The coming long hot summer

@Greg:

Once upon a time, it was Mexican Territory. The United States seized it by force of arms.

I can’t find where Mexico ever actually originally owned any property that was stolen from them. Seems as if the Aztecs and Mayans owned the territory that Mexico came in and started to settle illegally. Before any title was ever established, the people living in the area that is now in the US decided they wanted to be part of the US and not part of Mexico so they fought with US forces to defeat the evil poachers that were trying to enslave them and won their freedom and then voluntarily joined the United States. Mexico never had any legitimate claim to the territory now in the US.
You can easily find those facts with just a little historical reading. Had you not been educated by liberals in public schools, you might have learned the truth long ago. Geez.

@Bookdoc:

After they stop laughing, they will direct back to the states.

Only after you serve your prison sentence in their jails. (Unless you can get the US government to intercede on your behalf.)

Greg is wrong. The flags are a sign that they have no intention of assimilating into our society. Look up the Aztlán movement. (Or for low-information Greg a wiki-siteAztlán since that is the only website he accepts as gospel.) Colonization towards eventual seizure by annexation is what this is about. All thanks to a bunch of “progressive”regressive establishment-globalist con-men and “useful idiots” like Greg.

@Greg: Well, at least you avoided all the left wing lies and talking points and you DID include the entire speech without a lot of contextual manipulation. However, I thank you for that. I also thank you for making my point for me, solidly and effectively.

But, perhaps you didn’t listen to the speech… maybe THAT;S the problem. For, what you hear is the absolute truth that came directly from FBI data. If people are embarrassed and insulted by the truth, then that cannot be helped. Perhaps the solution, rather than getting upset and allowing Soros to pay you to hit young ladies in the face with eggs, they should change their behavior.

However, that’s not how you made my point for me. What you missed is that Trump is speaking exclusively about

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

. I applied every tool used for emphasis on that description because you and your leftist buddies seem to miss it entirely. Illegal immigrants, Greg. These are immigrants that are in our nation illegally, as in not belonging here. So, if they get their feelings all hurt because someone points out that quite a few of the illegal immigrants that invade us commit crimes, some heinous.

So, those waving their Mexican flags, obscene and vulgar signs, sneaking up behind Trump supporters and clocking them in the head with their purses, egging women and destroying public and private property are either illegal immigrants themselves or they support the unending flow of more and more illegal immigrants in our country… and, as such, they are wrong and vile.

If someone gets upset because Trump accurately points out that illegal immigrants cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars a year, disrupt the jobs market and commit crimes then they are ANTI-AMERICAN TAXPAYER and ANTI-AMERICAN. It they try to pretend this is NOT why they are upset, they are LIARS.

Los Estados Unidos de Mexico, circa 1847. The map was printed in New York in 1847, presumably not by people educated by liberals in public schools.

You still ignore the Mexican-American war, which Mexico initiated and the fact that the US paid for the captured territories (as opposed to “stole”).

@Ditto, #55:

The flags are a sign that they have no intention of assimilating into our society.

The presence of a webpage displaying somebody’s crackpot political screed is not evidence of a credible political movement. In the case of the Aztlan webpage, all it’s evidence of is possible colorblindness on the part of whoever put this graphical disaster together.

For many people, flags of their ancestral nation is a display of pride in their heritage. You’ll see people marching in the St. Patrick’s Day parades every year carrying the flag of Ireland. If Trump went off on the Irish or the Italians—which have certainly had their turn as the targets of political jackasses in the past—you’d sure as hell see Irish and Italian flags coming out in response. There are also American flags being carried by anti-Trump protesters, though such photos don’t get much play on conservative blogs and forums. You don’t actually have a clue how many of those protesters were U.S. citizens, do you? All you see are people of Hispanic ancestry. The ancestors of many of them may have been continuously living in what is now the southwestern United States for generations before Trump’s grandfather stepped off the boat from Germany in 1855.

@Bill, #57:

You still ignore the Mexican-American war, which Mexico initiated and the fact that the US paid for the captured territories (as opposed to “stole”).

Mexico didn’t single-handedly initiate the Mexican-American War. President Polk sent U.S. troops to occupy a disputed border area in the way of a deliberate provocation, after the Mexican government declined his offer to buy around 1/3 of Mexico’s territory.

Its all part of the sinster New World Order financed and supported by the sinister CFR and United Nations these thugs are what they want and while Obama continues to release hardened crinimals and disarm all law abiding americans along with other american traitors Bill and Hillary Clinton,Andrew Cuomo if not to name just a few of the scoundrels and cads

Contemporary Mexicans are the Aztecs and the Mayans, and dozens more indigenous tribes. To misquote a line from an excellent old Bogart movie, They didn’t need no steenkin’ title. The land was theirs to begin with. They didn’t steal it from the Spanish. They took it back.

I was taught historical reality in school, not some post-Reagan, right wing, revisionist horse hockey. 60 percent of the population of Mexico is part indigenous Indian; 30 percent is full-blooded Indian. Mexicans having only European ancestors are less than 10 percent. Most Mexicans have ancestors who were in the Americas ten-thousand years before Columbus showed up.

@Bill:

professional agitators, like Obama used to be.

Is he not still? — just that? and nothing more!

Are you so damn stupid that you don’t know what secession is?

As with the fool you seem to believe belongs in the White House with his pudgy, angry little finger on the nuclear trigger, you don’t seem to know how much you don’t know. All of the groups you list truly exist or have existed. None of them represents a numerically significant political force. Most of them had their heyday 40 or more years ago. They’ve been collectively transformed into a boogeyman in the right-wing imagination.

@Budvarakbar:

Greg has his head totally up his ass about this. Many of these radical invaders and their sycophants are completely open about their affiliations. Greg refuses to admit the truth, simply because it doesn’t fit in his socialist leftist agenda. (Not surprising, as socialism is a huge part of the “Reconquista/Aztlán” movement). All he has to do is watch the reports and coverage and he could frigging see them reference their movement in their protest signs.

@Bill: “Soros puppets” It’s been noted Soros lent DT 160 MILL to build Chicago Trump Towers then forgave 82 Mill.
Trump partied with Soros , Oliver Stone and other libs
Is Trumo a Dem plant or simply another Soros puppet?
Even Gingrich, probably his Veep pick, is blasting him for his RACIST derision of Fed judge overseeing Trump U case.

Dem. race—Bernie needs to get within 3% of HRC in Cal tomorrow to stay viable and make case for super delegate switches—–think HRC will win by 7-9% . She won’t be getting my vote..

@Richard Wheeler: We aren’t talking about loans or associations… we are talking about political agitation for the sake of political agitation. Soros has paid protesters to wage violence in Ferguson and Baltimore and, now, wherever Trump makes an appearance. Soros is not a Trump supporter; he is a supporter of the left… of Bernie and Hillary.

Even Gingrich, probably his Veep pick, is blasting him for his RACIST derision of Fed judge overseeing Trump U case.

There has been no “racist” derision of anyone. To even suggest it is racist itself. Left wing judges are notorious for tossing lawful ruling for ideology. Trump says what he thinks, sometimes a burden but often refreshing. Speaking one’s mind is not something you can get out of Obama or Hillary. Bernie, maybe, but his mind is fossilized with socialism, so what does it matter?

@Greg:

I haven’t heard any conservative rational voices of reason for quite a long time now. I think they’ve all been drummed out of the GOP, or intimidated into silence.

Take a look back, Greg, at what you DO hear. If you heard something that sounded odd to you, that would be a rational voice.

@Budvarakbar:

Will at least on this site it seems not to be ‘slang’

So true, excuse me for the error.

@Redteam:

So true, excuse me for the error.

You are welcome

@Richard Wheeler:

You think Trump’s comments are “refreshing” That’s hilarious and speaks volumes about you.

I guess I should not be surprised when you react stupidly without even reading the comment. I suggest you read it again, dumbass, and THEN try to deliver some sort of intelligent response.

Obviously, you prefer another incompetent, lying liberal promising handouts without a clue as to how those can be afforded to even the possibility of someone that would act in the interest of the nation. That’s vile and speaks a lot about YOU.

@Bill: You don’t know who I support—you have no attention to detail—you’re a proud ranting Trumpeteer who will watch as he crashes and burns in his own bile.

Bill and RT If you want a good analysis from a solid Conservative and well respected FA author read Wordsmith’s most recent post re Trump—I concur–would welcome your response to Word’s assessment.

RT Decency—you’ve shown little so far. Why would you start now?

Bill To be clear you said Trumps comments were sometimes a burden and often refreshing.

@Redteam, #76:

Ah. So Polk was guilty of receiving stolen property, on behalf of the United States. Well, what should we expect? He was a Democrat, after all.

Somebody should point this out to the Latinos. Maybe they’d cross over to the Trump side.

This is thr kind of pictures you wont ever see in TIME,PEOPLE,ROLLINGSTONE,NYT’s or any of the other birdcage liners/parrots toilets/fish wraps and not from the talking heads either

@Richard Wheeler: http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/06/trump-u-judges-group-tied-to-national-council-of-laraza/

As with almost everything Trump gets criticized for, he has a valid point. It doesn’t really matter who criticizes the point if it is valid…. and it is valid.

You whine about being accused of supporting Hillary yet label anyone that won’t and vote as necessary a “Trumpist”… how is that logical? What IS your acceptable alternative to the lying, corrupt leftist, Hillary?

For Richard Wheeler

How Hillary Loses

Donald Trump can actually win if Clinton makes these four mistakes. Spoiler alert: She’s already making all of them.

(Snip)

If Clinton pushes away some of her potential supporters; fails to energize others to vote; and fires up Trump’s base by pandering to her own—well, she just might be able to make the numbers work out for him. If he does pull off the election of the century, Trump’s path to 270 Electoral College votes will begin with 164 practically in the bank, from 21 solid-red states generally considered sure things for the Republican nominee. And here’s how Clinton could push more than enough additional states onto Trump’s side of the ledger—Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Iowa, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan—one mistake at a time.

Step 1: Take Hispanic enthusiasm for granted

(Snip)

There is also reason to think Clinton’s enthusiasm with Hispanic voters needs stoking. A new Fox Latino poll shows Clinton leading Trump by an impressive-sounding 39 points: 62 to 23. But there’s a problem: That 39-point spread is actually less than the 44 by which Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney in 2012.

Florida, where Democratic confidence is sky-high, carries a critical 29 Electoral College votes. In 2012, according to exit polls, Hispanics made up a larger percentage of the state’s vote than in previous years, and Obama won a higher percentage of them—60 percent—than any Democrat had before. That translated into a 285,600-vote advantage (20 percent) among Hispanic voters for Obama over Romney in the state, which Obama carried by just 73,000 votes overall.

The big question is: Can Clinton sustain that kind of historic lead? All Trump would have to do is roll back the Democratic advantage to 2008 levels, instead of 2012 levels, to reverse the tide. All else being equal, a return to 2008’s numbers—when Hispanics were 14 percent of the vote, and Obama won them by a 15 percent margin rather than 20 percent—would mean Democrats losing 109,200 votes off their advantage. And that could turn Obama’s 73,000-vote Florida victory into a 36,000-vote defeat.

(Snip)

Trump Wins: Arizona (11 electoral votes), Florida (29), and possibly Colorado (9) and Nevada (6)

Running total (in total Electoral College votes): Trump wins between 204 and 219

Step 2: Alienate the young

(Snip)

As Jennifer Duffy of the Cook Political Report notes, there is a big difference between 2008 and 2016: Then, Clinton’s so-called PUMA die-hards were mostly middle-age suburban women, with long-standing ties to the Democratic Party. In other words: likely voters. Most young Sanders voters, on the other hand, are not yet regular voters, and certainly not the kind of committed Democrats Clinton can count on; her campaign will need a significant get-out-the-vote effort to persuade them to show up in November. That will be more difficult the more she takes the conservative path, pivoting to the center for the general election, and focusing on messages geared toward her core—older—voters.

To see how much young-voter turnout matters, look at North Carolina. In 2008, Obama had a net advantage there among 18-to-29-year-olds of 368,000 votes—and eked out a 14,000-vote victory overall. In 2012, with dampened enthusiasm, Obama’s advantage in that age group dropped by 120,000, and Romney coasted to a 92,000-vote win. What’s more, those young voters are especially likely to be swayed to third-party alternatives, which—see below—could become more enticing this time around.

Trump wins: Georgia (16), North Carolina (15) and Iowa (6), with a chance at Virginia (13)

Running total: Trump wins between 241 and 269

Step 3: Let establishment Republicans find another place to go

(Snip)

Sure, the votes the Libertarian Party siphons off will be primarily those of Republicans. That’s likely to pad Clinton’s lead in some already blue states she doesn’t need to worry about, such as Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. However, the disaffected GOP voters it pulls away from Clinton are potentially critical for her in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and perhaps even Maine, where third-party candidates have a considerable disruptive history. And in the event that, say, John Kasich were to endorse Johnson-Weld, even Ohio could suddenly get shaken up. Sure, that one is a long shot, but even without a big-name endorsement, there’s evidence that a plausible GOP alternative hurts Clinton more than Trump this year. A new Zogby poll of Ohio voters shows that in a four-way race including Johnson (pulling 6 percent) and Green Party nominee Jill Stein (3 percent), Clinton takes the bigger hit, and her lead in the state decreases.

We’ve seen this movie before: It was 1980, and independent candidate John Anderson pulled lots of votes in what we think of as blue states—15 percent in Massachusetts, 13 percent in New Hampshire, 11 percent in Colorado and Washington, 10 percent in Oregon and Maine. Anderson had been a Republican, but the votes he siphoned off would have gone more to Jimmy Carter than to Ronald Reagan—by 49 percent to 37 percent, according to exit polls. Every one of those states went for Reagan. In Maine, the margin was just 3 percentage points.

(Snip)

Meanwhile, the other big constituency of anti-Trump Republicans—religious conservatives—has given up on finding its own protest candidate. Unlike establishment moderates, these Republicans would never go for Clinton—and will mostly end up boosting Trump’s numbers in states such as Iowa, Georgia, North Carolina and Florida. If Clinton loses in November, her supporters are going to be kicking themselves for not locking in moderate Republicans sooner.

In 2012, Obama won New Hampshire by 40,000 votes, or about 5 percent of the vote. In the Granite State, that was a relative landslide: The margin has been less than 2 percent in three of the past six presidential elections. Should a Libertarian ticket pull an Anderson-like 13 percent of the vote there—and should the bulk of those voters be Never-Trumpers, some of whom would otherwise have gone to Clinton—then the third party could tip a typically close Granite State contest to Trump.

Trump wins: New Hampshire (4), one district of Maine (1) and—if union households desert Clinton over trade (see below)—possibly Pennsylvania (20)

Running total: Trump wins between 246 and 294

Step 4: Fumble on trade

As soon as the votes were tallied in 2012, Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO and Mary Kay Henry of SEIU were claiming unions had delivered Obama’s victory. They argued, with justification, that Ohio, Wisconsin and Nevada got into the blue column because of a massive turnout effort from labor. But earlier this year, both Trumka and Henry expressed concerns that Trump could flip that script.
“Our members are responding to Trump’s message,” Henry said in one interview. “Donald Trump is tapping into the very real and very understandable anger of working people,” Trumka said in a speech.

It’s not just that these workers are drawn to the raw emotion of Trump’s “you’ve been screwed” rhetoric. Polls show that union households tend to oppose free trade quite strongly. Sanders has made free trade a centerpiece of his primary campaign against Clinton. Trump, hoping to woo Sanders voters, frequently praises his position on that issue.

Union voters largely agree with Trump that trade deals—including those negotiated by Democratic Presidents Obama and Bill Clinton—have taken their jobs away. Hillary Clinton has yet to counter this attack in any meaningful way. Her history on trade has been careful and political, which has left her struggling to articulate a strong argument against Sanders, let alone Trump.

(Snip)

It’s not hard to see how quickly this could start costing her Electoral College votes in the Rust Belt, where Trump hopes to improve on past Republican performance. (And where, you may remember, Clinton had to apologize for threatening to put coal companies out of business.) In Ohio, for example, 22 percent of 2012 voters came from union households, and 60 percent of them voted for Obama. In Wisconsin, a similar share of the electorate voted 2-to-1 for Obama over Romney. In 2016, both states went for Sanders over Clinton in their primaries. In Pennsylvania, where Trump is planning a major effort, union households provided Obama more than half his net margin.

Trump wins: Ohio (18) and Wisconsin (10), and maybe Michigan (16)

Running total: Trump wins between 274 and 338

The Final Tally

So there you have it. Trump survives a Latino surge in the South and West; Clinton fails to bring home young voters in the Southeast and Midwest; Libertarians give Trump a foothold in the Northeast; the Rust Belt puts the nail in the coffin—and with somewhere between 274 and 325 electoral votes, Donald J. Trump becomes the 45th president of the United States. Yes, the specifics could vary. But it’s clear Trump can cross the 270 electoral-vote threshold even on the low end, with plenty of cushion on the high end to make up for a state that slips through his fingers here or there.

More bad news for Rich:

Polls: Donald Trump Is Shifting the 2016 Electoral Map

Oregon

A new poll of deep-blue Oregon finds Trump leading Hillary Clinton by 2 points, 44-42. A poll earlier in May found Clinton with an 11 point lead over Trump, but that same poll showed Clinton with a double-digit lead over Sanders for that state’s primary. She lost to Sanders by 12 points. Oregon hasn’t voted Republican in a Presidential contest since 1984, although George W. Bush came close to winning the state twice.

Both Clinton and Trump have strong support within their own parties in Oregon, but Trump has a 2-1 advantage among independents. Clinton’s nine-point edge with women is countered by Trump’s 13-point edge among men.

Democrats face two potential headwinds in Oregon. A billion dollar corporate tax hike pushed by the state’s Democrats is polling very poorly. State Democrats are also recovering from last year’s resignation of Democrat Governor John Kitzhaber, who was forced out of office after facing multiple allegations of corruption.

New Jersey

A Monmouth University poll of New Jersey finds Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump by just four points in the deep-blue state. New Jersey hasn’t voted Republican since 1988 and hasn’t been competitive in any election after. Clinton’s lead in the RealClearPolitics average of polls in the state is just nine points, which is a very weak showing for any Democrat nominee. President Barack Obama won the state by 18 points in 2012.

Two recent polls in New Hampshire show a toss-up race between Clinton and Trump, with each drawing support in the low 40s. Both candidates are unpopular with voters, with just over 60 percent of voters having a negative view of the two candidates.

New Hampshire

Bernie Sanders retains his popularity in the Granite State after posting a landslide win over Clinton in the Democrat primary. Clinton seems to be suffering more by the comparison with Sanders.

New Hampshire has been a safe Democrat state in the Obama era. George W. Bush won it very narrowly in 2000, but Republicans have struggled ever since. Trump has a 20-point edge over Clinton among men, matching her 20-point edge among women.

California

Perhaps most surprising in recent poll is the relatively competitive status of California in the general election. Clinton leads Trump by 12 points in the RealClearPolitics average of polls, but hasn’t yet broken 50 percent in support. Even this lead seems modest, however, considering that Obama carried the state twice by more than 23 points. Republicans haven’t been competitive in Presidential elections in the Golden State since the 1980s.

Bernie Sanders, by contrast, leads Trump by 17 points in California.

Other States

Other recent state polls have shown near toss-ups between Trump and Clinton in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Trump has a small edge in Arizona, North Carolina and Georgia, which have all trended Democrat in recent elections.

Obviously, the general election contest has only recently begun in earnest. While Trump has safely secured the Republican nomination, Hillary Clinton is still waging an exhausting battle against Bernie Sanders. Neither party has held its nomination convention and both candidates still have some work to solidify their party’s voters behind them.

That said, Trump’s strong showing in states that have only recently been foundations of the Democrats electoral map is surprising at this stage. Without robust general election campaigning, one would expect these states to reflect their traditional partisan biases in polling this early.

Hence, recent desperate MSM moves to vilify Trump before these states vote.

* Maybe he’ll be offered the V.P. slot. Wouldn’t that be a shocker. Far more likely, though, he’s now looking to have a say in laying out the the party platform.

California, New Jersey primary updates, results: Clinton praises Sanders’ ‘extraordinary campaign’

@Ditto:
Good points.
I’d just add, from the standpoint of optics,
a Hillary – Bernie ticket looks as bad as a Trump – Newt one.
The pairs are both too old!
Hillary is 68 and Bernie is 74.
Trump is 69 and Newt is 72.
Both Hillary and Trump need younger blood than that on their tickets.

@Greg: Since he has Soros’ violent thugs behind him, he could relive the role Rohm served for the Nazis and be the party enforcer. Then he could continue leading his New Brownshirts to trying to break up Trump rallies.

In other news:
Big data reports Latino support for Trump on the rise at 37%

“…..[W]e see a Trump candidacy that is strong and rising, even under the emerging hashtag #LatinosForTrump.
….
big data analysis reveals Trump’s rise is real, based on a sample size of over 1 million Hispanics?

Based on big data analysis over the last 30 days as of June 1st, Trump reports 37 percent of Hispanic positive sentiment versus 41 percent for Clinton. Surprisingly, the candidates tie in negative sentiment across Hispanics at 38 percent.

This campaigning is just getting started.
Democrats Beginning To Fear No One Cares Enough About Hillary Clinton To Vote For Her

Democratic turnout has fallen drastically since 2008, the last time the party had a contested primary, with roughly three million fewer Democrats voting in the 15 states…

Not true with Trump.
Donald Trump drives GOP’s record turnout

@Bill:

I posted this elsewhere but since Rich brought it up here also:

La Raza Judge Gonzalo Curiel and the Hispanic National Bar Association…

The curriculum vitae of Trump University Judge Gonzalo Curiel specifically mentions his affiliation with the Hispanic National Bar Association, or HNBA.

The Hispanic National Bar Association published a press release on July 2nd 2015 which specifically stated their intention to target the “business interests” of Donald Trump:

Full July 2nd Press Release available HERE

Now, I doubt you could find a more conformational reason for Donald Trump to be concerned about a Judge overseeing the Trump University lawsuit, which everyone admits is based on some sketchy legal standing, than Judge Curiel specifically belonging to a legal enterprise of affiliates who have clearly stated their intent to target Trump’s business interests.

Recap:

* The attorney group leading the lawsuit against Trump are heavily involved in Democrat politics and have paid Bill and Hillary Clinton $675,000 for “speeches”. (link)

* The Judge in the lawsuit is an open borders immigration activist with direct ties to San Diego La Raza, and has openly engaged with them on their political endeavors. (link) and (link) including scholarships for illegal aliens.

* The Trump lawsuit relies (in part) on testimony from a former disgruntled employee of the Trump Organization who went to work for notorious #NeverTrump activist Glenn Beck. (link)

* The Judge then “accidentally” releases court records which provides the media with the names, locations, and contact information of the plaintiffs and witnesses in the case, which fuels the media narrative. (link)

* After the “mistaken” release, Judge Curiel reseals the court records. (link)

* The Judge is a member of an ethnic legal group, HNBA, whose specific and publicly expressed intentions are to target Donald Trump’s business interests (link)

The Judge clearly should recuse himself simply on the grounds that he has a conflict of interest that justifiably raises the question of bias and conflict of interest.

Judicial Disqualification Resource Center:
Grounds for Recusal

Motions to recuse or disqualify judges and other adjudicators have been made for all sorts of reasons. Most commonly such motions are predicated upon a claim that the judge is biased in favor of one party, or against another, or that a reasonable objective observer would think he might be. But such motions are also made on many other grounds, including the challenged judge’s:

● Interest in the subject matter, or relationship with someone who is interested in it

● Background or experience, such as the judge’s prior work as a lawyer

● Personal knowledge about the parties or the facts of the case

● Ex parte communications with lawyers or non-lawyers

● Rulings, comments or conduct

In some jurisdictions the ability of a judge to recuse himself is constrained by the so-called “duty to sit doctrine”. According to this doctrine, unless a judge is required by law to disqualify himself he cannot simply choose to recuse himself, but must remain on the case.

In most American jurisdictions a judge may only be disqualified “for cause.” In other words, a person who would like a new judge to preside over her case is required to show either that a basis for disqualification exists that is expressly enumerated in A disqualification statute; or that, for some other reason, a reasonable person would question the judge’s ability to be impartial in the case. But many (mostly western and mid-western) jurisdictions have laws on the books which authorize parties to seek disqualification on a “peremptory” basis, without making any showing of cause. This is referred to as “peremptory disqualification,” or making a “peremptory challenge” . In such jurisdictions, as long as the challenge is timely filed, and the prescribed procedure is complied with, the judge has no discretion to determine whether he should recuse himself; rather, he is disqualified automatically.

DECIDING RECUSAL MOTIONS:WHO JUDGES THE JUDGES?

Judicial impartiality is a significant element of justice. Judges should decide legal disputes free of any personal bias or prejudice. As a result of a conflict of interest, a judge may
be unable to maintain impartiality in a case and thus should be disqualified. Even where a judge is impartial, but appears not to be, recusal is necessary. To promote the goal of judicial impartiality, most states have adopted the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct.’ The Code prescribes disqualification for judges who recognize the existence of a conflict of interest, or who encounter allegations
of a conflict of interest in a motion to disqualify.

Justice must be blind and impartial to be fair and just.