Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
I don't know how many ways to say this. I don't think you are wrong about basic principles of law because other lawyers like grizy and jjjou disagree with you. I think that your misunderstanding of the law is the reason why people like grizy often disagree with you. The first would be a logical fallacy. The second is not.
There is zero argumentative or debate value in the 'lol, once again QP is at odds with the lawyer and yet persists' statements made with regards to what you say so it does not really matter how many times you say that as that is not the case.
If you think i am getting wrong the basic principles of law, when I do not, and believe I am making arguments to demonstrate that 'lol, once again QP is at odds with the lawyers' ADDS NOTHING to the substantiation of your position or points. It is PURELY an appeal to your authority to suggest because you are lawyers and say it is so, thus 'lol at QP for not acquiescing'.
I also think you are making clear and obvious mistakes on the fundamentals of law in this regard in how you view where the burden or onus of the recusal logic lies. That your arguments on how 'others' including 'Thomas' could reasonably disagree with the a person like Tribe is in any way to be considered with regards to whether Thomas should recuse or not. YOu are just foundationally wrong on your position there. What 'others' or 'Thomas', think about Tribes position is really irrelevant. The test is 'is Tribes view one a reasonable person could hold' and if so, then he should recuse.
it is not about Thomas saying 'well I disagree and I have advocates who disagree so I will stay'.
the purpose is that when the WEIGHT of the State is brought against an individual, that the individual with the presumption of innocence does not have 'reasonable feeling' that he is facing a biased judge. It's INTENT is to be more deferential of HIS view point in that regard if he is reasonable. Thomas telling him 'I disagree and thus I am staying' because my reasonable test on myself is every bit as valid was NEVER the intent. Even if Thomas is right, the intent was that he recuse anyway which is why they said 'PERCEPTION' and not 'PROOF' of bias.