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: TideGlider who wrote (116903)	12/16/2000 12:42:46 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I didn't IMPLY, I stated EXPLICITLY, at least three times, that I had NO DOUBT that Scalia intended to vote for Bush before the first word was spoken, whoever presented the Bush case, so any inference drawn to the contrary was by those who failed to read what I had written. Here are a couple of such posts. Please either read my posts or don't respond to them-- it's only fair. To: Neocon who wrote (116385) From: E Friday, Dec 15, 2000 9:53 PM ET Reply # of 116915 <<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! To: Neocon who wrote (116765) From: E Saturday, Dec 16, 2000 9:34 AM ET Reply # of 116913 But that isn't the principle by which conflict of interest ethics work. If it were, the statute would read "these disclosure/recusal requirements do not apply if the judge is already, before hearing the case, so predisposed to rule for one or the other party that he couldn't possibly become further influenced by any factors that constitute conflict of interest under this statute." Right?....