Never mind ....

Uh, like James Joyner just said in his piece that it's ok for any judge to: "So long as they have no financial stake or otherwise have a personal interest in the outcome of the case, they’re not required to sit on the sidelines."

Did you ever stop and thinkabout the rank hypocrisy you people spout?

Uh, which people? I'm a leftist (following a link from Glenn Greenwald' blog) who finds most right wingers and Republicans to be hypocrites, but James Joyner doesn't seem to have displayed any here.

hey jpe I read both sides of arguments and try and discern the truth…can you say the same?

You don't seem to have tried here ... and what does your comment even have to do with what jpe wrote?

You hit the nail "right on the head" Judges who rule with their biases and not according to the law are the problem.

Those judges who do not make their decisions "According to the Law" are, and should be subject to "Immediate Impeachment".

The real problem is: We have no government Representatives that have the will or guts to impeach anyone.

Could the reason be because of these judges previous "Political Connections" ?

Back when Justice Samuel Alito was merely a nominee to the Supreme Court, Democrats made issue of two things in particular in Justice Alito's past hoping to derail the nomination. The first was his membership in an organization called CAP......

From a practical standpoint, such a disclosure would have little impact. It is a rare attorney who would dare to impugn a judge before whom they may have to appear. The number of judges removed for conflicts of interest are minimal.

What is more significant to me is her having the conflict and then putting out such a poorly reasoned opinion.

What we can expect is that they rule on the law rather than their policy preferences. When they fail to do that, there's a problem.

I Guess I was wrong, but then again, the quality of some decisions from SCOTUS leaves a lot to be desired and have certainly shown the personal bias of the court and its judges.

A minor blogswarm is brewing over this, with Greg Tinti making the best case that this is really an issue, noting the outrage over then-Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito’s relationship to the Vanguard Company.

And yet it was still considered a 'great thing' by these same blogswarmers that Alito was eventually confirmed to the Supreme Court; unarguably, a more significant and influential position than Taylor's.

Also, bear in mind that Judge Taylor's group gave money to the ACLU; neither she nor her group recieved money from the ACLU. While there are certainly still questions that should be asked, the difference makes this issue much less ominous.