Since any of the justices may have their partiality "reasonably questioned", there is no reason to single anyone out, as I already mentioned in an earlier post alluding to that section.
I italicized the material about third degree relationships, actually. Since the standard for members of his household is expressed thus:"A judge should inform himself about his personal and
fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to
inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse
and minor children residing in his household.",
I do not think that he has an affirmative duty to recuse himself on speculative grounds about the possible affect of the matter on other relatives. Only a direct and substantial interest, known to the judge, matters.
That leaves the material about the spouse and minor child. Scalia has no problem there, and the way that "financial interest" is defined in the statute, neither does Thomas, since his wife is merely a salaried employee at Heritage, and not a shareholder or director, or in any analogous position....... |
