I didn't make an argument. I posted a piece of the US Code. I did so in response to YOUR argument:
You dont need to be snippy.
A cursory reading of the quoted piece of the Code, clearly illustrates that your argument is completely fallacious.
I guess you'll have to pardon me repeating myself: precedence dictates that Thomas is the only person who can require Thomas to recuse himself. This is how it has been practiced for a LONG time, it wont change because some folks wanna pout about one issue or the other. In fact, the SC has argued strongly against recusal of SC justices as it sets up a scenario when the Court cannot carry out its constutional duties. You can find this both in Scalia's Cheney v. US Dist Court and Renquists Microsoft v. US.
Procedurally, the moving party will file a Motion to Recuse with the Court. This motion is answered by the justice of whom recusal is requested. That justice, alone, writes a memorandum addressing whether or not they will recuse themself and why. No one on Earth can force recusal if the justice doesn't want to, there is no appeal, no re-hearing, no arbitration or negotiations, and no mistrial. Nothing. I know what the statute says, I've read it. It, and all the other statutes in the US Code cannot make Thomas recuse himself.
The statute DOES "require" recusal
Yes, but the LAW doesn't. Notice how law professor Steven Lubit explains that Thus. . . No matter what most Americans including the eight other Supreme Court justices may think about Thomas ability to be impartial in a case that means so much to his wife, Thomas alone will make the critical determination.
You argue the definition of "financial interest", but 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(5) involves a mere "interest", NOT a "financial interest", and as such, your definitional analysis is inapplicable to that section of the statute. Mrs. Thomas clearly "is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding".
S.455 speaks of two interests, right? There is an intenional distinction between
financial interests, and
other interests. We aren't discussing
other interests. We are talking about Virginia Thomas getting
money; this is a
FINANCIAL interest. This is addressed by (B)(4), intentionally, then the undefined interest is addressed in (B)(5).
Alright, lets scroll down to what a "financial interest" is.
That is defined as an interest in a
party before the court.
Further,
interest isn't meant to be construed so broadly that justices cannot be politcally active. They can still donate to campaigns, write editorials, and make speeches. Virginia's PAC isn't just about advocating the repeal of Obamacare. They work on any and all issues relating to politics in the United States. There is no way in hell that Clarence simply can't rule on
any issue relating to politics.
It's also interesting to note that Virginia has been politically active for quite some time. In fact, she worked for the Heritage Foundation for 9 years as White House liason. Justice Thomas didn't have to recuse himself one single time because of his wifes activities; he sat on Bush v. Gore, too.
Lastly, your attempts in a different post to conflate all four subsections of 455(b)(5) are clearly misguided and incorrect. All four subsections refer to distinctly different actors, and the lack of language expressly indicating one must meet the criteria of all four subsections (e.g., an "and" at the end of each subsection) refutes your interpretation.
That isn't a (B)(5) argument. That is a (D)(4) argument. (Evidenced by my statement "S.455(D)(4)")
In any event, the situation with Thomas' wife is expressly addressed by 455(a), so the other arguments are unnecessary.
This simply isn't true. This issue is not "expressly" addressed. No where does it say that if a justices wife is involved in a political organization that the justice must recuse himself where issues overlap; that would be expressly addressed.
My other arguments are extremely pertinent and cannot be refuted given the current knowledge of the facts. Namely, if Thomas' wife took reasonable measures to ensure that she was insulated from any biasing by financial incentive then Clarence can sit on the trial. Further, if his wife did, say, recieve money directly related to repealing Obamacare then she can simply give the money back and eliminate any biasing influence. This happens all the time in government. And she clearly fits within the 'civic organization' exemption to a financial interest.
But, hey, lets just turn the whole system on its head this one time.