From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• I noticed prior to working on this page there was an individual "example" of one Judge that had been criticized for not recusing himself. This severely violates NPOV policy as it singles out one person whereas pretty much all well-known judges could have the same thing said about them. I can think of three cases off hand where Ginsburg has been criticized alone. Any such complaint should be included in that person's biography, not the article defining recusal. If I note this single criticism is added again (since it has been re-posted after being removed) I will protect this page and ask the problem-maker be prevented from using Wiki. No offense. Ikeinthemed

Contents 1 Generic examples 2 Use of "recusal" in other countries and other cases 2.1 Revision 2.2 Article title

[edit] Generic examples

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)

[edit] Use of "recusal" in other countries and other cases

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 article^[1]. 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)(talk • contribs) 07:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC) It is also used in Love and Other Impossible Pursuits, a 2006 novel by Ayelet Waldman on page 45.

[edit] Revision

I have extensively rewritten the first part of the article in more detail. After doing so, I have seen user:Ikeinthemed's comments objecting to mention of any individual Justice in this discussion. I have carefully considered his comment, but believe that the concrete examples are important in illustrating what can be considered grounds for recusal. The article remains NPOV because it does not opine on whether the Justices in question acted correctly or incorrectly in recusing or declining to recuse, and I have selected examples involving both liberal and conservative Justices and from a variety of time periods. I will be glad to discuss any objections to this content on this talk page, which I will watchlist; however, I do not believe that including the examples makes me a "problem-maker [who should] be prevented from using Wikipedia" as suggested above.

A major objection to this article as it currently stands is that it is far too U.S.-centric. The article would benefit greatly from adding discussion of recusal standards and practices in other countries. Newyorkbrad 23:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

One minor point: the lead sentence should probably indicate that, at least in the US, it is a reflexive action. I.e. "In legal terminology, recusal refers to a judge or magistrate removing himself from presiding over a case where that case might carry a conflict of personal interest." (I think it's also part of the legislative language, btw, when members of Congress in the US are expected to not vote or draft legislation that would provide a personal benefit, but, of course, this is one of those, "Gee, you ought to be nice, but, if you're not, we won't tell anyone" situations. I.e. "recusal" is an action that can be part of ethics investigations.) Geogre 17:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The word "recuse" is often reflexive, but not always; one occasionally sees "the Court of Appeals directed the recusal of District Judge X," which is more idiomatic than "the Court of Appeals recused District Judge X." "Disqualified" is sometimes used as well, though that refers more often to the lawyers in a case rather than the judge. See also, as brought up by a quick search, here. Newyorkbrad 17:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree recusal and disqualification are synonymous (although they are ridiculously similar). Recusal is what a Judge does or should do if there is something that makes him or her not neutral (what an obtuse sentence; sigh). Disqualification occurs when a judge is not nuetral, but may not be the act of the judge that should recuse him/herself. For example, if there is something that disqualifies a judge but the judge refuses to recuse him/herself the appellate court can be petitioned via an interlocutory appeal to force a new trial judge. Additionally, in cases where there is no overtly disqualifying factor a Judge may voluntarily recuse him/herself. I'd recommend two similar articles that link to each other in the "See Also" section, but removing the reference at the beginning of this article that recusal and disqualification are identical. Maybe a comment on how the two are very similar however? I'll await your response before I make the respective changes Brad. [[Ikeinthemed]]

I think the distinctions in usage between the two terms differ from one jurisdiction to another. An expanded note at the beginning of the article developing the distinction could be appropriate. I don't think two completely separate articles are needed, though, because the distinction at this point is more theoretical than real for reasons discussed here (see section 1.1). Two separate articles therefore would have a lot of overlap. So my vote is to have one article, with a redirect here from "disqualification," and develop the distinction here. I will write more about this whole subject if desired, but probably not until this weekend. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

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)

• I'd say move it back at the moment; the term is referred to as 'recusal' throughout the article, and it is the most commonly known and used term. BLACKKITE 22:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)