> The rules themselves are weak. Consider recusal, when justices step aside from considering a case. The justices took the rule that applies to lower court judges but then inserted a handful of new loopholes, including one that could be so big that it swallows the rule — basically allowing a justice to disregard a required recusal if they think their vote is needed in the case. And the financial disclosure rules haven’t tightened at all — a significant shortcoming, since the justices have proven themselves troublingly adept at sidestepping the current rules, whether for RVs, tuition, fishing trips, or real estate deals.
Can the executive terminate the employment contract of a nominated director of a DOJ employee, if there are to be three separate branches of government?
There is a nomination procedure which requires (?) Congressional confirmation, but Congress has no recourse for obstructive termination of a nominated director by the executive?
Isn't that the wolf guarding the hen house; i.e. what the founders expressly intended to prevent?
Can commuted and pardoned cases be reheard once the elected executive is out of office, if there no limit to the statute of limitations?
(Ludicrous that the court would consider total immunity for an executive of one branch, by the way.)