3 ms·

> The conflict here is very weak Yes, and the ethical bar for the judiciary is supposed to be super strict. It's not even enough to avoid conflicts of interest

by epgui 4y ago

> The conflict here is very weak Yes, and the ethical bar for the judiciary is supposed to be super strict. It's not even enough to avoid conflicts of interest: one must also avoid the appearance of any potential conflicts of interest.

cormacrelf 4y ago
Right on. Forget “what if every judge recused for this level of conflict!”, they already do that, and it doesn’t really put a dent in judge supply.
- asveikau 4y ago
  I think there are prominent examples where they don't. We notice those because they seem unfair. Recusals that do happen probably don't usually make headlines.
- DannyBee 4y ago
  Actually, they 100% do not recuse for this level of conflict. I'm not sure why you believe otherwise, or what data you have to support. Recusals are extremely rare, and it is common for judges to have SO's or children or .... in law firms that, at some point, represented someone before a judge, without the person having been involved. Which is the case here. They do not recuse. So no, they do not "already do that". If they did, it really would put a dent in the judge supply - there are not that many federal judges.
DannyBee 4y ago
I'm quite aware of the judicial bar, and i don't think it even comes close to "appearance of a potential conflict". Which, as a phrase without interpretation, of course, covers literally everything (IE defendant is a vegan and I am not). So in the end, i simply disagree with you - this is not a close call, as the order is written, and as the bar has ever been interpreted, either by caselaw, or by ethics opinions.
- epgui 4y ago
  > as a phrase without interpretation That's not particularly productive: the meaning of the phrase is studied and covered ad nauseam by case law and scholarly (legal & ethical) literature. Differences in dietary preferences is unlikely to ever be interpreted as a potential conflict of interest, although it's certainly not impossible. There would need to be "reasonable grounds" to think the judge was unable to hear both parties fairly. I know that this sounds a bit wishy-washy, but that's the legal system for you.
  - DannyBee 4y ago
    As a recovered lawyer (though still licensed in several states), and friends with many judges, i'm again, aware, and have read plenty of it, and been forced to talk about it at parties (unfortunately). That is precisely why i said " this is not a close call, as the order is written, and as the bar has ever been interpreted, either by caselaw, or by ethics opinions." What is here would never be considered reasonable grounds. It's not even close. Outside of random people arguing on hacker news, of course.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

by epgui 4y ago

cormacrelf 4y ago

Right on. Forget “what if every judge recused for this level of conflict!”, they already do that, and it doesn’t really put a dent in judge supply.

asveikau 4y ago
I think there are prominent examples where they don't. We notice those because they seem unfair. Recusals that do happen probably don't usually make headlines.
DannyBee 4y ago
Actually, they 100% do not recuse for this level of conflict. I'm not sure why you believe otherwise, or what data you have to support. Recusals are extremely rare, and it is common for judges to have SO's or children or .... in law firms that, at some point, represented someone before a judge, without the person having been involved. Which is the case here. They do not recuse. So no, they do not "already do that". If they did, it really would put a dent in the judge supply - there are not that many federal judges.

DannyBee 4y ago

I'm quite aware of the judicial bar, and i don't think it even comes close to "appearance of a potential conflict". Which, as a phrase without interpretation, of course, covers literally everything (IE defendant is a vegan and I am not). So in the end, i simply disagree with you - this is not a close call, as the order is written, and as the bar has ever been interpreted, either by caselaw, or by ethics opinions.

epgui 4y ago
> as a phrase without interpretation That's not particularly productive: the meaning of the phrase is studied and covered ad nauseam by case law and scholarly (legal & ethical) literature. Differences in dietary preferences is unlikely to ever be interpreted as a potential conflict of interest, although it's certainly not impossible. There would need to be "reasonable grounds" to think the judge was unable to hear both parties fairly. I know that this sounds a bit wishy-washy, but that's the legal system for you.
- DannyBee 4y ago
  As a recovered lawyer (though still licensed in several states), and friends with many judges, i'm again, aware, and have read plenty of it, and been forced to talk about it at parties (unfortunately). That is precisely why i said " this is not a close call, as the order is written, and as the bar has ever been interpreted, either by caselaw, or by ethics opinions." What is here would never be considered reasonable grounds. It's not even close. Outside of random people arguing on hacker news, of course.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]