I gave the reasons to single Scalia out. In detail.
And it is rather casual to brush off a requirement that a justice mustn't be able to have their impartiality reasonably questioned with a mere assertion that they all could. If that answer, the equivalent of "Well nobody's perfect," or "I could question ANYBODY!", were responsive to the requirements of that section of the statute, they wouldn't bother to put it in. "Reasonably" questioned, it says. And in the subsection b discussion, the statute provides some clues as to what raises a reasonable question.
I know of no other justice who qualifies on both subsection and and subsection b grounds.
Do you?
Who has conflicts of interest anything like Scalia's?
Spouse and minor child and residing in household has NOTHING to do with it. Spouse fiduciary etc. has NOTHING to do with it. Financial interest of Scalia has NOTHING to do with it. I can't imagine why you have brought them up twice instead of the parts of the statute that apply.
<<<Only a direct and substantial interest,
known to the judge, matters.>>>
Where does it say direct? Please paste "direct"! It says spouse of a great-grandparent, I believe, lol.
Are you suggesting that Scalia didn't know where his sons worked? If he did, he knew that his son's law firm was going to be substantially, materially affected by the outcome of the case.
The gold ring for law partners. Victory in such a case is the gold ring.
I am not suggesting it changed his vote.
I am suggesting that it is a clear violation of the statute you posted that he didn't at least (subsection a) disclose, and, I believe, recuse himself (subsection b, substantial material interest in the outcome, son (as opposed to spouse of great-grandpa.)
<<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. >>
Other relatives? You mean his kids? Speculative? You mean he didn't know that if his sons' law firms won the George W. Bush case that meant wild fame and acclaim and fame and money and success for his sons' firms? Odd. He must be one of those ivory tower intellectuals. Affirmative duty to recuse himself? What kind of duty is that? Sounds like it means if nobody brought it up, he didn't have to. How about not recusing, then, even though subsection b requires it. How about just disclosing that his sons were about to become, if their firms won the case, partners in gigantically successful, famous, rich law firms? Is that too "affirmative" an action for you?
Going to bed. Really, this time. |
