William Safire wonders whether a judge "recuses himself" or simply "recuses." Scalia seems to prefer the latter approach (in his recent memorandum, he wrote: ''I do not think it would be proper for me to recuse.''), but I'm pretty sure the former is more common.
A judge from my home state of Washington offers this insight:
". . . [T]o recuse is to challenge the judge. In response, the judge may or may not disqualify himself; he does not recuse himself. Recusal is the process that results in the judge's disqualification."
This statement, if true, would mean my paper on the subject is stuffed full of mistakes - I used the terms interchangeably. While it is entirely possible (likely even!) that I wrote a paper full of errors, I think I have good support for my choices this time: Justice Scalia. Check out these portions of Liteky v United States, 510 US 540 (1994), in which Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, last spoke on recusal in a published opinion:
"Petitioners appealed, claiming that the District Judge violated 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) in refusing to recuse himself." Id at 543 (emphasis added).
"Since 1792, federal statutes have compelled district judges to recuse themselves when they have an interest in the suit, or have been counsel to a party." Id at 544 (emphasis added).
Until Justice Scaila responds to this post and explains himself, I'm going to stick with his earlier choice in my future recusal writings. Stare decisis and all that.
- ► 2005 (19)
- Bad TNI
- Yes, Some Students Live in the Library (But Not Li...
- Smooth Criminal or Just Good Friends?
- Meanest Senator
- Toomey v Specter
- That that make you go hmm
- AP Copyright
- Boeing's New 7E7
- Toby Young's Slate Diary on LA
- You Don't See This Everyday
- Frasier is Republican
- Zinn and Chomsky's DVD Commentary for the Fellowsh...
- Things Heard In The Seventh Circuit
- Book Non-Recommendation: "Now is the Time to Open ...
- Those Silly North Koreans
- I was a Supreme Court clerk for THIS?
- Rest In Peace
- Ditching Diversity: Will elites return to racism?,...
- You Can't Say He Didn't Warn You
- Most Influential Law Professors
- Infringement or not -- You decide!
- How Appealing, Hosted by Legalaffairs.com
- Why Am I Blogging So Late?
- My Boys Have All Grown Up . . .
- You thought "live TV" meant "live TV"?
- This Gun's for Hire
- Public Service Announcement
- New Iraq Exit Strategy: Let's Bring Back Hussein, ...
- The Onion's Influence
- Dalai Lama: Modern Spiritual Leader or Sellout?
- How I Spent Summer Vacation: At Getting-Into-Colle...
- 5000 Hits
- Wi-Fi on Planes
- Career choices
- Cleaning House
- Hall of Fame Monitor
- Bush Apologizes!
- Citechecking Silliness
- Us and Them
- The nature of the Bill of Rights
- "Jewish Museum"
- The Academy of Arts and Sciences: Law
- More on corporate obligations
- Citecheck Funnies
- Response to "Corporate Obligations"
- Antitrust and Texbooks
- TV Quake Film Has Experts Shaking -- Heads
- Beating the Airport Lines, Part I: Check-in
- New York Minute
- Subservient Chicken
- Blogging From The Airport: Beating the Lines
- Currie Quip
- Koizumi and Yasukuni
- "Front-Runner's Fall"
- Today's Journal
- Baseball Season Begins!
- Rice Testimony
- Citecheck Funnies
- Southern U Scandal
- Dancing/Conducting Robots
- Conan's future
- On Language On Recusal
- Frakes returns
- SW DVDs
- Thoughts on the Peloponnesian War
- EEZs and Navassa
- Music Suggestion
- A Link From How Appealing . . .
- Is GMail real?
- ▼ April (76)