ask me for clarifications then either. If you do not understand what i meant just re-read it.

The very fact I tried to read it back to you based on my comprehension shows good faith. Something you obviously had no interest in returning which is your right.

Sounds good. Anything that reduces our back and forth on questions related to the law is a life win for me.

OK. I assumed (apparently correctly) that I was missing something.

Not just law. Take that as in general as you often ask me to clarify what I am saying and i will say the original post is the clarification.

You can be trite about it but that is just bad faith.

Great.

And understanding the point I made now was accurate and correct can you understand why simply conceding to someone like jjjou simply because he is a lawyer would be foolish.

It is NEVER about 'oh you keep making arguments that disagree with lawyers... therefore bad' and should always be about what arguments are the lawyers making in contrast to the ones I am and who is correct. And yes everytime the admonishment comes up that 'i am disagreeing with the lawyers' that is exactly what that statement means.

Take jjjou's arguments they either hold up or they do not regardless of him being a lawyer and him not knowing Roberts absolutely does sit at the top of the org chart for the DC circuit is just wrong, even though he is lawyer.

So just take the 'offense re arguing with lawyers out' and make your case, or not. Stop trying to 'win' arguments you otherwise are not, law or not, by pulling out bonafides.

And those statements are more to the three of you, and moreso the other two who are worse at it than you.

Lastly I suggest you be careful who you group yourself in under the 'lawyers' blanket. Because if you get bolstered when you think you are all right and agree, then you similarly share the shame when you are wrong and out matched on the facts. You cannot only use it conveniently.

Translation: You won't agree that my paraphrasing is an accurate version of something you said. Despite the fact that I am out of league in understanding a complex legal matter, I have a giant ego which does not allow me to admit that my opinions are not well founded. I will keep advancing and justifying my opinions on the future because you refuse to hold my hand and show me the multiple point I do not comprehend. You must be willing to do this for free and ad nauseam because I am so pig-headed. You have no right to complain about my stupidity and stubbornness in the future because you won't educate me today.

In other words, it's your fault, not mine, that I will continue to offer my flawed opinions in future posts.

Only you would present this image as difinitive proof that Chief Justice Roberts is the boss of the other justices on the Supreme Court.

I know it upsets you that I would placate you stupid iideas and conclusions like lawyers did in the business world but I am no being paid to kiss your dumb ass on a hourly basis. You seem to believe Roberts can control Thomas because he is higher up on the org chart as you would experience in the business world. This opinion of how the Supreme Court works is simply wrong. Proposing remedies based on this incorrect belief is stupid, but those are the hills you continually die on.

But keep arguing about the DC circuit. CP gonna CP. Carlin meme.

No worries. I rarely ask you to clarify.

I don't even know what you mean by this statement. You either are a lawyer or you are not a lawyer. I don't get to decide whether someone is in the "lawyer" group.

If you think that I am unwilling to disagree with lawyers, you are badly mistaken. I have disagreed with other lawyers on too many occasions to count. It's an occupational hazard.

I am not going to spend much time on your trolling and lies. You know you were wrong so you are trying to entirely change what was said.

I said Roberts had the power, as the Chief Justice sitting over the DC circuit what to do with emergency appeal. That is a fact and that is right.

You replied hysterically that Roberts has no such power and cannot act for the SC and there is no org chart that would allow.

That is it. That is all we disputed. And i was 100% correct. Roberts does sit over the DC court and does have the power ALONE to make the decision of what happens with that emergency case.

@Rococo, i hope you take note how you 'fellow lawyer' is so blatantly dishonest simply because he made a mistake and does not want to own it. Should this guy be held to some higher standard of 'how dare you dispute me when i am a lawyer' when no one should ever trust he is being honest?

I still don't understand the question. Is Cuepee arguing that Roberts had the authority to order Thomas to do anything? Cuepee's post to me implied that he had moved on entirely from Thomas, albeit in a way that seems to have confused both of us.