I'm reading "Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Harvard ties raise recusal questions in Supreme Court’s affirmative action case" (WaPo):
In the case before the Supreme Court, it is unclear whether Jackson’s participation would be a deciding factor in the outcome. The slim majority that in 2016 upheld the limited use of race in school admissions has been replaced by a more conservative bloc of six, including three nominees of President Donald Trump. The Trump administration supported those challenging Harvard’s policies as unconstitutional. The Biden administration urged the court not to accept the case.
पोस्ट्स
३४ टिप्पण्या:
I will be shocked if she refuses herself given the importance of affirmative action to the left. But, no doubt, she will explain her failure to follow judicial ethics guidelines graciously and with a smile on her face. A model of judicial decorum.
Is the implication supposed to be that her vote might be different than Breyer’s would have been?
I'm coming to this late. Is it that she was an AA admission at Harvard?
Yeah, why would a direct beneficiary of affirmative action ever think of recusing herself from an AA case?
I mean, to even ask the question is just so, just so RAAAAACIST!
She should recuse herself, just like Marshall should have recused himself with Marbury.
I think this case should not have been taken by the Supremes. Because the 25 years has not elapsed since Sandra Day O'Connor said that admissions still needed to be based on race: but only a little bit.
Put the racist cake back in to bake some more. Maybe in 2030, when we've gone to zero carbon and stuff, it will be time.
The Harvard Board of Overseers that Ketanji Brown Jackson is on functions as an advisory committee. If she resigns from that committee, that puts her in at least as good a position to not recuse as Elena Kagan, who is former dean of Harvard Law School. If not, then what about John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch, who are members of the Harvard Alumni Association. If they should recuse, is it any more fair for Harvard to be judged by graduates of its arch-rival Yale? That would leave a single Justice, Amy Coney Barrett, to decide the case. But we know that people without Ivy degrees are irrationally envious of the Ivies, so that leaves no one who can fairly judge Harvard.
Absent evidence to the contrary, I think we need to assume that she was an affirmative action admission both undergrad and grad. We know she is an AA nominee, he nominator said so even before she was selected.
Her husband is 6 generation Harvard grad. I'd have to go back and look but he and/or she or maybe both sit on the board of governors of Harvard.
I don't see how she can do anything but recuse herself. I won't be surprised if she does not.
John LBGTQBNY Henry
It's certainly clear Harvard won't be recusing itself from a case involving Harvard. The focus specifically on Jackson is yet more posturing before the deal is done.
AA all the way! Isn't that a Harvard chant ?
Brown currently on the Harvard Board of Overseers, the senior governing board of Harvard. As such, she had a direct role in the approval and implementation of the policy at issue and should recuse herself.
Her having gone to Harvard in the '90's should not, standing alone, be sufficient for a recusal. If she was accepted or admitted based on affirmative action, again, I don't think that would warrant a recusal, as the policies at issue in the late '80's and early '90's are not (as I understand it) the same ones presently at issue. Plus, if being an AA beneficiary were sufficient for a recusal, Thomas would also have to recuse himself, and the Court hearing an AA case with both its African American judges taking a pass would look horrible.
John Grisham wrote Pelican Brief
wish he had written Harvard Brief about capturing USSC
Hard to believe that the Board of Overseers didn't ask one of its black members to consult on the affirmative action issue.
More importantly Jackson is an Affirmative Action hire and should recuse herself from all cases involving Affirmative Action.
Maybe she will surprise people and vote against race-based admission policies.
If you are a member of the elite (SCOTUS Justice qualifies) and vote democrat, you can do whatever the fuck you want.
There are no rules whatsoever.
You can hang with Epstein on Pedo Island.
You can use your son as a bag man to extort money from hostile foreign governments.
You can try to overthrow a duly elected president using the IC of the US.
You can fuck a Chinese spy and remain on a congressional intelligence committee.
You are untouchable.
You are a god...
I don’t want her to recuse a case that offers the new justice an opportunity to stand up for the reasons that got her a seat with the Supremes to begin with. I want to hear what she got to say for AA.
You don't think she'll slam that AA door shut behind her?
Amy Coney Barrett has the most personally to gain or lose from changing the rules for college admission decisions, as she has seven children.
John henry said...
I'd have to go back and look but he and/or she or maybe both sit on the board of governors of Harvard.
Looks like SHE is on the board, but i don't see him (i didn't look, That hard)
Board of Overseers
Has the Harvard Board of Overseers overseen any part of this AA claim — anything from devising the overall acceptance criteria to participation in the reaction to the lawsuit? If so, then I think she should recuse.
Simply being an AA student (possibly) is not enough to force recusal in my view. The lawsuit involves systematic discrimination against Asian students, which is another minority vis a vis the US population….The law is pretty clear about discrimination here, and I would think a black woman would be predisposed to side with the plaintiffs. This will be interesting.
I could see the following "Expectation" of members of the Board coming up during hearings. Not to mention during SC deliberations.
"Maintaining the strict confidentiality of meetings and discussions of the Board and its committees, as well as non-public materials and information made available in the course of one’s Board service, in order to assure a climate for internal deliberation that is both open and secure, in accordance with the University’s Policy on Conflicts of Interest and Confidentiality for the Governing Boards."
The first rule of the Board of Overseers is...
Harvard University Board of Overseers
Expectations of Service
each Overseer is expected to advance the interests of the University..
Overseers occupy a visible role in the Harvard community and beyond, including
• Advancing the University’s efforts to secure the human, academic, physical, and
financial resources needed to achieve its mission..
• Avoiding conflicts of interest or the appearance of such conflicts..
The Washington Post story mentions that Justice Thomas recused himself from a case challenging VMI’s admission procedures because his son was then a student at VMI. It mentions a few paragraphs later that Jackson’s child is currently a student at Harvard. The Post doesn’t draw the obvious conclusion, but it seems to me if you add to that fact the fact that she has served on the Harvard Board of Overseers for the past six years, during which time this case and Harvard’s admission policies have been important issues for Harvard, recusal is a slam dunk.
The lawsuit involves systematic discrimination against Asian students, which is another minority vis a vis the US population….
The lawsuit actually poses two questions to the Supreme Court - the more narrow is whether Harvard's anti-Asian policies should be overturned within the governing framework of AA, the broader is whether the governing framework of AA should itself be overturned.
Maybe she will surprise people and vote against race-based admission policies.
=========
what if she testifies to that effect during nomination theater?
win or lose move?
What's the purpose of recusal? I can see several. The most obvious is a judge with a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case though that would probably be modified based on the figurative distance between the judge and the money. No judge with holdings in a company should judge cases related to it but how about a case that might affect the value of a stock held by a mutual fund investment, or might impact a broad range of companies but not necessarily a specific investment? Do we expect recusal if the judge might be influenced by information not be presented in court? I don't know that I've ever heard of a judge sequestering himself, and it seems that judges in cases tried without a jury often bring in experts to discuss rulings (I'm not a lawyer so that might be a misunderstanding on my part). How direct does the impact of a ruling have to be before we expect a judge to recuse themselves? Jackson's child is already at Harvard but ACB's children are much younger, though at least two are non-white and adopted.
I don't think Jackson should recuse. At the SC level, there's just no way to enforce a strict 'disinterested party' standard beyond the most obvious.
Left Bank of the Charles,
Amy Coney Barrett has the most personally to gain or lose from changing the rules for college admission decisions, as she has seven children.
Including one with Down Syndrome, who is not super-likely to apply for Harvard. And another who is presumably already in college. Are you saying that Barrett ought to recuse herself because she has kids? Or are you just miffed b/c, Catholic family?
tommyesq,
Overturning AA wrt Asian-Americans would mean no invidious discrimination against them, right? Leaving white Americans as the only race it's legal to discriminate against. Oh, you can throw in Christians, too; unless they're Black (whole separate category), they're distressing to admissions administrators. Latinos included -- they're overwhelmingly Catholic, and those that aren't are Pentecostal, which might be even worse.
Affirmative discrimination: Diversity [dogma], Inequity, and Exclusion.
1: I note that no one thinks that KJB will vote against racism in education. Because obviously no Democrat President would ever appoint anyone to SCOTUS who isn't a mind-numbed robot for the Left
2: If she gets confirmed, and then recuses, it will make absolutely no difference in the case
Because a 4-4 tie leaves the ruling by the lower Appeals Court in place, and they voted the left wing way
3: If a judge votes on a case at teh Appeals Court level, then that judge is expected to recuse from any decisions about the case at SCOTUS
This happened with Kavanaugh, and I believe with Gorsuch
As KJB's position at Harvard meant she's already interacted with the case, only a complete and utter lack of judicial ethics could let her participate in anything to do with the case at SCOTUS
So I expect GOP Senators to ask her if she will recuse, and to block her if she won't
Left Bank of the Charles
Amy Coney Barrett has the most personally to gain or lose from changing the rules for college admission decisions, as she has seven children.
Nope. Because the negative effects on individual "whites" are far smaller than the effects on "blacks"
IIRC, KJB has one kid getting ready to apply for college, and another who will be applying for grad school
She's go far more invested than ACB
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा