Talk:Judicial disqualification

message: Could we have some generic/hypothetical examples of some common reasons for "might otherwise not be impartial"?  I'm thinking of a statement like, "A judge might recuse himself or herself from a case involving firearms charges if the judge financially supports either pro-gun or anti-gun lobbying groups" or "A judge whose home had recently been burglarized might not want to try cases involving home invasion" or something like that.  This way it's not at all personal, but provides some information about the most common justifications for recusals.  What do you think? 66.124.70.108 18:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Generic examples

message: It seems like this word is not quite as uncommon as first thought. I came upon the word for the first fort time in an Israeli newspaper articlehttp://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/923736.html. So it seems that at least one person at Haaretz knows the word. I think the wiki-definition should be made more general.  80.178.56.246 10:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of "recusal" in other countries and other cases

message: This article has traditionally resided at recusal, but I see that it was recently moved to Judicial Disqualification. I think recusal is the more common term, but rather than move it back I thought we should have some discussion here about which name is preferable. Newyorkbrad 14:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: As of 2015, the title "Recusal" points to Judicial disqualification here.  The term is used more widely than in strictly judicial contexts, and needs to be covered under the title "Recusal". In other words, there are uses of the term "Recusal" that are not synonymous with "Judicial disqualification". I suggest moving the article back to "Recusal", or otherwise untangling the usages.  Reify-tech (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Recusal

message: In state of Texas would a judge presiding over custody dispute be a conflict of interest if the an the lawyer use to practice in the same office presisded over the mother lost custody WITH no good reason an rarely happens children need their mothers the court date was put off to make sure he resisded over case the mother was not neglecting children no abuse no drug or alcohol use no good reason at all yet he resisded over both of her cases 3 girls by one father an twins by another he took her kids ive seen kids left in bad situations due to most feel young children need their mom she is a GOOD mom i dont understand he gave no reason of his decision  Katnnat420 (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Judicial disqualification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425103335/http://www.ajs.org/ethics/pdfs/InvigoratingJudicialDisqualificationTenPotentialReforms.pdf to http://www.ajs.org/ethics/pdfs/InvigoratingJudicialDisqualificationTenPotentialReforms.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I do not know if it is a matter in law, but I would not imagine that just any financial interest in the outcome of a case would be relevant to a judge's impartiality. The case of, say, a case involving the validity of a tax applied to all persons, including the judge, would not seem to be cause for recusal.01:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specificity of financial interest 

message: It seems that familial or financial links to one or other party would be grounds for recusal for an American judge, but not membership of a relevant religious or racial minority. What about a case involving a narrower group, such as a fellow Freemason or Bonesman? Is having been appointed to the bench in question by one of the parties in a civil or criminal case ever seen as a disqualification? I am thinking of a hypothetical case where a president packs the courts with his supporters and then comes before one of them either during or after his tem of office. NRPanikker (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social or Political Links 

message: "Decision of Judge Ware denying motion for recusal in Perry v. Schwarzenegger" shows as code 404 (Not Found).
I searched for it on the corresponding website, but found only peripheral, irrelevant, documents.
As such, this link should be removed or replaced by someone qualified to find the correct or adequate reference.
Skaizun (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing external link 

message: There really needs to be bit of history here!  Recusal is not a new idea at all.  I have one data point to add for such a history:
Sanhedrin 7b:19 through 8a:1 includes the story of Rav (3rd century) who was approached by a man to judge a case.  The man had previously hosted Rav as a guest in his house, and for this reason, Rav recused himself from the case and asked his student, Rav Kahana II to take his place.  Kahana was hard on the plaintiff for having sought out his former house guest to judge the case.
 
This is the basis of Maimonides' ruling in (12th century) that "a judge may not adjudicate the case of a friend. This applies even if the person is not a member of his wedding party or one of his more intimate companions. Similarly, he may not adjudicate the case of one he hates. This applies even if the person is not his enemy and one whose misfortune he seeks. Instead, the two litigants must be looked upon equally in the eyes and in the hearts of the judges. If the judge does not know either of them and is not familiar with their deeds, this is the fairest judgment that could be."  (The Sefaria web page linked above links to this quote from the Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within Their Jurisdiction, 23:6.)
The above is only a start!  There must be more on this subject from the law codes of the past 2000 years.  Does Roman law have anything to say? Douglas W. Jones (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I just found an interesting work, The History of Judicial Disqualification in America, by Richard E. Flamm, ABA Judges' Journal, Summer 2013. This also cites Maimonides, and it quotes Tractate Shabbat 10a:5, which does not really touch on recusal.  However, the text goes on to discuss Roman law regarding recusal and how this influenced recusal in civil-law countries before looking at the history of recusal in English Common Law.  Douglas W. Jones (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of recusal?