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 (116850)	12/16/2000 10:07:56 AM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

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?