Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg
I wasn't saying they would act in self-interest, or suggesting that they recuse themselves. Mentioning that there can be recusals when there is financial self-interest involved wasn't meant to say they should recuse themselves. Here's the problem with the recusal theory: It's far more likely they would act in accord with their political predilections than financial ones.
In a case like this, where there's no clear liberal or conservative position, it would impossible to predict how justices would vote. However, well, they are political appointees.
Justice Thomas received a $1.5 million advance
Sotomayor’s Book Advances From Knopf Surpass $3 Million
If the publishers win in the end, I agree with that! I like the Google book search, I've used the results in posts here, and it doesn't have anything to do with my buying, or not buying, anything.
There's no circuit split, and so no reason for the Supremes to butt in. I hope they leave as is. |
Thanks Steve. A very reasonable and informative response. I wasn't aware of the level of advances paid to the Judges as per your links, as I would not have thought advances of this level on these types of books would be economic. Thank you for curing my ignorance in this regard. Given this level of pecuniary interest it is quite legitimate to at least raise the issue of recusal, not because of any doubts about the integrity of the Judges in question, but simply because of the principle of perceived bias which comes into play in these circumstances. Justice not only must be done, but must be seen to be done.
Hopefully the Supreme Court will refuse to hear this matter, which seems to be the likely result. In which case, of course, the law would have worked in this instance, at least in both your opinion and my own.