[Windflier]

Note that (b)(1) and (b)(3) use "he" when referring to the judge. Perhaps Kagan gets off on a technicality.

I'm sure there's a statute somewhere that defines the word "he" as a general appellation to describe a person, regardless of gender.

Thanks for posting the US code (Title 28). I don't see how the Supreme Court gets around this. Kagan clearly has a conflict of interest in this case, and per the law, MUST recuse herself, or face impeachment.

This must not be allowed to stand, or our entire system of jurisprudence will be thrown out the window.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

That remark about “he” was a lame joke. I’m sure the statutes have a section that does just as you describe.

But it IS believable that Democrats would try to use this loophole.