- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
“Appellants have moved to disqualify me from participation in this case based on my attendance at a judicial education conference in Israel in March,” Nelson wrote in a brief order. He disputed the merit of plaintiffs’ allegations of potential impartiality.
“They cite no comments I have made about any issues related to this case. Thus, it is far from certain that an objective observer would reasonably question my impartiality,” he wrote. “That said, out of an abundance of caution, the best course in this specific case (which may not apply in other cases) is to recuse.”
“This case against top U.S. officials for aiding and abetting Israel’s genocide raises issues of utmost importance,” said Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents the plaintiffs, “and the appearance of fairness is paramount given the stakes.”
Yes, it is indeed best to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. I understand why this might rankle, but the judge is making the right decision. Only notable because of how rare it seems in the upper echelons of the judiciary lately.
You can say that again!
Did the judge recuse himself? Sounds like he got sued by human rights groups that found out he was taking sponsored trips from a well known israeli lobby group.