Summary
The topic revolves around Justice Neil Gorsuch’s recusal from the Supreme Court case concerning Richard Glossip, which potentially impacted the outcome of Glossip’s appeal against his death sentence. Gorsuch’s decision to recuse himself meant he effectively did not participate in the proceedings, which some argue may have contributed to Glossip being denied a stay of execution.
Gorsuch’s recusal stems from his previous role as a judge on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears cases from Oklahoma. This recusal raised concerns about the fairness of the process, as it left the Supreme Court without a full complement of justices to deliberate on Glossip’s case. As a result, if the court were to be divided 4-4, the ruling from the Oklahoma state court against Glossip would stand, potentially leading to his execution without a thorough examination of the merits of his appeal. Critics argue that this situation underscores the complexities and potential inequities in the Supreme Court’s recusal practices, where a justice can influence the fate of a case without actively participating in the deliberations or being privy to the arguments presented.
Justice Gorsuch's recusal may have doomed a man to death
Oct. 28 / The Hill / Highlights the implications of Gorsuch's recusal, arguing it may have sealed Glossip's fate without proper review. Lubet's authoritative voice adds weight, though the opinion format may limit objectivity. “ Under the Supreme Court’s jumbled recusal practices, Gorsuch effectively voted to execute Glossip without reading the briefs or hearing the argument,...
Oct. 9 / Nbc News / Offers a comprehensive overview of Glossip's case, including the unusual support from Oklahoma's attorney general. Hurley effectively contextualizes the legal complexities, though the focus on procedural details may overwhelm some readers. “ WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday will weigh whether inmate Richard Glossip's murder conviction should be thrown out — an unusual death penalty...