It's 1:30 am, and i was up early and print is sort of swimming, but...
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall
disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality
might reasonably be questioned.
The above is subsection a, I believe. No mention of minor children residing in household at all.
Here's what it says about subsection a:
e) No justice, judge, or magistrate shall accept from the
parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for
disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for
disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be
accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record
of the basis for disqualification.
That's just assuming that all that applies is subsection a.
I haven't yet looked at subsection b.
Since Scalia's impartiality "might reasonably be questioned," the question arises did he follow this guideline:
"waiver may be
accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record
of the basis for disqualification."
This is kinda interesting, as a subsection b (no exceptions to recusal!) item:
b) He shall also disqualify himself ...
[where he] or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law
served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter...
Does that say that if a lawyer, not his son, a lawyer with whom he merely used to practice served as a lawyer concerning the matter he must be recused?
Hmmm. So Scalia has two sons who are partners in law firms concerning the matter. One of the firms was hired the day after the son was hired. One of the lawyers, Olson, was, while arguing before Scalia, a partner in a law firm with Scalia's son.
This is surely at least a subsection a issue. The detail of what constitutes a lack of presumed impartiality according to subsection b (a serious enough conflict of interest to make recusal REQUIRED) makes clear that what we have at LEAST a subsection a situation:
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall
disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality
might reasonably be questioned.
In this case, with full disclosure, the recusal may be waived.
Did he disclose?
Thank you so much for the statute, though you italicized entirely the wrong section, it seems to me.
Oh, look, here's another case in which he must (b) recuse himself. If...:
5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of
relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
...
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be
substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
So if a son has a third degree of relationship, then the son's spouse, even, had better not have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.
Much less the son.
If either or both sons' law firms could have been not only substantially but *wildly* affected by success in this internationally televised, historical case, those law firms got the gold ring. We are talking major outcome here.
We are talking about SO much more than substantial affect on the law firms that plead those cases before Scalia, in which his sons were lawyers, in one case at least a partner, in one case a law firm that got the call hiring them for this Case of aLifetime the day after the son was hired. We are talking about the biggest prize any law firm ever got.
(What do you think happened to the Dream Team's firms' incomes after the OJ case? And that was a nothing case compared to this.)
We I think we are talking subsection b, if a son, not to mention the mere spouse of a son, is a third degree relative.
All this has nothing to do with minor children residing in the household.
I can't believe what I just read.
If a son is a third degree relative, I think Scalia is in big trouble, though of course you can't lock the barn door after the horse has been stolen, so to speak, so maybe not.
Can anyone tell me what happens if a judge has a conflict of interest and doesn't disclose it and it doesn't become public until after a case is over? |
