What does it mean to recuse oneself?

Perhaps you’ve never heard the word ‘recuse’ before. According to Merriam-Webster online dictionary, recuse means “to disqualify (oneself) as judge in a particular case; broadly : to remove (oneself) from participation to avoid a conflict of interest.” Generally, we hear of judges recusing themselves from trials in order to avoid a conflict of interest. One such example involves the newest Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan and her recusal from several supreme court cases because of her involvement with those cases in lower courts. The rules dictating when a justice should be recused from a case are dictated in the United States Code Title 28, Section 455, though in the end it is up to a judge to recuse him or herself from a case. Since there is little authority to compel a justices and judges to recuse themselves from a case, several attempts to legislate these guidelines have recently surfaced. This piece at the West Reference Attorney Blog does a great job of detailing these recent efforts.

What is alarming in these efforts is the fact that Senators and Representatives are railing for ethical standards to be imposed against Supreme Court Justices while at the same time they do not propose that they should be held to the same standards. Are there not numerous examples of members of Congress having conflicts of interest with legislation that is being proposed? A great example is H.R. 1148, known as the STOCK Act, that would prohibit members of Congress and federal employees from profiting, or helping others profit, from non-public information—primarily through stock and futures trading—gleaned through their access to privileged, political-based information.

These contradictions present a double standard: Justices should have concrete regulations dictating when they must recuse themselves from a case but no similar guidelines are being proposed for the legislative branch. Should a senator who owns a significant amount of stock in a medical supply or insurance company be permitted to speak on or vote for legislation that would affect his or her financial interests? (This example, though it does not involve a senator or representative, accentuates this point profoundly and extends the prospect of recusal procedures for government executives as well.)

In such a partisan political climate, how many politicians have simply fought to protect their personal economic interests rather than the well being and benefit of their constituents? If guidelines were established that required not only judges, but federal and state congressmen, federal and state executives – essentially all politicians – to recuse themselves from cases, legislation or decisions where they have a direct interest, we might be able to eliminate some of the corruption in U.S. politics. Of course, this proposal is not the best fix but it is a step in the right direction. What do you think?

This entry was posted in Economy, Health Care, United States. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to What does it mean to recuse oneself?

  1. Carl Shannon says:

    This issue is actually in the news today. Check it out at

    You can bet the Supreme Court will probably rule against the ethical responsibilities of political figures.

  2. plume says:

    I am in fact glad to glance at this webpage posts which contains lots
    of useful facts, thanks for providing these kinds of data.

  3. I know this site presents quality dependent posts and other stuff,
    is there any other website which gives such information in quality?

  4. Michael Ostrowski says:

    Has anyone ever heard of in US history, a judge voluntarily recusing himself in a case and then coming back in two years later and predictably ruling in favor of the party they recused themselves over? Does anyone reading this claim this is not reversible error? And has anyone ever heard of such behavior in US judicial history?

  5. Anonymous says:

    I agree with your statements!

  6. Anonymous says:

    I think that our senators and representatives should br held to the same standards that we are held to.

  7. zoe says:

    I want to know how can SESSIONS DISQUALIFY (recuse) himself when he is involved in the situation?

  8. Anonymous says:

    That’s why he did. Wake up!

  9. Anonymous says:

    just excuse yourself and not use a 25 cent word

  10. Anonymous says:

    The man baby in the White House needs to recuse himself from office. What a big liar. Lock his little small hands and Dumass hair do

    • I do not blame you for being embarrassed about your real identity. You are a scientific certifiable idiot. In addition you should have recused yourself before voting for the former Barry Soetoro (twice) as you knew virtually nothing about him when you pulled the lever. You did vote for Soetoro didn’t you?

  11. Margot Horyn says:

    Did Jeff Sessions give a reason. for Refusing himself @ if so what is it? Does it allow him not to be questioned on certain political issues???

  12. Cynthia says:

    Totally agree. Let the American people vote.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s