Leahy Floats Idea Of Bringing Former Justices Back To SCOTUS Bench

This would only work if sitting justices like Scalia would admit to conflicts of interest - but since he acts like he is not only a Supreme but above the law - it's not gonna happen. (for example he has US marshals accompany him to speaking engagements and enforce his rule that nobody can record his words - whatever happened to freedom?)
Maybe we should start impeachment proceedings for some of this numbskulls like Thomas, Alito & Roberts.

I agree with the first point of Informed Citizen's comment: unless we can be assured that justices such as Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts will also recuse themselves, there is little point to pursuing this. I find it unfair that Sotomayor will recuse herself multiple times, but Thomas (in Citizens United -- his wife has extremely direct connections) and Scalia (in the case mentioned above) have refused to recuse themselves. If it isn't going to be a balanced process, what is the point with giving one side an upper hand? As for impeachment proceedings, never gonna happen.

it's always interesting at election time how long time incumbents start talking about conflicts of interest and ethics. Many politicians seem blissfully unaware of the millions of dollars they take in special interest funds, then vote on the very bill those folks just paid for. Leahy, although better than some, is still a representative of this broken, bought and paid for system and is exactly why congress has an 11% approval rating.

We need a change in washington. Demand a candidate who won't be beholden to special interest or party. Take a look at US Senate candidate, physician, and Navy Captain Dan Freilich (www.DanielFreilich.com)

this isn't that radical of an idea, really. other courts (both federal circuit courts and at least some state appeals courts, specifically) allow judges to take 'senior status' and hear cases when they are needed, like in the situations Leahy mentions. besides the hyper partisan aspect of the SC, there isn't any real reason it needs to run differently.

It's not just recusal

I suspect that the real point of Stevens' suggestion is to create a way to deal with 4-4 decisions in a SCOTUS forced to get by with 8 members in the wake of Republican refusal to let any Obama nominee fill any future vacancy.

The structure of the court, had the Rs not let Kagan past, or refuse in the possibly near future to let any successor to RBG past their 41 votes, would be 4-1-3, conservative-"moderate"(Kennedy)-liberal. That composition would be hugely better for the conservative movement agenda than 4-1-4, especially since the packing of lower courts with Federalist Society stooges means that even Kennedy desertion ties would mostly leave in place wingnut decisions.

Create a way to resolve such 4-4 ties with moderate to liberal Justices Emeriti, and you take away any inducement for the Rs to even try to leave one of the liberal seats empty until Obama is no longer doing the nominating. That strikes me as more of an actual benefit to have prompted the Stevens suggestion than the 200+ year-old non-problem of recusal ties.

Please write a law that Sandra Day can come back for recusals. Also, let's just let Sandra Day decide who has to recuse themselves, too.

God I miss that woman. I would vote for a constitution that made her and Diane Rehm co-empresses.

Oh, while I'm praying, please let Scalia or Thomas decide to retire soon.

Amen

From Bush v Gore thru Citizens United it's pretty clear that the SCOTUS will remain the conservative's gift that keeps on giving for at least the next 20 years. Think back to the Dred Scott decision by Roger Taney vis-a-vis ending slavery as opposed to Loving v Virginia and the Warren court. When Liberals predominate we get sound decisions. When the right-wing presides, not so much.