C
Cancel4
Guest
Uncle Clarence Thomas had more than partisan interest in the case of Bush vs. Gore.
His wife was employed by the Heritage Foundation, a self-styled "think tank" (read: Conservative propaganda-pit), specifically in the role of gathering resumes for the Bushler transition team.
In order for her to have employ in this, it would be necessary for there to be a Bushler transition team. In order for that to occur, Bushler would have to prevail in the court rulings.
In other words, the income of the Uncle Thomas family was directly affected by his ruling.
Imagine that you're a plaintiff in a case, and you find that the judge’s wife works for the defendant’s company. You would expect the judge to pass the case along to a judge who had no interest on behalf of either party, a process called "recusal".
Uncle Thomas should have recused himself. It isn’t just good judicial ethics, something Uncle Thomas lacks: it’s the law. Specifically, it violates this law:
28 USC Sec. 455 01/05/99
TITLE 28 _ JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
PART I _ ORGANIZATION OF COURTS
CHAPTER 21 _ GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO COURTS AND
JUDGES
Sec. 455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate
_STATUTE_
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv) Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.
That he didn’t isn’t just a breach of ethics.
It is a felony. Given the importance of this particular case, it rises easily to the level of impeachable offence.
Uncle Thomas, by his personal dishonesty and partisanship, disgraced his high office and endangered the country. He has to go.
His wife was employed by the Heritage Foundation, a self-styled "think tank" (read: Conservative propaganda-pit), specifically in the role of gathering resumes for the Bushler transition team.
In order for her to have employ in this, it would be necessary for there to be a Bushler transition team. In order for that to occur, Bushler would have to prevail in the court rulings.
In other words, the income of the Uncle Thomas family was directly affected by his ruling.
Imagine that you're a plaintiff in a case, and you find that the judge’s wife works for the defendant’s company. You would expect the judge to pass the case along to a judge who had no interest on behalf of either party, a process called "recusal".
Uncle Thomas should have recused himself. It isn’t just good judicial ethics, something Uncle Thomas lacks: it’s the law. Specifically, it violates this law:
28 USC Sec. 455 01/05/99
TITLE 28 _ JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
PART I _ ORGANIZATION OF COURTS
CHAPTER 21 _ GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO COURTS AND
JUDGES
Sec. 455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate
_STATUTE_
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv) Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.
That he didn’t isn’t just a breach of ethics.
It is a felony. Given the importance of this particular case, it rises easily to the level of impeachable offence.
Uncle Thomas, by his personal dishonesty and partisanship, disgraced his high office and endangered the country. He has to go.
