Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamplighter
I grudgingly am going to dull the pain a tiny bit of Fox News here.
They were probably referring to this:
This refers to US District Courts, not the Supreme Court; and is in the Title 28 of the US Code.
P.S. Please tell Classic this is from Wikipedia, so he can critique it.
|
Yep. I saw that too, so the language came from somewhere in our law. That doesn't dull any of the pain though, it excuses none of the embellishment. "US Constitution" "Section 144", because, what? Now the detail adds realism? Where did these inventions come from? I'd like to know that. Congressman Jeff Sessions was cited as the source for the call for an examination of Justice Kagan's involvement, did he suggest the Constitution had a role here? Who did? I also notice that there's no attribution to the "calls from the other side of the political spectrum" for Justice Thomas' involvement, just ... anonymous calls.
Furthermore, I've seen no opinions indicating that this section of our laws do indeed represent what Fox says they represent, that Justice Kagan should recuse herself in this situation.