On the recordJuly 14, 2010
I believe that is correct. The standard is, among other things, if your impartiality might reasonably be questioned--and many judges are very sensitive about this--if you own a bunch of stock and you have one share in a big company like GE, and a case involving GE comes before you, you are expected to recuse yourself, even though it is unlikely to have an impact on your finances. But it doesn't look good. I think we are entitled to know how sensitive this nominee is going to be to the dangers of her impartiality being questioned, even if her actions are not such that clearly, as a matter of judicial ethics, mandates her recusal. I think we need to talk about that, and I feel like the American people that we meet with, who are concerned about governmental overreach, who wonder if we have lost all sense of the limited power of this government in Washington, I believe those people are entitled to have absolute confidence that anybody confirmed to the Supreme Court will not sit on a case if they can't be impartial, or if their impartiality could even reasonably be questioned. I thank the Senator for his leadership on the issue, and I am glad we had this colloquy. I hope we are going to get a complete answer from the nominee soon about any involvement she may have had explicitly, and then to perhaps also inquire further about to what extent she will be prepared to not participate if her impartiality can be questioned.





