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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (1023)	12/31/2000 4:07:19 PM
From: TimbaBear	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

there was no "conflict" worthy of either justice who has been mentioned for recusal. I found this under a general search of the word "recuse" "The Code of Ethics provides that public officials and employees must file a statement of conflict of interest, or recusal form, concerning matters where he or she may have a conflict of interest in the discharge of his or her official duties. A conflict of interest may exist if an official/employee can reasonably expect that his or her official conduct will directly result in a financial benefit to him/herself, family, business associates, employers, or businesses that the official represents. The conflict need not be certain to occur, but the probability must be greater than "conceivably". [See R.I. Gen Laws, §36-14-6, Regulations 36-14-5002, 36-14-5005, 36-14-6001 and 36-14-6002]" If the justices on our US Supreme Court cannot hold themselves up to the highest ethical standards, how can they expect anyone else to do so? When family members employment will be directly affected by an adverse decision, that, in my opinion rises above the standard "conceivably" indicated in this definition. In nationally published stories, the families of at least two justices were employed by the Bush family in some capacity, yet they failed to hold themselves up to the ethical standards expected of so many others. That failure taints the effect of their decision and blemishes the image of the US Supreme Court. I'm not saying that the remaining members of the court would have arrived at any different result, only that the obvious conflicts of interest should have been appropriately and publicly addressed beforehand by the justices involved.