As a former lawyer (albeit Canadian), I find Chief Justice Rehnquist's reasoning interesting. One of the first things that we were taught in law school, where we were required to take an ethics course, was, "Justice must not only be done, it must be *seen* to be done." By not excusing himself, it appears that Rehnquist may have forgotten this.
It doesn't matter that it might not be an actual conflict of interest - all that matters is that it might appear to be a conflict of interest. At least in Canada. But I will admit to be a stickler in these matters.
And people in my former profession wonder why the public has such a low opinion of lawyers.
Another thing - I understand from comments made on ZDNet that the dissenting justice, Breyer, is the antitrust expert on the US Supreme Court. Does this mean that the other justices may not listen to what he has to say when the case makes it to the US Supreme Court?
Slashdot Mirror
As a former lawyer (albeit Canadian), I find Chief Justice Rehnquist's reasoning interesting. One of the first things that we were taught in law school, where we were required to take an ethics course, was, "Justice must not only be done, it must be *seen* to be done." By not excusing himself, it appears that Rehnquist may have forgotten this.
It doesn't matter that it might not be an actual conflict of interest - all that matters is that it might appear to be a conflict of interest. At least in Canada. But I will admit to be a stickler in these matters.
And people in my former profession wonder why the public has such a low opinion of lawyers.
Another thing - I understand from comments made on ZDNet that the dissenting justice, Breyer, is the antitrust expert on the US Supreme Court. Does this mean that the other justices may not listen to what he has to say when the case makes it to the US Supreme Court?