Whether the Supreme Court may consider the risk of manifest injustice and potential effect on public confidence in the judicial process when an impaired judge fails to recuse

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether the Supreme Court or any other court of appellate jurisdiction may affirm, modify, vacate, set aside or reverse any lower court judgment, decree or order of a inferior court, lawfully brought before it for reviewability, to consider the risk of manifest injustice to the legal parties to the particular cause, and further to the extent : that the denial of proper adjudicative relief could produce a continuum of the same injustice in other cocircuit jurisdictions causing a imminent conflict and disturbing confusion, resulting in a potential affect undermining the public’s confidence in the judicial process, when an impaired judge is faced with the appearance of impropriety under defining statute § 455(a) et seq., and the trial court judge has wrongly failed to recuse or disqualify oneself from the commenced proceeding, to | ; ‘correct this situation, should the reviewing court vested with inherent authority arising under 29 USC § 2106, effect supremacy intervention in full consideration for the advancement of, and interest for the administration of justice, remanding the cause to the chief judge of the jurisdictional circuit for instructional percolation assignment, to a different judge for proper disposition of the cause, if it evident that the entry of such inappropriate judgment, decree or order of the 1* trial . court judge non judicial acts, circumvention of procedural due process, misapplying the federal rules and omission of ministerial duties? . 1 PARTIES TO THE COMMENCED CIVIL ACTION The Appellant / Petitioner, as a natural person, Frizzell Carrell Woodson, a pro se litigant in all matters theretofore, as to date, pursuance to the Article [IJ Constitutional standing and Prudential requirements of a concrete adverseness between the named Defendant herein, arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act § 1346 (b) “FTCA filing in the federal court jurisdictional venue. . May the record reflect, pursuance to the FTCA section 1346 (b) six enumerated threshold elements are satisfied for venue jurisdiction and granted waiver of sovereign immunity is thereby as a matter of law, shall constitute for this permissible tort civil action commenced within the set congressional statute of limitation as prescribed in § 2401 (b). The proper Defendant, the United States of America, advent in legal sum under section 1346 (b) (1) of 28 United States Code, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (h) a waiver of sovereign immunity exists plausible for the government is liable for tortious acts committed by any employee of the Government negligence while acting within the scope of his official office appointment and or federal employment. The Litigation Counsel for the Defendant, The United States of America, shall be at all times, pursuant to 28 U.S.C., § 516-519, and conjoining § 547 be statutorily deemed in Full Legal Representation by the United States Department Justice. ii