(03-30-2022 09:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-30-2022 09:26 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-30-2022 09:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-30-2022 09:12 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-30-2022 09:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My take is that it has nothing to do about here place, but rather her immediate and close connection to an incident that was immediately in front of the court, and for which her husband did not recuse himself.

Blue Team's ulterior motive.

Does that matter to the point at hand, though? Whether or not a legitimate conflict of interest exists?

But even to that point, it's not like the Court is a 5-4 split at the moment, so that ulterior motive, in this instance, doesn't really do much.

How's this - how about some actual evidence that a justice is taking direction from his or her spouse, instead of assuming that he or she is when such an assumption is politically convenient, and being unconcerned about who justices are married to when there's no political advantage?

See my comment above about the issue not being about anyone taking direction from their spouse, but whether she put herself into a position that is sufficiently close to serve as a conflict of interest on a case that is before the court.

Lots of people married to lots of people - impractical for all to recuse themselves or resign all the time, and generally they are not asked to do so, absent any actual proof of undue influence.