Jump to content

Talk:Recusal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WP:NPOV

[edit]
  • I noticed prior to working on this page there was an individual "example" of one Judge that had been criticized for not recusing himself. This severely violates NPOV policy as it singles out one person whereas pretty much all well-known judges could have the same thing said about them. I can think of three cases off hand where Ginsburg has been criticized alone. Any such complaint should be included in that person's biography, not the article defining recusal. If I note this single criticism is added again (since it has been re-posted after being removed) I will protect this page and ask the problem-maker be prevented from using Wiki. No offense. Ikeinthemed

— Preceding undated comment added 00:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Generic examples

[edit]

Could we have some generic/hypothetical examples of some common reasons for "might otherwise not be impartial"? I'm thinking of a statement like, "A judge might recuse himself or herself from a case involving firearms charges if the judge financially supports either pro-gun or anti-gun lobbying groups" or "A judge whose home had recently been burglarized might not want to try cases involving home invasion" or something like that. This way it's not at all personal, but provides some information about the most common justifications for recusals. What do you think? 66.124.70.108 18:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "recusal" in other countries and other cases

[edit]

It seems like this word is not quite as uncommon as first thought. I came upon the word for the first fort time in an Israeli newspaper article[1]. So it seems that at least one person at Haaretz knows the word. I think the wiki-definition should be made more general. 80.178.56.246 10:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)(talk • contribs) 07:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is also used in Love and Other Impossible Pursuits, a 2006 novel by Ayelet Waldman on page 45. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.178.244.213 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/923736.html

Revision

[edit]

I have extensively rewritten the first part of the article in more detail. After doing so, I have seen user:Ikeinthemed's comments objecting to mention of any individual Justice in this discussion. I have carefully considered his comment, but believe that the concrete examples are important in illustrating what can be considered grounds for recusal. The article remains NPOV because it does not opine on whether the Justices in question acted correctly or incorrectly in recusing or declining to recuse, and I have selected examples involving both liberal and conservative Justices and from a variety of time periods. I will be glad to discuss any objections to this content on this talk page, which I will watchlist; however, I do not believe that including the examples makes me a "problem-maker [who should] be prevented from using Wikipedia" as suggested above.

A major objection to this article as it currently stands is that it is far too U.S.-centric. The article would benefit greatly from adding discussion of recusal standards and practices in other countries. Newyorkbrad 23:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One minor point: the lead sentence should probably indicate that, at least in the US, it is a reflexive action. I.e. "In legal terminology, recusal refers to a judge or magistrate removing himself from presiding over a case where that case might carry a conflict of personal interest." (I think it's also part of the legislative language, btw, when members of Congress in the US are expected to not vote or draft legislation that would provide a personal benefit, but, of course, this is one of those, "Gee, you ought to be nice, but, if you're not, we won't tell anyone" situations. I.e. "recusal" is an action that can be part of ethics investigations.) Geogre 17:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The word "recuse" is often reflexive, but not always; one occasionally sees "the Court of Appeals directed the recusal of District Judge X," which is more idiomatic than "the Court of Appeals recused District Judge X." "Disqualified" is sometimes used as well, though that refers more often to the lawyers in a case rather than the judge. See also, as brought up by a quick search, here. Newyorkbrad 17:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree recusal and disqualification are synonymous (although they are ridiculously similar). Recusal is what a Judge does or should do if there is something that makes him or her not neutral (what an obtuse sentence; sigh). Disqualification occurs when a judge is not nuetral, but may not be the act of the judge that should recuse him/herself. For example, if there is something that disqualifies a judge but the judge refuses to recuse him/herself the appellate court can be petitioned via an interlocutory appeal to force a new trial judge. Additionally, in cases where there is no overtly disqualifying factor a Judge may voluntarily recuse him/herself. I'd recommend two similar articles that link to each other in the "See Also" section, but removing the reference at the beginning of this article that recusal and disqualification are identical. Maybe a comment on how the two are very similar however? I'll await your response before I make the respective changes Brad. [[Ikeinthemed]]
I think the distinctions in usage between the two terms differ from one jurisdiction to another. An expanded note at the beginning of the article developing the distinction could be appropriate. I don't think two completely separate articles are needed, though, because the distinction at this point is more theoretical than real for reasons discussed here (see section 1.1). Two separate articles therefore would have a lot of overlap. So my vote is to have one article, with a redirect here from "disqualification," and develop the distinction here. I will write more about this whole subject if desired, but probably not until this weekend. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

This article has traditionally resided at recusal, but I see that it was recently moved to Judicial Disqualification. I think recusal is the more common term, but rather than move it back I thought we should have some discussion here about which name is preferable. Newyorkbrad 14:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recusal

[edit]

As of 2015, the title "Recusal" points to Judicial disqualification here. The term is used more widely than in strictly judicial contexts, and needs to be covered under the title "Recusal". In other words, there are uses of the term "Recusal" that are not synonymous with "Judicial disqualification". I suggest moving the article back to "Recusal", or otherwise untangling the usages. Reify-tech (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

[edit]

In state of Texas would a judge presiding over custody dispute be a conflict of interest if the an the lawyer use to practice in the same office presisded over the mother lost custody WITH no good reason an rarely happens children need their mothers the court date was put off to make sure he resisded over case the mother was not neglecting children no abuse no drug or alcohol use no good reason at all yet he resisded over both of her cases 3 girls by one father an twins by another he took her kids ive seen kids left in bad situations due to most feel young children need their mom she is a GOOD mom i dont understand he gave no reason of his decision Katnnat420 (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judicial disqualification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specificity of financial interest

[edit]

I do not know if it is a matter in law, but I would not imagine that just any financial interest in the outcome of a case would be relevant to a judge's impartiality. The case of, say, a case involving the validity of a tax applied to all persons, including the judge, would not seem to be cause for recusal.01:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.158.100 (talk)

[edit]

It seems that familial or financial links to one or other party would be grounds for recusal for an American judge, but not membership of a relevant religious or racial minority. What about a case involving a narrower group, such as a fellow Freemason or Bonesman? Is having been appointed to the bench in question by one of the parties in a civil or criminal case ever seen as a disqualification? I am thinking of a hypothetical case where a president packs the courts with his supporters and then comes before one of them either during or after his tem of office. NRPanikker (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

"Decision of Judge Ware denying motion for recusal in Perry v. Schwarzenegger" shows as code 404 (Not Found). I searched for it on the corresponding website, but found only peripheral, irrelevant, documents. As such, this link should be removed or replaced by someone qualified to find the correct or adequate reference. Skaizun (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History of recusal?

[edit]

There really needs to be bit of history here! Recusal is not a new idea at all. I have one data point to add for such a history:

Sanhedrin 7b:19 through 8a:1 includes the story of Rav (3rd century) who was approached by a man to judge a case. The man had previously hosted Rav as a guest in his house, and for this reason, Rav recused himself from the case and asked his student, Rav Kahana II to take his place. Kahana was hard on the plaintiff for having sought out his former house guest to judge the case.

This is the basis of Maimonides' ruling in (12th century) that "a judge may not adjudicate the case of a friend. This applies even if the person is not a member of his wedding party or one of his more intimate companions. Similarly, he may not adjudicate the case of one he hates. This applies even if the person is not his enemy and one whose misfortune he seeks. Instead, the two litigants must be looked upon equally in the eyes and in the hearts of the judges. If the judge does not know either of them and is not familiar with their deeds, this is the fairest judgment that could be." (The Sefaria web page linked above links to this quote from the Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within Their Jurisdiction, 23:6.)

The above is only a start! There must be more on this subject from the law codes of the past 2000 years. Does Roman law have anything to say? Douglas W. Jones (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just found an interesting work, The History of Judicial Disqualification in America, by Richard E. Flamm, ABA Judges' Journal, Summer 2013.[1] This also cites Maimonides, and it quotes Tractate Shabbat 10a:5, which does not really touch on recusal. However, the text goes on to discuss Roman law regarding recusal and how this influenced recusal in civil-law countries before looking at the history of recusal in English Common Law. Douglas W. Jones (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Move to 'Recusal'

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial disqualification → Recusal – Most common term for this concept, most accurate term for this concept since the article and the idea is not limited to justices, and 4/4 editors on talk page so far agree Superb Owl (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). --Ahecht (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator. Killuminator (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the reasons I support moving it.
For discussion of the requested move, see: Wikipedia:RMTR
1) Most common term for this concept (used 61 times in this article vs. disqualification used only 17 times)
2) most accurate term for this concept since the article and the idea is not limited to justices (see Judicial_disqualification#Administrative_agency_and_other_matters)
3) all discussion of the move has been supportive, including by: user:Reify-tech, User:Newyorkbrad, and User:Black Kite. The move was performed by User:Belicia without any other support.Superb Owl (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For closer's convenience, the objection at RMT read as follows: Object to speedy move I think this should have a discussion, since recusal is not restricted to this judicial sense. If it moves to recusal, the article would need a rewrite to make it more generalized. -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 05:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – This would dramatically expand the scope of the article. Is the intention to be inclusive of, e.g., recusal by members of corporate boards due to conflicts of interest? Graham (talk) 06:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - it seems like judicial recusal would still be the largest section, but recusal of all kinds seems notable enough to include and the similarities in why/how recusal operates across different decision-makers probably fits naturally on the same article Superb Owl (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good question and may be in the short term that the page be renamed to "judicial recusal" until someone wants to write an article about recusal in the case of other conflicts of interest outside of the court system. Jorahm (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a resonable course of action.
    Will post a draft here when it's ready Superb Owl (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: While there is no opposition, a clear consensus is needed before the scope can be expanded in this manner BilledMammal (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Superb Owl: Notify requestor to make the necessary changes. BilledMammal (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Recusal&oldid=1233574359"