Important or not important?

[Cancel 2018. 3]

No, they are two separate things (1) a financial interest in the subject matter or a party or (2) some other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of he proceeding.

If you actually read the statute (because the rudimentary grammar ship has sailed), particularly the definition of "financial interest," you would see that your reading is incorrect.

you might be right, however, that seems a silly criteria...if i had one dollar worht of stock in coco cola, i should have to recuse myself? seems that the interest should be substantially affected, if its not, there is no need to recuse yourself

 

[Bonestorm]

you might be right, however, that seems a silly criteria...if i had one dollar worht of stock in coco cola, i should have to recuse myself? seems that the interest should be substantially affected, if its not, there is no need to recuse yourself

Well, the point is to remove and shred of doubt that could possibly exist that a judge acted for personal financial reasons. It may seem stupid, but it is important to the administration of justice. And it is why a lot of judges invest in funds as opposed to stocks.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Well, the point is to remove and shred of doubt that could possibly exist that a judge acted for personal financial reasons. It may seem stupid, but it is important to the administration of justice. And it is why a lot of judges invest in funds as opposed to stocks.

iii) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;
(iv) Ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities.

these two financial interests state it could be substantially affected....could be these are the only two exceptions, but it seems silly if the amount is not substantially affected....and to allow only these types of financial interest to have the exception....then again, it does say no matter how small

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

this former scotus lawclerk addresses my thoughts on the matter

When I was clerking for Justice Harry Blackmun, I remember the Justice taking scrupulous care to recuse himself from cases where it might be thought that he had a financial interest in the outcome, as, for example, when he held shares of stock in a company that was a party to a case. I admired Blackmun for his zeal on the subject. He thought even the slightest appearance of impropriety should be avoided.

But I also remember thinking that, as a practical matter, any concern regarding conflicts of interest was, for the most part, overblown. It seemed absurd to me that anyone could believe that, in the absence of really significant stock holdings, Justice Blackmun or any of the Justices would be swayed, even subconsciously, by the indirect prospect of some at best incremental financial gain or loss depending on how the Court decided a case. If Supreme Court Justices were truly this susceptible to corrupt thought, we were facing bigger problems than just recusal from cases!

On the other side of the coin, moreover, the price of recusal at the Supreme Court, in particular, is potentially very high. At the trial court or court of appeals level, one judge can be replaced by another, usually with a minimum of disruption. At the Supreme Court, by contrast, there is no one to sub in when one of the Justices recuses himself or herself.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20090212.html

while it can be argued that scotus is different than lower court judges who are plenty, i agree with his concerns about the financial gain in paragraph two...

 

[Damocles]

He signed a financial disclosure report specifying his holdings. He knows what he put in the report.




Link to whatever it is you are quoting and I will address it.

Run a search on this: 486 U.S. 847 and you will find that law.

 

[zappasguitar]

I guess the libs only believe in the judiciary when it suits them.

Oh the sweet, delicious irony of that statement!

 

[Damocles]

additionally, this looks like a mutual fund...as such, he is ok

Likely, as I said most people have no idea what they own in their portfolio. You'd have to prove that he knew the mutual fund had that specific stuff in it, and that it would be "substantially" effected. Then later law speaks to "reasonable" assumption that their decision could be effected. I seriously doubt this guy is in any danger.

 

[Bonestorm]

Likely, as I said most people have no idea what they own in their portfolio. You'd have to prove that he knew the mutual fund had that specific stuff in it, and that it would be "substantially" effected. Then later law speaks to "reasonable" assumption that their decision could be effected. I seriously doubt this guy is in any danger.

First, as a judge he has an obligation to know what is in his portfolio. Second, he knew what was in his portfolio because he signed a document stating what was in his portfolio. Third, that document stated that he owned shares of stock in companies engaged in offshore drilling activities in the Gulf, not in a mutual fund with the stock in it. Fourth, there is no "substantially affected" requirement on financial interests. Fifth, I already addressed your erroneous later law" point which, for financial interests, does not include a reasonableness requirement.

On the last point, you are correct that this guy is not in any danger. The rules are self-enforcing and even if he owned eleventy billion shares of Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Drilling Co. and didn't recuse himself, the only available recourse is to appeal the decision and try to have him impeached. There is no punishment in the law itself for failing to recuse.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

First, as a judge he has an obligation to know what is in his portfolio. Second, he knew what was in his portfolio because he signed a document stating what was in his portfolio. Third, that document stated that he owned shares of stock in companies engaged in offshore drilling activities in the Gulf, not in a mutual fund with the stock in it. Fourth, there is no "substantially affected" requirement on financial interests. Fifth, I already addressed your erroneous later law" point which, for financial interests, does not include a reasonableness requirement.

On the last point, you are correct that this guy is not in any danger. The rules are self-enforcing and even if he owned eleventy billion shares of Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Drilling Co. and didn't recuse himself, the only available recourse is to appeal the decision and try to have him impeached. There is no punishment in the law itself for failing to recuse.

yes there are...at least on the two i pointed out to you and as i've argued, i think in reality there is

 

[Bonestorm]

yes there are...at least on the two i pointed out to you and as i've argued, i think in reality there is

Yurt:

The fact that for those two there is an explicit substantiality requirement is evidence in support of my view. The fact that the statute includes that language for two types of financial interest leads to the conclusion that there is no substantiality requirement on any other financial interest. Expressio unius . . .

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Yurt:

The fact that for those two there is an explicit substantiality requirement is evidence in support of my view. The fact that the statute includes that language for two types of financial interest leads to the conclusion that there is no substantiality requirement on any other financial interest. Expressio unius . . .

like i said, you may be right....you, however, stated there is NO substantial requirement for financial interest, this is not accurate....

you're not seeing the forest through the trees...post 44

 

[Bonestorm]

Yurt:

I thought we were discussing the pertinent section that I posted wherein you claimed that substantiality was a requirement within that section, not the definitions that I asked you to look at.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Yurt:

I thought we were discussing the pertinent section that I posted wherein you claimed that substantiality was a requirement within that section, not the definitions that I asked you to look at.

i looked at those on my own, i have no idea what you're talking about and again, your statement was inaccurate...you love to harp on accuracy, so take it like a man nigel

you should read post 44

also, the spread of his stocks indicates someone else manages them, thus there likely is no problem here

 

[Bonestorm]

i looked at those on my own, i have no idea what you're talking about and again, your statement was inaccurate...you love to harp on accuracy, so take it like a man nigel

you should read post 44

also, the spread of his stocks indicates someone else manages them, thus there likely is no problem here

Actually, my statement was accurate if you want to really get technical. You see, the statute excludes from the definition of "financial interest" those two items you mentioned, so in the end, the substantiality test does not apply to any "financial interest" as defined in the statute.

I read post 44.

That last little bit you have up there is total nonsense. Even assuming that someone else "manages" his stock, it is irrelevant to whether the judge should recuse himself based on his financial interest.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Actually, my statement was accurate if you want to really get technical. You see, the statute excludes from the definition of "financial interest" those two items you mentioned, so in the end, the substantiality test does not apply to any "financial interest" as defined in the statute.

I read post 44.

That last little bit you have up there is total nonsense. Even assuming that someone else "manages" his stock, it is irrelevant to whether the judge should recuse himself based on his financial interest.

lol....those financial interests are excepted UNLESS they could substantially affect his decision...so no, you are not accurate

if it is a fund stock and someone else manages, it does in fact matter...did you actually read the code?

 

[Canceled2]

Well, take it up with the AP reporter. It's got nothing to do with Obama and doesn't support your silly claim that publicly available information was "leaked."

Nice try...an obscure piece of information from 2008 all of the sudden is a story? There is reason enough to suspect a "tip off"...since you don't like the term leak. As I said, a story would have been current financial information with facts to back it up...this smacks at an attmpted smear job imo.