Blog #119 – Roe vs. Wade and Supreme Court Appointments
Trump’s promise not to appoint anyone to the Supreme Court who would hesitate to overturn Roe vs. Wade is unethical and an act which invalidates any appointee to the Court who if appointed ruled pursuant to it. It would violate the U.S. Judicial Code and the ABA’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct. Were Kavanaugh to be appointed, he would have to recuse himself from take part in the consideration of that case, leaving the decisions on it in the hands of the remaining 8 court members. And that obligation to recuse himself would be an on gong one, as long as Trump remains in office – an obligation which might be thrust upon him by the remaining members in considerations from which he would need to recuse himself. .
Those concerned about the future of Roe vs, Wade to the next Supreme Court if Kavanaugh is on it are properly barking loudly out of concern, but up the wrong tree. The problem is one which Trump has created, not Kavanaugh, and which an attack on Trump’s involvement offers the route to the best solution: the prospect of a recusal of anyone he nominates from consideration of the case any time within his own term of office. .
for a more detailed statement of the argument, see pmarcuse.Wordpress.com, Blog #120 – “Roe vs Wade, An Alternate Approach: Recusal2,”