Important or not important?
- Thread starter Canceled2
- Start date
Well, your "point" about some necessary threshold value to be reached before it matters for a judge is exactly the reason why there is no threshold value in the recusal law. Here it is again:
It doesn't say a "significant financial interest" or a "substantial financial interest." It says "a financial interest." The reason for that is that while you "seriously doubt" that his financial interest impacted his decision, there should be absolutely no doubts whatsoever.
And I like the jab about talking points. I mean, it isn't as though you can actually defend the judge in this instance other than saying you "seriously doubt" that he ruled the way he did because he has a financial interest in the matter, so I guess you work with what you got. In this case, not much.
Judicial Watch often reports their own scoops...they did not do this one.
The fact that the AP reported this non story lends itself to the idea of a leak...or better idea, purposefully inflamatory non issue.
Again, "he knows that he"...
Most people do not have the intimate knowledge of their portfolio that you are projecting onto this judge. The reality is, if he had substantial holdings it would be impossible to say he didn't "know", but in this case the holdings are not all that substantial, it is likely he doesn't or didn't know he had the stock in his portfolio, but regardless of that.
It also ignores later law:
In this case, using the determination of "reasonably", it is my opinion that you are reaching. And whether you like it or not, the "jab" is really my guess, you seem instantly aware and ready to post the clear talking points of the party you belong to...
It isn't a scoop. It is information readily available on the Judicial Watch website to anyone that wants to look at a judge's financial disclosures, like, for example, a news reporter.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Do yourself a favor... read the DATE of that financial disclosure.... 2008.
Now go find us his disclosure statement from 2009 (or the 2010 if that is available)
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.
I am going off of the most recent available information. Assuming he sold his holdings of stock in companies engaged in drilling int he Gulf of Mexico, he had no reason to recuse himself.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I am trying to find the article, but in it, he stated he had sold RIG in 2009... I don't think it mentioned the others, but he stated he had no holdings in the oil industry and thus had no reason to step down off the case.
WHOOOOOSH- Again you miss the fact that it's a non story and so why run it??? A real story would have had a reporter digging into current financial involvement and running that with facts to back it up...but a smear...well those are easy.
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."
Just to follow up on this. You are not quoting "later law," but are referring to a different portion of the same statute, specifically subsection (a). Subsection (a) is indeed the "catch all" provision that explicitly includes a "reasonableness" standard. It is as follows:
The particular section I quoted previously is Subsection (b) and it does not contain the reasonableness requirement. In fact, it mandates that a judge recuse himself where, as here, he has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy. (And again, SF, if he sold his stock in companies engaged in offshore drilling, I see no problem with the judge remaining on the case).
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you're not reading the law correctly....
this is the test for "all" interest, financial or any other interest....it has to be substantially affected
No, I'm reading it correctly. The "or" separating financial interests and "other interests" is a disjunctive. It means you have to recuse yourself if (1) you have a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or (2) any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
no...they are possibilities that must be substantially affected
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
additionally, this looks like a mutual fund...as such, he is ok
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.
Not sure where you got your info, but according to the disclosure report he had direct stock ownership in several entities engages in offshore drilling in the Gulf.