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 (116389)	12/15/2000 10:30:20 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Message 15032574 <<<Although the term "could" is used, presumably it is used in a strong sense:>>> It depends whether "could" means "could"? Does it depend on what the meaning of "might" is? Does it depend on what the meaning of "shall" is? Silly me, I thought they meant could, might, and shall. But then I thought is meant is.... Okay, yes, discretion. In the case of subsection (a)Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." But some discretion is, you are correct, allowed for in the statute, under subsection a: ...under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification. Full disclosure may permit a waiver of recusal. You know, Neocon, I can't imagine why Scalia didn't just disclose that the attorney that was going to argue the President's case before him was a business (law firm) partner of his son, and that his other son was also working for a Bush firm, albeit one that only became a Bush firm the day after young Scalia was hired! I mean, it's so obviously not a "proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned," so why didn't he just disclose it and have the discretion kick right in? It's a mystery.