Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (116383)	12/15/2000 9:00:30 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

The statute does not come into play unless you are a sore loser. JLA

To: Neocon who wrote (116383)	12/15/2000 9:40:51 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I construed in light of the whole statute, too. Message 15026431 You seem to talk about "substantial financial interest" (and I believe you again irrelevantly raised household members), but the statute section I'm proposing as relevant says that if your great grandpa's wife has "an interest that could be substantially affected" by the outcome of the proceeding... etc. You know what happens if that is the case? If, for example, it were felt that not your son, even, but your great grandpa's wife had an "interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding"? You MUST be recused. Because it's subsection b. Disclosure isn't enough. So if your great grandpa's wife has an interest that could be substantially affected you are OUT, no waivers, no exceptions, I believe. But now let's say your son (not grandpa's wife) is the law (business) partner of the guy who's arguing the case for the defendant and you're going to judge this guy's argument. Doesn't this situation, in your opinion rise to subsection b, mandatory recusal? No? Well, everybody's different, n'est-ce pas? 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. you know, Rambi's husband said words to the effect that the law is what you can convince people it is. Your brief feels, to me, like transparent legal obfuscation of simple, clear, printed ideas, not like you read the statute and applied an ethical common sense-- but hey, maybe it could convince a jury. That's what lawyers are for. I'd get a better one than you, though, if I were defending Scalia's not disclosing! (Not an insult, I know that neither of us are lawyers, Neocon, and are both dealing with texts of a sort we aren't used to.)

To: Neocon who wrote (116383)	12/15/2000 9:53:36 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

<<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.>> "Thus" indeed, lol. That's an attempt at legalistic Gotcha, but it's silly. The reason I believe Scalia wouldn't change his vote is that he is a right wing Republican whose sentiments couldn't have been moved farther toward Bush/Cheney than they already were because there was no more room in that direction. There is such a thing as "over-motivation." Neo, I really don't think you're supposed to not disclose facts that might cause someone to reasonably question your impartiality on the grounds that you are already so partial that more motivation for partisanship would hardly count!