Oh look, linked to your post is a personal insult of me by JLA.
This is the statute, cAPSLOCK, and I gave my reasons here for thinking the situation with Scalia and his son should have been, at least, disclosed:
Message 15026431
Scalia's son was not trying the case before his father himself. His law partner, Olson, was. (Partnership is an economic arrangement.)
Scalia's other son, btw, was hired by a law firm (not a partner), and the next day that firm got a call from the Bush team hiring them to work on the case that would be appearing before Dad.
You shouldn't have to "draw some sort of connection" out of members of the Court, imo. They should disclose.
Remember when Judge Ito disclosed that his wife was an LA detective, and offered to recuse himself from the OJ case although she had no connection to the case and wouldn't benefit from its outcome (unlike the victorious Bush lawfirm partners)? The Dream Team turned him down, wisely, but I never heard a soul suggest he shouldn't have disclosed the connection and offer to recuse himself.
Did anyone here at the time think, "He shouldn't even mention that!"
Anybody?
Of course not. Nobody in the country or world did.
Because his "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
All justices whose impartiality in a case might reasonably be questioned (elucidating examples are given of obligatory recusals under subsection b) are supposed to disclose.
I like your name, it's funny. |
