Those “circles” were the mainstream Republican party at the time. Describing the American left as fascists is mainstream. “Transsexual fascists” is a little weird but it is not unusual to hear the left is associated with “transsexuals”, “gays”, “bisexuals”, “lgbtqwtf other letters” &etc. Saying the Democratic candidate is a traitor or terrorist or criminal who should go to prison was mainstream since Hillary Clinton ran in 2016.
~Max
I don’t have legal experience and you are free to discount my opinion accordingly.
~Max
Why would someone need any sort of legal experience to say that the words “financial interests” mean financial interests?
You could conceivably read “personal and fiduciary financial interests” as “personal interests” and “fiduciary financial interests”. Then you could read “the personal financial interests of his spouse” as an error of composition, contrary to the apparent intent of the proximate clause, and therefore interpret it as “the personal and financial interests of his spouse”.
~Max
You could read all sorts of things in twisted weird ways. (That’s how you get people like John Eastman claiming Pence had a right to reject slates of electors.)
But this started off with Aspenglow claiming that you “continue to ignore the very specific language in the code”, and in reality the very specific language in the code refers explicitly to financial interests, and the only way to read it otherwise is to get very “creative”.
(This is besides for the fact that the code doesn’t apply to SC Justices. But that’s another matter.)
Hey, you said it, not me.
Doesn’t it? I checked the definitions section and it included Justices of the Supreme Court. Relevant to the OP, it seems to me a Supreme Court Justice is required, by law, to recuse himself if his spouse has financial interests in the case. (or herself, as applicable)
On second read, it looks like you’re right about paragraph (c).
~Max
I believe the term is Useful idiots.
It’s the greedy and the ignorant, as always. You have those who know better but generate and broadly disseminate the propaganda, and you have those whose tribalism is so ingrained and immutable that they simply do not question that which comports with their pre-existing worldview.
That’s not insanity. It’s such a high level of confirmation bias that it becomes pathological credulousness.
The text seems pretty clear to me, but I think Aspenglow is an actual lawyer, so if he says courts don’t interpret it that way, I’ll accept that.
See? You really do know the answer. And the practical application of the statute to all justices, judges and magistrate judges has always been interpreted to mean what you just stated. Clarence Thomas surely understands this.
By your own admission, you have no special legal training. Yet actual lawyers and others with specific legal training, and I include myself in this, have spent post after post explaining in great detail to you why your interpretation of this law is incorrect. To continue to minimize their experience and insist on your own definitions is insulting and not productive to the discussion.
You’re entitled to hold your opinions – as you have made abundantly clear. No one is asking you to do otherwise. But your arguments are misguided on this subject.
For ThingFish: IANAL, but I was a judge’s assistant for many years as well as a cerified paralegal. I’ve probably sat through more hearings on Motions to Recuse than most of the lawyers here (but not the judges!). Not tooting my horn, just stating a fact. I’m pretty familiar with them.
Modding: I’m going to make it official. @Max_S you are being provided facts and actual knowledge and experience. Any more twisting words, selective quoting or JAQing in this thread will be treated to a warning.
I’ve been following this thread for about 24 hours despite no interest in it. You are not debating in good faith here. It will stop.
But look who ruled on the case where that citation comes from:
STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which WHITE and SCALIA, JJ., joined, post, p. 486 U. S. 870. O’CONNOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 486 U. S. 874.
Also, let’s step back to the overarching recusal standards – to wit:
That’s simpler than the language about ‘personal,’ ‘financial,’ and ‘fiduciary.’ It’s spelled out more explicitly here:
A violation of § 455(a) – which requires a judge to disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned – is established when a reasonable person, knowing the relevant facts, would expect that a judge knew of circumstances creating an appearance of partiality, notwithstanding a finding that the judge was not actually conscious of those circumstances.
There just isn’t a lot of wiggle room there, unless one is playing what Bill Maher referred to as a game of “Gus (the Mule):”
It’s not unreasonable to argue that the Supremes answer to nobody (but their Chief) about recusal. Neither is it unreasonable to discuss the long list of times that Justices did recuse themselves.
Of course, some people who disagree may be relying on “What If We Didn’t ?”.
Which is a very dark door to just keep opening blithely.
This is too much like Trump’s “perfect call” with Zelensky. At some point, “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for” (forgive the endless mixed metaphors) must be made to fail. At some point, country over party should matter.
As I don’t see any fault on my part, I don’t think I can abide by your modnote except by leaving the discussion altogether. I apologize to Aspenglow and insist I had no intention to minimize your legal experience, and take my leave.
~Max
No apology necessary to me, anyway. I found it more insulting on behalf of the lawyers who added the benefit of their experience and knowledge. But I won’t speak for them.
I can tell you that I, personally, would accept the opinions of most lawyers/judges on this board with little or no questioning, so long as they offered actual facts and substantive reasoning for their views. Moreover, I would thank them for their time to educate me on this or any other legal matter, and for fighting my ignorance.
A little humility is a powerful thing.
If this is in reference to the interpretation of § 455, it doesn’t really seem like that is the case. At least it isn’t clear what “facts and actual knowledge” he’s been provided that he is twisting.
It looks to me like he was just pointing out that “personal financial” means personal financial. The fact that 455 (a), a different section, is broader, doesn’t mean he wasn’t right about the different standard in 455 (c). I mean, I could provide cites that “personal financial” in (c) actually means “financial,” I just wasn’t interested or involved.
I certainly think his whole approach is misguided, but with all due respect, I don’t think what you said is true if it’s about that exchange.
Do not argue moderation in thread.
I’m thinking back to the security check I underwent 10 or so years ago (as well as the recent review. Still remember the FBI contractor looking like I advocated violent overthrow of the government when I tried to explain that my daughter’s name was MelaNie rather than MelaBie as I had typed. Seriously - it required some explanation other than “Gee, the keys are next to each other on the computer and I’m not applying to be a professional typist.” And the need to identify who knows how many non-relative, non-cow-orker acquaintances who had known me at least a decade.
I’m wondering about where in there the issue of “Does the applicant of anyone in their immediate family hold - um - unconventional political/social views?”
Yeah - the little lady/man is free to hold wacky views, but If you choose to marry the crazy, IMO that should have some bearing on your eligibility for some positions.
Also, in my personal and professional experience, the recusal - and judicial decorum - means considerably more than “can you issue a well-reasoned decision based on the evidence presented in this case?”