A justice of the Supreme Court that appointed George Bush wants to know why his friendship with Dick Cheney should recuse him from judgment on a case before the court that involves the vice president.
Antonin Scalia, who may or may not know a thing or two about the law, obviously has much learn about human nature.
"If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined," Scalia wrote in a defiant 21-page memorandum, according to the New York Times.
So cheap?
"So cheap."
Nino, what are you saying here? You can't be bought cheap? Then tell us how much. How many ducks, how many trips, how many male-bonding jokes and claps on the back to make you feel alive again, one of the boys, free for once of your robes and that Ginsberg bitch, finally hanging with the real men, shooting off real guns?
So "cheap."
Nino, Nino, Nino. Your judgment is way off. There is never, under any circumstances, cause for a 21-page memorandum on any subject, let alone ducks. All this exercise demonstrates is your emotional attachment to a buddy. Yes, you should be recused. Shame on you, moron. A 21-page rant. This is something I want to read in its entirety: it is sure to provide a fruit basket of delicious quotations.
The case, which is being brought against the vice president by the Sierra Club,* involves the club's unsuccessful attempts to obtain information about what transpired in private meetings of the vice president's energy task force in 2001. You may remember this case. It involved "Kenny Boy" Lay and the Enron gang, among others, before the fall of Enron and the Iraq war. This information, if obtained, could easily contain smoking guns.
Article comments
1 - Shark
This is beyond belief.
I couldn't even sit through the entire news story on the viddy earlier. I had to get up and decide whether to pack my bags and renew my passport -- or try to rent the Unabomber's old cabin out there in the woods and start workin' on some hand-made fireworks.
I want off this grid. This Bush Junta made in America grid.
I used to think it couldn't get any worse. How naive I was.
BTW: When Bush was Governor of Texas, he had secret meetings with oil producers to figure out how to legislate ways around a 1971 Clean Air Act.
No notes available.
Sound familiar?
PS: Bush later received $1.5 million in 'campaign contributions' from the 55 companies that benefitted from his legislation.
Sound familiar?
2 - RJ Elliott
Hmm. At first glance, Scalia should recuse himself. It would be hard to be truly independent in such a case.
However, many of the cases the USSC hears involve the administration that is in power at the time. And many of the administrations in power will have recently given some of those USSC justices their very positions on the USSC.
Should the Clinton appointees have recused themselves in the cases involving the Clinton administration?
This is a difficult thing. The supposed independence and non-partisan nature of the USSC is part of what gives it its lofty place in the national psyche. To damage that is to damage the Court itself.
However, if this rule is applied too loosely, you could easily see a situation in which numerous justices were forced to recuse themselves rather frequently.
I'm not sure I have a real strong position either way on this particular issue.
3 - RJ Elliott
Here's a thought:
Scalia, even if he had not gone duck hunting with the VP, would almost certainly vote in the administration's favor in this case, merely out of partisan loyalty. Since this is the case (and who can argue with this?), should we now force all partisan USSC justices to recuse themselves from cases that involve a political aspect? Because, if that is the case, R. B. Ginsburg ought to recuse herself as well (since it is obvious where she will come down on this issue: against the present administration).
4 - Shark
I dunno.
Seems to me sharing a party allegiance is sorta different than drinkin' beer and doin' a circle jerk around a campfire on a hunting trip.
5 - Ms. Tek
Word of advice:
Get your passport renewed NOW.
There are talks of changed in the works for passports and travel.
If it is old or expired, RENEW NOW.
6 - Al Barger
This whole article is a crock o' poopie. What you're essentially saying is that no judge could hear any case that involves anybody he knows.
That's a totally unrealistic standard for the SCOTUS. You're essentially demanding that Supreme Court justices not know anyone important.
That's just silly. They're going to know people as a matter of practice, starting with the presidents and senators who put them in the office and will be likely plaintiffs and participants before them in all kinds of ways.
I appreciate the questioning of relationships among the rich and powerful, but they are to a significant extent inevitable and desirable things.
You're flat going to need more than the lazy, generic "appearance of impropriety" based simply on guilt by association- with someone who is not a criminal in the first place.
CW obviously doesn't have much perspective on the personality of Scalia, which surely does not precariously depend on a pathetic little male bonding moment. See, just being a Supreme Court justice would be GREAT unparalleled ego food for just about any lawyer. Perhaps this business about unfulfilled manhood represents some kind of authorial projection.
The impeachment thing is just dumb. There's not the least hint of a high crime or misdemeanor from Scalia, nor indeed even of so much as a misdemeanor handjob in the back room.
What is it you think Scalia should be impeached for? Fishing?
Best I can tell, CW's charges would be second degree guilt by association. Seems that CW thinks Scalia should be impeached and removed from office because he knows Dick Cheney, and Dick Cheney knows Ken Lay and people at Halliburton, and they're just plain bad people.
Wonder did CW support the impeachment of Bill Clinton? Unlike Justice Scalia, Clinton did actually commit numerous actual FELONY CRIMES, which would strike many reasonable people as a reasonable minimal threshold for impeachment. It's certainly better grounds for impeachment than being guilty of duck hunting. Yet I'd bet CW has squealed with great indignance on the topic.
I don't mean to be personally disdainful: CW may be a great human being and a loyal friend, but this particular column is near completely lacking in merit either as making a political argument or as an independent piece of rhetoric.
There is not even the beginning of an argument to establish any grounds for an impeachment of a Supreme Court justice. Hint: that would take more than a couple of hundred words.
Nor does it make any decent rhetorical case against him. The approach is purely scatter-shot, within a couple of hundred words taking quick, half-assed swipes based on guilt by association, cheap Freudian crap questioning Scalia's manhood, and re-re-re-fried Florida.
Bush lucked out and got a few hundred more votes than Gore in Florida Y2K. Scalia didn't make that up. You lost, pinkos, get the hell over it ya damned whiny babies. Jebus Criminy, get some fresh material.
You don't get to remove officials from public office just because you don't like their legal opinions like one of those banana republics you like to champion. I'm sure you'd ENJOY getting to be Fidel, but you're in the wrong country.
I understand your frustration, but still. Even if you think the Florida decision was wrong, holding your breath till your face turns blue does not in fact constitute an interesting artistic statement- nor prove your argument correct.
Writing "SELECTED NOT ELECTED" 100 times does not constitute creative writing needing to be shared with the world.
CW, are we still on for the prom?
7 - Hal Pawluk
This goes beyond just knowing the party in the suit. Riding down to the hunt in Cheney's jet shows a deeper personal involvement than just a passing acquaintance.
If you really don't like it (I don't), tell your Senators and House Representative (I did).
8 - Shark
Al, this is about secret meetings to form ENERGY policy with a buncha oil magnates. All they're asking is for a simple DISCLOSURE. Y'know, transparency. Government by and for the people?
Man, y'all need to expand the Libertarian ideals to include OUTRAGE at "PRIVILEGE", ie PRIVATE LAWS, cause while you ain't lookin' -- they're taking yer stuff.
9 - Shark
OH, and AL, re. CW FISHER and Impeachment:
unlike me, his satire is REEEEEL subtle. He's usually got his tongue in his cheek, but manages to make points for both sides.
It's often 'art'.
Keep readin' --- you'll get to it.
xxoo
S
10 - Mark Saleski
oh pul-leeze. if clinton was that close to a justice and the justice was involved in a clinton case the conservative world would have been howling (on second thought...the howling that was going on would have just increased).
just another case of looking the other way when you've got no problem with an agenda.
11 - CW Fisher
Thanks, Al, good essay. Shark, thanks for swacking Al, I was sleeping. Al, about prom? I'm going with Eric. I should have told you before. Did you get the dress already? Sorry!
As to Scalia, the impeachment thing was basically an afterthought. I needed a grabber and I guess it grabbed you. I laughed after I typed it, which is my test for whether something stays.
My problem with the Supreme Court has to do with matters of scale. This group of constitutionally created lifers have no oversight. Scalia wrote his own ruling on himself. That's wrong.
Scalia has described himself as a "good friend" of Cheney's. They go back to the Ford administration.
Yes, I honestly do think SC justices should live like monks with limited social relationships within politics. I do not think they should mix it up under any circumstances with a sitting president or vp.
12 - CW Fisher
Btw, does the story continue? Read my post about the Sierra Club takeover. Coincidence? Or some Karl Rove-brand payback?
13 - Debbie
CW,
They all know each other in Washington, that is how they get selected to fill the seats in the Supreme Court. Of course they have friends in each party, they deal with them everyday.
If there is proof that Scalia wouldn't be impartial (if he was a lone judge) then I would say recuse him, but since he is on a panel of 9, without proof of wrongdoing, he should stay.
Everybody has their own idealogical beliefs, if you are 'conservative' you view everything thru conservative glasses, if you are 'liberal' you view everything thru liberal glasses. It doesn't necessarily mean that there is impropriety, it just means they see things the same way. If you have any proof of impropriety then that would be different.
14 - bhw
If there is proof that Scalia wouldn't be impartial (if he was a lone judge) then I would say recuse him, but since he is on a panel of 9, without proof of wrongdoing, he should stay.
This is not the usual standard for determining whether or not a judge should remove him or herself from a case, even when there's a panel of judges.
I know the SC is different than other courts, but Scalia is pushing the envelope in how close a personal relationship he has with Cheney. And I think he just may be enjoying the fact that nobody can do anything about it.
They don't just know each other. They're good friends who accept freebies from the same people. How ANYone could consider himself remotely objective under those circumstances is beyond me.
The fact that he wrote the opinion on the matter makes it all a big joke.
15 - Paleoliberal
United States Code: Section 455.
Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge : “Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned....
"...what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice, but its appearance.”
-Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 548 (1994)
(Decision ironically delivered in a similar case by Justice Scalia, with Justice Thomas in agreement.)
I don't care how he goes, or how difficult this precedent makes things for future generations.
He has to go. The law is the law. If the lawmakers refuse to be subject to it, than we the people must lead.
Please sign:
http://www.petitiononline.com/1776imp/petition.html