I am construing in the light of the whole statute. He is required to take REASONABLE steps to acquaint himself with the financial affairs of those within his household. Thus, if it were discovered that there were a substantial financial stake that is was REASONABLE he had overlooked, he would not be in violation. I therefore infer that if there is no OBVIOUS conflict he is aware of with a relative not a member of his household, he is not liable. It is true that the statute does not say "direct". I did not quote it as saying so, either. But I think it is the right characterization for the situation. The statute does say SUBSTANTIAL, which means that SOME affect on the interests of the relative can be OVERLOOKED. Now, if the substantiality of the effect is not an obvious consequence of the ruling, that is because there is a speculative element that assumes other things come into play. Thus, it is not a direct and substantial interest. By the "reasonable to have overlooked" standard, the justice should be held harmless.
You assert that it is obvious that the ruling could effect the son's law firm substantially. I offered a couple of reasons why that is not so, but omitted the primary one: it is unlikely that the firm would have been hired if it were not already top dollar. Thus, its fortunes are not very dependent on a single case. It is not at all apparent to me that winning the case is any kind of gold ring.
You say that you are not suggesting that Scalia changed his vote for this reason. I doubt that anyone not trying to score debating points would think that he would be swayed in such a way. Thus, it is not reasonable to construe a conflict of interest, and section (a) does not apply. The things he might be swayed by, such as a concern with the future of the court, are shared by the other justices, and therefore not worth putting into play.
Since no reasonable person would imagine that Justice Scalia would be swayed by such a thing, he had no duty to disclose under section (a). Since the affect of the ruling on the substantial interests of the son is wholly speculative, he had no obligation to recuse himself. Only if the matter were brought up and argued as a challenge might some duty to recuse come into play.
The proof is in the pudding. Although these matters were already known when the SCOTUS was deliberating, no one challenged. If Scalia is disciplined subsequently, I will rethink my position. Otherwise, I am confident that the statute did not come into play........ |
