Well, okay.
B-b-but how about JUST responding to this LITTLE PART of JUST that one post? Pleeeeze?
<<But let's go with that, since you think it's an entirely benign circumstance and wouldn't mind being in the docket for murder and judged and sentenced by a judge whose son was the law partner of the prosecutor in the biggest case their law firm would ever see.
Since you feel that way, let's move on to consider this scenario:
Daddy thinking to himself, "Hmmmm, that's my son's business
partner,
since the two are partners in the same law firm... hmmmm... this is the
biggest case their firm will ever handle... hmmmm... wow, wouldn't it
be great if my dear Johnny's firm won this gold ring case?...
hmmmm....
Whoa! -- Now that I think of it...
I'd better disclose this connection, because of subsection a,
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall
disqualify
himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably
be
questioned."
Seems right-thinking to me.
Doesn't say financial. Doesn't say substantial. Doesn't say proved.
Doesn't say household. Doesn't say grandpa. Doesn't say
unspeculative.
Doesn't say recusal.
Says disclosure.>>
C'mon, pleeeze? Does it say disclosure, at least to you?
Oh, I forgot. You think he might have disclosed to someone, just not me.
But why would he do that, in your view, Neocon? |
