George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley called out the “utterly ridiculous” demands on Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett by Democrats.
The liberal legal scholar slammed Democrats for asserting that Barrett must recuse herself from any elections-related cases that may come before the high court since she was was confirmed just before an election. With the presidential race hanging in the balance, as key states have not been called for either President Donald Trump or Democrat nominee Joe Biden, lawsuits are already being threatened.
Trump’s campaign announced Wednesday that it will move ahead with demanding a recount in Wisconsin due to “irregularities” in some counties and filed a lawsuit in Michigan to halt vote counting. The president himself reminded reporters that he predicted the problems that would be caused by extending mail-in and absentee ballot deadlines.
In a speech after midnight on Election night, the president promised he would go to the Supreme Court to address the issue. Fox News’ Bret Baier asked Turley about the complaints by Democrats over Barrett’s recent confirmation and the role she would play if and when the election cases come before the Supreme Court.
George Washington University Law Professor @JonathanTurley on the recusal of Justice Barrett if an election case reaches SCOTUS after Nov. 3:
"There's no reason under the usual interpretation of the standard for recusal for Justice Barrett to withdraw from this case…" pic.twitter.com/trKPxZT2bw
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) November 4, 2020
“Jonathan, so that brings us to the fact that Justice now Amy Coney Barrett is in this position in this Court that is now nine, filling the spot of deceased Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Democrats, during that hearing, were saying, ‘You have to recuse yourself if an election case comes to the Supreme Court after November 3rd.’ I assume we’re going to hear that more,” the Fox News anchor said during the network’s coverage Tuesday.
“It will and it’s utterly ridiculous and it’s also incredibly insulting. There’s no reason under the usual interpretation of the standard for recusal for Justice Barrett to withdraw from this case,” Turley replied.
“She doesn’t have an interest in this case. She doesn’t have a financial interest in this case. She didn’t work on underlying litigation or cases related to any appeal. None of those conditions exist,” he explained.
“I know of no case in history where a justice would recuse herself simply because she was nominated shortly before an election and some people, as you heard, as a judicial shill,” Turley added.
On the issue of Barrett recusing herself, Turley had pointed out last month that there was no basis upon which she would have to do so, telling Fox News’ Neil Cavuto that it was “ridiculous” to expect her to.
— Neil Cavuto (@TeamCavuto) October 26, 2020
The law professor told “Fox & Friends” Wednesday that many of the election issues have already made it to courts as sort of “place holders” in anticipation of the problems that are now coming to the surface.
“Our worst case scenario is happening. We’re looking at states that, quite frankly, are a mess,” Turley said, citing Pennsylvania’s elections rules as an example.
“This is a target-rich environment for litigation. There’s every right in the world for both camps to challenge the counting of these ballots,” Turley noted.
Author: Frieda Powers