Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Table of cases
- Table of statutes
- Part I
- Part II
- Part III
- Part IV
- 14 Judges, bias and recusal in Australia
- 15 Judges, bias and recusal in Canada
- 16 Judicial recusal in New Zealand
- 17 Judges, bias and recusal in South Africa
- 18 Judges, bias and recusal in the United Kingdom
- 19 Bias, the appearance of bias, and judicial disqualification in the United States
- Part V
- Part VI
- Index
- References
19 - Bias, the appearance of bias, and judicial disqualification in the United States
from Part IV
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 September 2011
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Table of cases
- Table of statutes
- Part I
- Part II
- Part III
- Part IV
- 14 Judges, bias and recusal in Australia
- 15 Judges, bias and recusal in Canada
- 16 Judicial recusal in New Zealand
- 17 Judges, bias and recusal in South Africa
- 18 Judges, bias and recusal in the United Kingdom
- 19 Bias, the appearance of bias, and judicial disqualification in the United States
- Part V
- Part VI
- Index
- References
Summary
American society is deeply conflicted – perhaps it would be more accurate to say schizophrenic – with respect to the role that both elected and appointed judges should play (and should be allowed to play) in the governance of a constitutional democracy with a long tradition of judicial review.
On the one hand, Americans of every political stripe and every social stratum are quick to “go to law” to achieve vindication (or establishment) of their rights, eagerly egging judges on as they craft novel remedies for the perceived ills of society. Sooner or later, it seems, every issue of social policy, from the most fundamental to the most trivial, will be presented to an American court for adjudication.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Judiciaries in Comparative Perspective , pp. 379 - 400Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2011
References
- 1
- Cited by