Question

法律英语翻译~~~

See Rosenthal, 98 S.W.3d at 198 (“ministerial act” requirement has been described to mean that the relief sought must be “clear and indisputable” such that its merits are “beyond dispute” with “nothing left to the exercise of discretion or judgment”). Respondent, therefore, violated a “ministerial” duty by failing to recuse himself. See Chavez, at 115 (respondent has effectively limited De Leon's ability to obtain a fair hearing and his ability to effectively utilize the appellate process based on a complete evidentiary record). We further note that, by his refusal to comply with Rule 18a, respondent is responsible for having deprived De Leon and himself of an opportunity to litigate the issue of respondent's bias in the De Leon case. See Chavez, at 115. We note that, according to the Court of Appeals, “the parties in effect conceded [at oral argument] that any alleged bias [from the Estrada case] would have persisted [in the De Leon case] in such a short time frame.” See Chavez, at 109-12, 115 (setting out the evidence of respondent's bias against the lawyers). We base this decision on the record in this proceeding and on the prior judicial ruling on the Estrada recusal motion after respondent had the opportunity to be heard through counsel on this motion. We further decide that, under the unusual circumstances of this case, respondent's bias in the De Leon case has been established as a matter of law.

Answer 1

等我一下哦稍微需要点时间…

追问

不急，我们也在翻呢~~谢谢你哦~！

追答

参见 Rosenthal, 98 S.W.3d at 198 （“部长级法案”的要求被描述为，意指寻求救济必须“清晰并且无争议”，因而该寻求的优点是“无争议”并且“没有行使自有裁量权的或判决的余地”）。被申请人，由于未能撤换自己而违反了”部长级“责任。参见Chavez, 第115页（被申请人限制了De Leon根据一个完整的证据记录而获取公平审讯并有效利用上诉程序的能力）。我们进一步注意到，由于他拒绝遵守规则第18条a款，被申请人就剥夺了De Leon以及其自身有机会在法庭上提出针对被申请人的偏见负有责任，参见Chavez, 第115页。我们注意到，根据上诉法院，“各方实际上承认[口头承认]任何所谓的偏见[源自Estrada案]将持续[在De Leon中]一个很短的时间。”参见Chavez, 第109-12, 115 （向律师展示被申请人的偏见的证据）。在被申请人有机会通过商讨此动议来聆听审讯后，我们以此程序的记录以及先前对Estrada案回避动议的裁决为基础做出决定。我们进一步决定，由于本案不寻常的情况，De Leon案中被申请人的偏见被正式确立为一项法律问题。

翻译如上，请采纳并参考。