The "Roy Moore" full-panel judicial recusal in the Alabama Supreme Court, the "Katrina" partial-panel recusal at the U.S. 5th Circuit and the necessity for a "special U.S. Supreme Court"

An unusual thing is happening in Alabama - the ENTIRE top court of the State of Alabama recused from hearing the appeal of its suspended Chief Judge Roy Moore, and a procedure was devised to convene a "Special Supreme Court", from retired judges.

While many times judges have personal knowledge of litigated facts, and in most cases they stick like glue to those cases and decide them for parties they favor, in this case the sheer rank of the litigant, the judge's prior boss - who may well get back into saddle as a result of that appeal and become their actual boss once again - dictated the recusals, apparently out of caution and self-preservation.

Back in 2010, there was a similar recusal with dissimilar results in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, where 8 judges recused from hearing an appeal because judges held stocks in companies that appeared as defendants in that court case.

Yet, contrary to what happened in Alabama where a procedure was devised to not deprive Chief Judge Roy Moore of access to court, even though the entire appellate court recused from hearing his appeal, the 5th Circuit simply refused to hear the petition for rehearing "en banc" (by a full court) - and provided to the litigants no alternative for the procedural step they were entitled to.

A good case for a full recusal of the U.S. Supreme Court presented itself in 2016 in a case against the U.S. Supreme Court Marshall, seeking to strike the federal law prohibiting protests in the plaza in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I admire the courage of the district judge Beryl A. Howell 

of the lower federal court who has stood up for the U.S. Constitution and the 1st Amendment that she was sworn to protect, stood up to the powerful U.S. Supreme Court, and who has struck the ban on protests in the plaza in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, here is judge Howell's decision.

Yet, an obedient federal appellate court panel consisting of one senior judge, judge Steven Williams, here is his biography and picture

 and two hopefuls for the U.S. Supreme Court justice positions , D.C. Circuit judges Karen L. Henderson,

and judge Sri Srinivasan, who is on President Obama's "short list" for U.S. Supreme Court Justices - and who, likely, will be on the short list of President Hillary Clinton, if she is elected,

self-servingly reinstated the ban.


Naturally, the truly honorable, competent and courageous Judge Howell is not on a "short list" for the U.S. Supreme Court nomination, the brown-nosing Judge Srinivasan is.

That was a good case for a full-court recusal and for a "Special U.S. Supreme Court", like Alabama did, since the case is self-serving for the High Court, where all justices of the sitting U.S. Supreme Court had a conflict of interest in taking the case and deciding it in favor of its own marshals and in favor of their own desire to go to work without being annoyed by the pesky protestors in front of their courthouse.

But instead of recusing and allowing for convention of a "Special U.S. Supreme Court" to hear this important case, the U.S. Supreme Court self-servingly denied the petition to reverse the appellate court decision and reinstate the decision of the district court

despite the obvious conflict of interest of ALL justices of the court - same as in Alabama, but with dissimilar results.  In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for itself and for its own Marshall.  Without any compunction or scruples.

Somehow, state judges in Alabama Supreme Court had more integrity than federal judges on the issue of recusal in self-serving cases.  Well, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit judges, unlike "justices" of the U.S. Supreme Court at least had the decency to recuse from cases where they had a personal interest.

The Alabama Supreme Court recusal and a "Special Supreme Court" procedure sets up an important precedent making available an alternative procedure to the self-serving doctrine of an interested court sitting "in necessity" because there is nobody else to review a case where judges of the court have a personal interest.  Apparently, there are other people to review such cases, and there may be procedures provided for such a review. 

The Alabama Supreme Court decision should give an example to other states, to federal courts and to the U.S. Congress to create a procedure of appointment of "special courts" in cases involving a conflict of interest for all judges of a certain federal court, because, apparently, on their own federal courts will not do what is right without being forced to do that by Congress.

And, where integrity of federal judges, even those of the highest court of the country, is at such an unfortunate low that they would decide cases in favor of themselves and their employees without recusing themselves, that is a big problem in the country where federal judges are the last resort for victims of human rights violations.