There has been much talk about the decision of Judge Juan Merchan not to recuse himself from the Trump trial in Manhattan. I do believe that Merchan should have recused himself but I admit that this can be a difficult question. I wanted to address this question since it continues to be raised by the former president and others in the controversial trial.
Notably, many insisting that Merchan not recuse himself previously called for Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from any Trump-related cases due to his wife’s work for the GOP and Trump. Conversely, many who defended Thomas (including myself) are suggesting that recusal would have been warranted in this case.
To be honest, there is room for concern on both sides that bias may dictate our analysis. So let’s take a look at the comparison. In the end, I believe that it is reasonable to hold that neither Thomas nor Merchan were required to recuse. Merchan has credible arguments against mandatory recusal. However, I still believe that he should have recused himself to avoid the appearance of a conflict.
I have previously written about why Thomas was not required to recuse himself from any election matter. I view those arguments as meritless.
Then why is Merchan any different. Thomas has a political activist wife and Merchan has a political activist daughter. Loren Merchan is the president of Authentic Campaigns, a Chicago-based political consulting firm with clients including Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who was the lead prosecutor in Trump’s first impeachment trial, and the Senate Majority PAC, a large Democratic fundraiser.
It is also troubling that this was not a random selection. The chief administrative judge picked Merchan due to his supervision of other Trump-related cases.
New York law 100.3 e(1)d(iii) states “a judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where the judge knows that the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person known by the judge to be within the sixth degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person has an interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding.”
The argument of critics is that the daughter is obviously within “the sixth degree of relationship” and would be “substantially affected” by a conviction with her Democratic donors. The problem with this argument is that any child involved in political activisim could be accused of being substantially affected by a conviction with political implications. The question is the limiting principle. Frankly, in another Trump related case (like the one involving the Trump corporation) I would not view the personal donations or the daughter’s major political role to be as problematic. It is this unique case and this historic moment that tips the balance for me.
The reason for my view in favor of recusal is three-fold.
First, Merchan is the trial judge, not one of nine justices in an appellate review. While the recusal standard is the same for trial and appellate judges (though Supreme Court justices are not technically subject to those rules), the context for a trial judge is different. Merchan would make highly sensitive decisions in a trial where appeals are limited until after a possible conviction. He would then have to make immediate decisions on the admissibility of evidence or objections at trial.
Second, this is no ordinary trial as the first prosecution of a former American president. Recusal is a judgment call on not just actual conflicts but the appearance of a conflict. His daughter is a major Democratic operative and raised a large amount of money for people like Schiff who have targeted Trump. With many Americans viewing this case as politically motivated (as I do), Merchan seriously undermined the credibility of the process by refusing to step aside. The result was not just his family’s political interests being raised by critics, but a lead prosecutor who came directly from the Biden Justice Department and was once a paid DNC adviser.
Finally, with Trump, critics were calling for recusal in any Trump or election related case. This is a case that specifically seeks to put Trump in jail. There was a stronger case for recusal of Thomas in a case dealing with the compelled release of material that might have included his wife’s communications. The latter arguments were ridiculously overbroad in my view. This case seeks to jail Trump where the family connection is more concerning.
Ultimately, it comes down to judgment. “Not only must judges actually be neutral, they must appear so as well.” People v. Novak, 30 N.Y.3d 222, 226 (2017); 22 N.Y.C.R.R. §100.2 (“A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.”). While the New York bar has supported Merchan in his decision, it has stressed that such decisions are very contextual with a case-by-case analysis. New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion 673 (1995)(“Whether a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned is necessarily a question of fact in each case. Even if the judge believes that he or she can be impartial, the judge should recuse himself or herself if an objective, disinterested observer could reasonably question the judge’s impartiality.”). I believe that the balance and appearances in this case heavily militate in favor of recusal.
Judge Merchan, in my view, used poor judgment in refusing to step aside in the interests of both his court and justice. Again, while I consider this is a tough call in many respects, I believe that Merchan did not serve the interests of his court or public in failing to step aside. There are other judges who do not have such a strong family connection to the political campaign against Trump. The American people and the court deserved a judge who was free of this excess baggage.
Turley states: “this is no ordinary trial”
Based on these 5 words you can dismiss the rest of this utterly absurd piece of MAGA propaganda.
This is an ordinary trial, of an ordinary private citizen, in an ordinary court, with an ordinary jury.
No man is above the law. All men are created equal.
The problem is that MAGA apologist Turley clearly believes that some men are more equal than others.
You must be upset that Joe Biden got away with having illegal classified documents.
As did Hillary, who ignored a subpoena and smashed her devices to avoid jail time.
Likewise Hunter Biden, whose case was ‘slow walked’ by his father’s DOJ.
ETC.
Or Obama who while running for president said he was going to go after the people who ran the torture program, which goes against international law, but then when in office said ‘We’re not looking backwards, we’re moving forwards’ and they all just got away with it. Living in their mansions since then. Being hailed as ‘ the good guys’ when they’d speak out against Trump. If you’re not also against those people being ‘above the law’, are you their apologist?
There is no such thing as “international law” in the way you are using the term. The only laws binding on US citizens are US laws. There is no world government, or world legislature, so it is impossible for a person to violate it.
No man is above the law
But all men are above lawfare, the political corruption of the law, trumped-up ridiculous charges, newly-invented offenses, DA political campaigns based on “getting” a specific individual, political persecution, and election interference . . . which is precisely what all of this is.
Again, with this “lawfare” lingo. Both the GOP and Dems use the courts in exactly the same way. Lawfare is simply the justice system. This is why we have 12(b)(6) and sanctions.
You’re kidding yourself – or perhaps just disingenuous – if you think the justice system can’t be abused and weaponized for political ends, which is a corruption of the justice system. That’s what “lawfare” is, and Leftists are proud of it (they even coined the term for their nefarious dealings, so it’s not my “lingo”), just as they’re proud to corrupt virtually every revered institution in America so long as it serves their political ends. However, what goes around comes around, and like in other instances, the Left will soon find itself being targeted by the very same techniques.
Innocent until proven guilty? Not for a Republican and specifically a Trump Republican or anyone that upsets the Democratic machine in New York.
That is a very naïve take. High profile cases require special considerations to insure that the process seems fair. Like or not.
To be ‘ordinary’ as “the regular or customary condition or course of things” or ‘common’ this type of trial must be, as Merriam-Webster specifies, “occurring or appearing frequently”?
I am unfamiliar with other criminal trial cases
1) which were filed by a state attorney against a presidential candidate during campaign season,
2) where the defendant was placed under gag order against commenting on his prosecution,
3) where the statute of limitations was extended twice to allow charges to be filed,
4) where book-keeping entries were each charged as individual felonies and had been declared legal by a federal agency (FEC),
5) and the book-keeping entries occurred AFTER a uncharged underlying crime.
Please enumerate other similar cases to justify your designation as ‘ordinary’.
3. The statute was not extended even once, let alone twice.
4. The FEC did NOT declare the entries to be legal. Anyone claiming that the FEC exonerated Trump is outright lying their face off.
5. The fact that they occurred after the alleged “other crime” is irrelevant. The statute doesn’t say they would have to occur before it. In fact the “other crime” doesn’t even have to have occurred; the false records could have been created in contemplation of some other crime that ended up not happening.
You’d think since they say Trump is such a liar/criminal/etc.
they would want to keep things as legit as possible
to prove it’s not a political/partisan prosecution
instead of bending rules, making things up, tampering with evidence
and putting people in place (judges, etc.) who put their thumbs on the scale
but when they don’t, it’s more and more obvious it’s been rigged.
All the more reason why judges should be elected. It obliges them to be directly responsible to the constituency as opposed to a political party.
All this is past tense. Merchan has created his own evidence of his favoritism toward the Government. Every motion has been awarded to the Government.
In the face of the New York Appellate Court, Overturning the Harvey Weinstien Rape convictions Merchan, says ‘hold my beer”. The appellete court ruled the conviction overturned because the Judge allowed three witnesses that offered no testimony relevant to the indicted crimes. Merchan allowed the Access Hollywood event into evidence. It has nothing to do with how the accounting of lawyer fees was managed by Trumps licensed CPA.
We just went through more than two days of testimony from Stormy Daniels. She has no first hand experience with DJT and his accounting process.
That’s just two instances that Merchan has committed worse rulings than those that overturned Wienstien’s conviction of Rape.
Just minutes ago. Merchan has denied the Defense motion adding Mark Pomerantz to their witness list. He was the in the NY DA office that had done all the heavy lifting to charge Trump with this crime back in 2021, but Bragg refused.
So someone with knowledge of the case and surrounding law is being denied for the Trump defense.
Pertinent witnesses denied
Salacious witnesses
We are way past debating if Mercahn is a compromised Judge. The evidence continues to reveal itself every hour this trial is in session.
The Access Hollywood tape is quite relevant because of the timing—- right before the election— Hope Hicks testified that it hurt his reputation. That’s about the time Pecker learned about Daniels and contacted Cohen about an NDA. Another woman saying Trump took advantage of her right after the Access Hollywood tape might have killed his candidacy. In fact, there were a number of Republicans ready to dump him after the Access Hollywood tape. All of this goes to motivation for falsifying the business records to hide the payoff- to prevent voters from hearing the truth about Trump.
Let It Be Known: That from this day hence, NO judge or prosecutor shall have ANY known relatives, business associates or acquaintances that are judged to be “political activist”. No exceptions, no context and no regard for the positions or relationships involved.
As a side note, as of 5 minutes after this proclamation, there were massive numbers of job openings for qualified individuals in the DOJ, prosecutorial offices across the land the judiciary as a whole. Thus, the failure of ethics is established while the stupidity broad rules is manifest. Apparently, if one picks bad people without consideration of ethics, one creates a whole new set of problems.
So you can have a judge who gave money to the defendant’s political opponent while the prosecution has a lawyer who was recently in the defendant’s opponent’s DOJ?
Can you imagine having a judge sit on a case where the defendant is someone who the judge is on record saying he doesn’t like?
This is like having a referee for the Celtic’s game having his son playing for the Cav’s as they meet in the playoffs. It wouldn’t fly in the corrupt NBA and yet a man’s freedom is at stake and the corrupt judge doesn’t recuse himself or get pulled off the case by higher ups.
That’s ridiculous. It would violate the first amendment.
my name is jose jimenez they want to make me an astronaut. my name is juan marchant they want to make me a federal judge.
What has been an endless source of amusement for the past 33 years? Liberal tears over a conservative black man sitting on the Supreme Court. Memo to liberals: none of your wailing and gnashing of teeth will have the effect you want. It will only make Justice Thomas more conservative, as it already has.
Professor Turley,
First, it is incredibly misleading to describe Judge Merchan’s daughter as a “Democratic operative.” She is the president of a digital marketing company that has clients, which include Democratic political candidates. Marc Elias, she is not. You took this misleading characterization from the NYP. In the age of fake news, please check your original sources before you spread misleading facts. https://authentic.org/
Second, your article fails to explain why Merchan’s general connections to certain individuals in the Democratic party are more troubling than the direct connections between Justice Thomas’s wife and the cases, over which Justice Thomas presided (one of which you identified above). In New York, recusal is required “only where there exists a direct, personal, substantial or pecuniary interest in reaching a particular conclusion.” See People v. Alomar, 93 N.Y.2d 239, 246 (1999). Further, the moving party’s claims cannot be so “remote, speculative, possible or contingent,” that recusal would not be warranted. Kilmer v. Moseman, 124 A.D.3d 1195, 1198 (3rd Dep’t 2015)/
So, Professor, what is the direct, personal, substantial or pecuniary interest here, which exceeds the Kilmer materiality standard?
There is no direct interest. None of the parties in this case are clients of Authentic Campaigns.
There is no personal interest alleged.
There is no “substantial” interest alleged beyond the defense’s speculative pecuniary interest claim that Authentic Campaigns “stands to financially benefit from decisions this Court makes in this case.” (See Defendant’s Memorandum.)
There was no evidence provided that Authentic Campaigns would actually benefit from the court reaching a particular outcome in this case.
This is in stark contrast to Justice Thomas’s wife, who had direct connections to multiple cases before the Supreme Court. In addition to the example you noted above, we have text messages, showing her role in the alleged plot to overturn the presidential election of January 6, which is critical to Smith’s J6 case. This is a DIRECT connection. She wasn’t simply a political consultant in DC, unrelated to the parties in the case. This is completely apples and oranges.
How can you even compare these cases without offering a shred of evidence tying Authentic Campaigns to the parties in the hush money case?
Word!
+1000
There is no direct interest.
But that’s not the standard is it. You know it is not the standard. Prof Turley noted the Standard that applied.
Even your questions are lies?
I literally went through the standard in People v. Alomar plus the materiality of Kilmer. It must be direct, personal, substantial or pecuniary, and it cannot be speculative.
https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/1999/93-n-y-2d-239-0.html
https://casetext.com/case/kilmer-v-moseman-2
This is the standard, as applied by case law in New York. Professor Turley failed to cite a single case to support his argument.
Where is the lie?
When the New York Court of Appeals stated in the Novak case that “[a] judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities…,”
‘Shall avoid . . . Appearance of ‘
See below. Yes, he mentions Novak, but he doesn’t explain why it relates. This would warrant a failing grade in any legal writing course at GW.
Shall, means MUST
Appearance of conflict is clear and obvious.
But Merchan actions has proven, he only wants the conviction at any cost. He has made 5-8 correctable errors, that guarantee, a guilty verdict will be overturned.
We are still lacking the Felony to charge the accounting charge.
How is “appearance of conflict” clear and obvious. This is a legal conclusion, which requires applying the OBJECTIVE standard against previous cases. You cannot just declare the existence of an “obvious” appearance of impropriety to be based on your subjective feelings. Can you point to a previous New York case, which closely resembles the alleged impropriety here?
Objectively, Mechan has allowed testimony that violates the NY Rules of evidence. At least Twice.
The exact same standard the Appeal court used to overturn a rape conviction.
Even if that were true, that is irrelevant to whether his daughter’s job creates the appearance of a conflict.
As a slight correction, Professor Turley did cite a case, but he failed to explain how it relates here.
People v. Novak, 30 N.Y.3d 222, 226 (2017), is a case, which finds an appearance of impropriety, where the same judge presided over the trial court and the appellate court. This was a “facial” appearance of impropriety that “conflicted impermissibly with the notion of fundamental fairness.” Novak, citing ALOMAR (which is the case I cited above for the standard). The Alomar court did NOT find the appearance of impropriety, in a case, where a judge, who presided over a criminal conviction also presided over a reconstruction hearing related to lost voir dire minutes for the same defendant. The Alomar Court describes the “notion of fundamental fairness” as falling short here, despite the DIRECT connection between the two proceedings.
No such connection is alleged here, which remotely rises to the level of the one adjudicated by the Alomar Court.
Professor Turley either did not read the cases cited by Novak to understand the meaning of the quote provided above, or perhaps worse, he read Alomar but failed to acknowledge that it substantially discredits his above argument.
“Professor Turley, First, it is incredibly misleading to describe Judge Merchan’s daughter …”
The above comment would have been acceptable stupidity for leftist commentators on the blog earlier, but Merchan has been seen in action.
He has not conducted an appropriate trial and should be removed from the bench. Anonymous can substitute Merchan with any one of the porn movies easily accessible to him.
Merchan violated First Amendment Rights with a gag order. His stated purpose was borderline at best, but it didn’t protect the defendant, who is treated as innocent until proven guilty. In this case, Trump is a victim of lawfare. Moreover, Stormy (Anonymous, buy one of her videos so you can relieve yourself of your stupidity) is no longer a witness, so the ban on a Trump statement no longer applies.
There are more reasons, but it is obvious to the uneducated eye that this judge is political, not judicial, so nothing further needs to be said.
Under what law has his conduct of the trial been inappropriate to such an extent that “removal from the bench” as opposed to another corrective action would be more appropriate? Do you have a citation?
What has been so problematic that it could not be reserved for appeal?
Your post reads as a collection of disjointed political grievances rather than a response to the above legal argument. I am failing to understand why anything you note below relates to my comment above regarding the legal grounds for recusal.
“Under what law has his conduct of the trial been inappropriate “
You demonstrate a lack of critical thinking. There are no specific laws governing all aspects of judicial proceedings. Inappropriateness is handled differently: by removal from the bench (Merchan should be removed) and by a higher court reversing the decision.
The left used to have concerns about the legitimacy of court proceedings, but we now recognize such concerns were political. The left is not interested in the law.
Trump will be found innocent since nothing in this case demonstrates intentional guilt of any crime. Some might find his bookkeeping errant, but his classification of the expenditure in question is similar to the vast majority of entries by all others. Instead of looking for the law Merchan broke, you should try to provide the essence of the crime you think Trump committed. Every criminal point Bragg made was shown to be errant.
“What has been so problematic that it could not be reserved for appeal?”
Again, stupidity is the driving force of your comments. Unknown to you is your inability to recognize lawfare. If Trump was not a candidate, there would be no trial. This was contrived and proven so by the many times the case was found to be without merit. Today, the case is based on a mishmash of laws where the basic claim is federal, not state. Such information is too much of a load for your unused brain to carry.
“There are no specific laws governing all aspects of judicial proceedings. Inappropriateness is handled differently: by removal from the bench (Merchan should be removed) and by a higher court reversing the decision”
THIS IS NOT HOW THE LAW WORKS. Sorry. Can you provide any statute or case to back up this ridiculous claim?
You are lost.
Quality and ability to perform are the issue. It is not law. When a physician practices surgery without satisfactory ability, he is removed by a board, just like a judge can be removed if the board does its job.
When politics and lawfare are involved with fascist individuals in control, we can lose the judicial processes that are in place. Rights were lost in the South when Democrats had the political power to control the courts and the laws. For many years, black persons were discriminated against and unfairly treated in the courts. What you are prescribing now is not different from what happened in the South. You do not believe in the rule of law, and it is doubtful that your empty head can understand what the rule of law means.
Again, no citation to a standard for removing a judge from the bench mid-case. Do you intend to continue down this path?
The path taken is yours. It is a stupid path which is created by a mind as dense as concrete. The discussion that you avoid is clearly written above.
Right to the important points—asual! Good read
The Professor nails it squarely upon the head…..the mere appearance as seen by an objective viewer….is the standard cited by the New York Law and State Bar Association.
The Judge should have recused himself as a village idiot can see the appearance of conflict of interest with his Daughter’s activities that plainly are profiting from the case.
That in normal times and with another Defendant might not be as important in his making the decision to recuse himself.
The key issue is it is not the Judge himself that stands to profit extraordinarily from the case….and as is being seen is probably going to wind up “losing” in the end rather than his daughter. Just as in the Justice Thomas situation….it was the Wife’s activities that were the cause for calls to recuse himself and not the Justice himself.
Recusal is a tough issue for sure but it takes principled Judges and Justices for there to be decisions to be fair and reasonable.
Just because there are calls for them to recuse themselves does not mean they should just because there are those demands by the public.
What matters is their decisions should be based upon the existing law, rules, and practices of their Courts.
In the New York case the Judge has very specific guidelines to comply with but in the case of the US Supreme Court the situation is not as restrictive.
One thing for sure and without any doubt…..Judge Merchan is the wrong Judge to be sitting on this Case as his failure to fairly preside and the glaringly improper and in all probability unconstitutional decisions and orders will lead to his being overturned by the New York State Supreme Court (assuming it does its duty in a principled way).
At this point…after years of investigations, grand juries, and almost a month of Court proceedings….we still do not know what underlying crime DA Bragg is accusing Trump of doing that justifies the prosecution. He used a Porn Star to slime the Defendant and the Judge opined afterwards that the Defense should have objected more….ignoring the fact it is his duty to ensure only relevant testimony is allowed before the Jury…..yet he did not do that. Then we get to see Michael Cohen take another Oath to tell the truth….which in itself is as direct an insult to the notion of a fair and impartial trial as can be imagined. Even a Federal Judge has spoken out about Cohen’s being a habitual perjurer in other cases.
The Judge should have both defense and prosecutors into his chambers ahead of Cohen taking the Stand….and warn the DA that if Cohen is proven to be lying then the Case shall be dismissed and the Prosecutors recommended for disbarment. Judge Merchan will not do that…..because we know that he is not fair and impartial himself.
We know that by the Gag Order he has placed on the Defendant in violation of the Defendant’s Rights under State Law and Constitutional Rights.
The Gag Order if applied to everyone….then it would be seen as being fair and impartial….which it has failed to do with public opinion.
Public opinion does not control the Court’s actions but it sure does describe the reaction of the People.
This has been a political show trial that we see take place in third world corrupt nations which proves how ugly this whole thing has been and is.
Sadly, this is not about Trump….as he is just the guy it happened to….it is about the entire system of justice and rule of law in the State of New York and the United States in general. That is why the People and Mr. Trump have been so mistreated by the State of New York, DA Bragg, the Prosecutors, and the Judge.
The Nation deserves better….much better….and in time I have every hope those who failed us by not “doing the right thing” pay dearly for their Sins and transgressions agains the Public Good.
his Daughter’s activities that plainly are profiting from the case.
No, she is not. She is not involved with any party to the case, and she does not stand to make any money from the outcome, regardless of what it is.
There was an instance many years ago when I was in a large Jury pool waiting to be selected for specific trials. There were maybe 200 prospective jurors in the room. There was a presiding judge sitting there supervising and watching over us all as we waited to be called. All through the several hours we sat there, the presiding judge went on a long rambling discussion about his general views which were very anti suspected criminal, (it was a city court taking care of minor to moderate criminal acts). I was disturbed by this because he was as ultra -right wing as I had ever heard in such a setting. I’m conservative, but less so at that time and yet I felt his statements were inflammatory to jurors waiting to be called. A gentleman sitting next me was almost apoplectic with these statements by the judge, as he was an attorney, we discussed what the judge was saying and we were outraged at the prejudice and bias in his statements. After we were dismissed he went on his way to file a complaint with the Bar association because of these statements. Seems that should also happen here.
And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was there alone.
I am taken aback when I read or am reminded of this verse. I picture Him there in my mind’s eye. It’s like I really can see Him just a few yards away. He’s warm and sweaty, a misty screen of dusty dirt on his skin, softly reflecting the moonlight. I catch His profile as He looks out at the view of all He made, breathing in the dry desert air, listening to mothers in the distance putting their children to bed, a brilliant ocean of stars overhead filling the blackness, glowing torches and small fires sparkling in the darkness in the gentle stillness where He rested after a long day. I can see Him, God. A human being. Sitting there. By Himself, alone, right there.
As ARMAGEDDON rumbles
The decisions on evidence prior to the trial with exclusion of discussion of the FEC passing on any prosecution, as well as federal attorneys, and the prior state attorney passing on prosecution are strange. Then allowing the prejudicial testimony of “Stormy Daniels” in a case about accounting and what is the legality of an NDA and how it should be placed in business and tax records and whether it was a legal expense required no testimony except for accountants, lawyers, and the decision makers. The “Stormy Daniels” testimony was gratuitous and did nothing except establish a “he said”-“she said” argument that had already been litigated. In a libel suit which she had lost to the President. If I was on the Jury, I would not care if it was Biden, Trump, RFK jr , the nameless guy living down the road I would have already made up my mind and acquitted. I have been on Juries and medical review panels for medical malpractice cases, done quality reviews and hearings on physicians for malpractice, and even fitness reviews of physicians with medical and psychiatric issues, as well as workman’s comp cases and been the subject of a medical malpractice case and testified as an expert witness on more than one case and I have never seen attorneys or judges act this way and be so loose with facts and “testimony”.
Whether I was a conservative or liberal I would never have wanted to be a part of any such “trial”.
The decisions on evidence prior to the trial with exclusion of discussion of the FEC passing on any prosecution, as well as federal attorneys, and the prior state attorney passing on prosecution are strange.
What’s strange about it? Decisions by others not to prosecute are irrelevant. Neither the FEC nor the DOJ nor Bragg’s predecessor ever exonerated Trump. They simply decided not to prosecute him. Now Bragg decided to do so. There’s no reason the jury should hear any of that, because it has no bearing on his guilt or innocence.
The term “should” includes a discretionary component, while the terms “shall” and “must” do not. Judges and their activist sycophants — human as well as institutional — often play word games in order to achieve a desired result. But those actions do not and cannot alter intrinsic definitions.
When the New York Court of Appeals stated in the Novak case that “[a] judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities…,” it added that the reason for the non-discretionary rule was because ”due process must still safeguard the appearance of impartiality to promote public confidence in the courts.”
Because of Judge Merchan’s defiant disregard for the ethical goal of promoting “public confidence in the courts…,” he is also guilty of disregarding President Trump’s due process rights in his court. His refusal to recuse and disqualify himself — sua sponte — merely underscores the conclusion that he seeks to actively deny Mr. Trump his due process rights, but that he also is indifferent to the damage his omission does to “public confidence in the courts.”
Stated otherwise, Trump Derangement Syndrome is not limited to MSNBC.
mindless, unreasoning, you paddle right out of the mess
as the waiter hands you the bill
and you spin in slipstream
judicial statutes are meant as comedy
they have no teeth
So let’s get this straight: Merchan should’ve refused because his daughter is a political operative (which isn’t illegal) but Thomas shouldn’t recuse from sitting on election cases when his wife was involved in the backroom antics of a plan to overthrow an election???
And one of your justifications for it are that Thomas is one of nine judges? So what are we to do with your tacit admission that Thomas is corrupt enough to have to be sanitized by 8 other judges???
I mean, I think it’s clear in your influencer capacity that you’d go there, Turley. But it’s always kind of shocking when you do. Guess we’ll just have to add it to your hatred of anti fascism, your support for Israeli mass murder, women’s rights to an abortion being entirely address and income dependent, etc…
Might be a good idea to force the fox interns posting this for you to, at the least, run your posts through AI to catch typos. Just saying
There is no right to abortion anymore than there is a right to any other murder. I think he made it clear to you that one of the major problems with Merchan was the financial interest that the daughter has whereas Thomas’s wife had none.
There was a civil right for 50 years for abortion that was taken away by this SCOTUS. First time a civil right was taken away…
And please show me how Ginny Thomas doesn’t make money as a political operative. It’s not illegal when she does…, but it certainly ruins your argument.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/10/ginni-thomas-leonard-leo-citizens-united-00108082#:~:text=Exclusive-,What%20Ginni%20Thomas%20and%20Leonard%20Leo%20wrought%3A%20How%20a%20justice%27s,prepared%20to%20seize%20the%20moment.
An imaginary civil right for abortion was removed along with a Supreme Court decision that reversed a lousy decision, Roe v. Wade. The determinator for abortion rights and the killing of the unborn was returned to the states where it belongs.
Can people still get abortions in the US? Absolutely! Not only that, but people can abort a viable child by pulling him out one leg at a time. It appears that is what you are looking for. Thanks for letting us know who and what you are.
You do know that the R party’s stated intent of a federal ban on abortion makes your response laughable, no?
And just an aside, but you appear to be describing the mechanics of a breached birth as ‘abortion’. So maybe it would help for you to read up on that from sources other than right wing media. Just a thought.
“You do know that the R party’s stated intent of a federal ban on abortion makes your response laughable, no?”
Shall we laugh at you? Political parties have nothing to do with my comment. You need to be better versed in the Constitution.
“mechanics of a breached birth as ‘abortion’”
You are way out of your league. As a response, you are providing fragments of the information supplied by others. Your fragments do not pertain to the discussion and demonstrate a brain that has yet to be unwrapped and installed.
You need to recognize that my arguments are not political and deal with federalism. You can’t even figure out the subject matter of the discussion.
Indeed. Your incoherence overall is hard to decipher. I’ll give you that.
You are correct that what I said might be hard to understand for a dummy. Thank you for making it clear that you lack the necessary intelligence.
And yes, I recognize your appeal to the ideology of federalism. I’m just pointing out the R party by way of the anti abortion movement has tossed aside the federalist rationale.
Let’s just agree to applaud the R states who’ve agreed to put abortion rights to their citizens through ballot initiatives (and every single time seeing pro abortion rights initiatives win).
You are missing the boats now, and you are backpeddling. Let’s skip your attempts to resurrect yourself and concentrate on the fact that you are always two steps behind.
No, there was not a right. There is never a “civil right” to murder people, no matter what a nation’s courts say.
his wife was involved in the backroom antics of a plan to overthrow an election??
Intense wish casting does not even reach the level of wild accusation.
Intense wish casting doesn’t but a lengthy text chain with, among others, Mark Meadows, does.
The texts are perfectly appropriate.
A perfectly appropriate text discussion about how best to overthrow an elected government.
Coup via text.
Yep stupid people believe things like that.
Inter coup communications were revolutionized by the advent of texting.
Merchan cares not about the future of his position. He will ensure Trump is found guilty, write a book, be on MSNBC/CNN/NPR and his future as a millionaire and a life with the elites is guaranteed.
This judge obviously cannot be neutral. With his daughter receiving so much money from the opposing party, the decisions that he is making which are absurd and almost hideous, and the unfairness that he is showing to Trump, he does not belong presiding over this case. in addition to these issues, he is one judge that will be making the decision even though it is a jury trial. He can lead the jury which ever way he wants by his instructions and if he is telling the jury now to disregard statements that he permitted the prosecution to put forward , you know he is throwing the Trial
His daughter is not making money from any party to this case. Nor will her income be affected in any way by the outcome of this case. And that is the standard.
It’s simple: The judge didn’t step aside because he is riding on this railroad.
Professor Turley, your arguments are good if this were a legitimate case. This is a bogus case and a circus trial. This case is conjured out of thin air and has as much legitimacy as a Jerry Springer show. What an embarrassment to the state of New York and a black eye on our failing legal system.
Shameful and embarrassing to those who are dripping with seething hatred of the former President, our nation and of what is decent and fair. This is a disgrace.
Merchan is highly conflicted due to family, political donations, etc. His current rulings on Stormy etc prove this. He is a Activist Rubber Stamp for Bragg and Biden Admin. along with the radical Left. This entire case will be thrown out on appeal. Inventing new rules, new laws and etc. Simply a Kangaroo Court. The Left Wing Dem’s have ruined the Justice system.
Let the deluge of comments about how Prof. Turley is a right wing hack paid controlled by Fox begin,,,,
Definition of a right-wing hack by a leftist: a person who uses rational thought in their arguments.
Econ,
Well said.
Their attacks seemingly have gotten more and more insane. All the time they were so confident of convictions, not only the good professor but the rest of us normal people can see exactly how absurd and how corrupt their lawfare to “Get Trump!” We are also seeing their lawfare is failing. Polls are showing more and more favorably for Trump and failing for Biden. That has them in a panic.
As always, attack the messenger, not the message.