Scalia vacations with current litigant

[donhakman]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/22/scalia.cheney.trip/index.html

Senator Leahy asks in a letter why Scalia should not recuse himself.
Scalia refuses to recuse himself.
"It will not effect my impartiality" says Scalia.

[kclown]

1. Not Chief Justice

Rehnquist is chief.

[DenverDem]

2. Since he had no impartiality in the first place,

for once Scalia is not lying.

[tom_paine]

16. Agreed, Scalia is so crooked he has to screw his pants on

I agree. It will not affect his impartiality.

Fat Tony has none.

[benfranklin1776]

21. Yes he is brazen in his flouting of the rules of judicial ethics.

CANON 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct for Federal Judges:

A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID
IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE
OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES

A. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

B. A judge should not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment.

The Commentary to the Canon provides:

Canon 2A. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge
must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny.
A judge must therefore accept restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so
freely and willingly. The prohibition against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of impropriety applies to both the
professional and personal conduct of a judge.

http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/judges/judges_code.html#2

Being a right wing Supreme Court justice apparently means never having to bother yourself with these rules. I guess they think such rules are apparently just for "little judges." This is of course consistent with their essential judicial philosphy that one should never recuse oneself for conflict of interest whenever your buddies need a favor. Scalia did not recuse himself from Bush v. Gore even though his son was a partner of Theodore Olson's law firm at the time of oral argument and later was appointed to be acting Solicitor of Labor.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=10219
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/010701a.html

Sandra Day O'Connor remarked on election night that it was "terrible" that Gore had won , yet she saw no difficulty in sitting in judgment on the outcome of Bush v. Gore thereby ostensibly violating Canon of Judicial ethics (3) (C) (1) (a) which provides:

(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be
questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:

(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party,
.
Clarence Thomas's wife was busy collecting resumes for the Bush Administration whenever he was adjudicating the Bush v. Gore fiasco yet he saw no need to recuse himself. http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/010701a.html So Scalia is acting according to the odious precedent he helped create. He is living proof that Juvenal was correct to ask the prescient question "who will be guarding the guardians?" If Supreme Court justices can't follow the canons of ethics then they have no credibility in setting down legal rules which bind others to standards which they themselves refuse to follow.

[iam]

23. To say the least!

clarence thomas was appointed by dumbyas FATHER! Could you imaging going to court and discovering the other party's father appointed the judge in your case!

[sallyseven]

3. Like Scalia was

ever impartial. What a joke. Rehnquist should make him recuse himself. 4 more years of bush and we will have a stable of Scalias'

[Richardo]

4. God no! Not "Chief Justice"..

my heart! I'm comin', Weezy!

[daytondem]

5. Your post title is supposed to match the article title.

[donhakman]

7. I've got a migraine

I'm doing the best I can.

[daytondem]

12. Sorry to hear that.

I hope you feel better. I'll let everybody know the real title for you.

Title: Rehnquist questioned on Cheney-Scalia trip

[lovedems]

6. If there is reason to even question his impartiality, he should recuse

himself. If he votes the way Dickhead wants him to, he is going to further damage the SCOTUS and show them for the partisan group that they really are.

[underpants]

8. What it won't effect is Scalia's decission that's already been made

I'm sure.

Since Scalia is mentioned here did anyone catch his statement during the Americans with Disabilities Act hearing? He asked the plaintiffs lawyer if the disabled man could be carried up the steps to the court room. The lawyer said "yes". Scalia said "Well that's access".

It's amazing that he was ever considered on any bench.

[The Backlash Cometh]

18. Scalia is not really grounded on reality. He's a textualist.

Which means his reasoning is highly conceptual, and not practical. Which is the kind of reasoning that conservatives like best.

[underpants]

19. I'm trying to find hiw quote on the death penalty.

~"a death sentance properly reached should not be stopped due the factual evidence"

Something like that.

[benfranklin1776]

28. Here it is I think.

Scalia in a concurrence expounding his noxious view that the Constitution would not require judges to consider newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction:


"We granted certiorari on the question whether it violates due process or constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for a State to execute a person who, having been convicted of murder after a full and fair trial, later alleges that newly discovered evidence shows him to be "actually innocent." I would have preferred to decide that question, particularly since, as the Court's discussion shows, it is perfectly clear what the answer is: there is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough) for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction."

Herrerra v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (scalia concurring)

Thus his view, carried to its logical conclusion, would mean that the judiciary would be powerless to stop the execution of a wrongfully convicted person. He blithely expresses his confidence later in the concurrence that it would be safe to presume that the executive would grant the wrongfully convicted person a pardon {"With any luck, we shall avoid ever having to face this embarrassing question again, since it is improbable that evidence of innocence as convincing as today's opinion requires would fail to produce an executive pardon" }, however Scalia utterly fails to comprehend the possibility that an executive would fail to act for a variety of reasons including incompetence or political pressure. Under his view then the judiciary would be powerless to prevent the unlawful denial by the state of the individual's fundamental right to life. That is absurd and the height of arrogant callousness.

[The Backlash Cometh]

29. Scalia's rulings are frightening.

I'm certain that he was the factor in the case that allowed police car searches without probable cause. If once stopped, even for a citation, a police can then proceed to search the car.

I think this man counts on a two-tier system of justice which prevents his people from being subjected to such Draconian law.

[Robb]

9. Oh, for the love of Pete.

How much more obvious can this be? Recuse yourself, for cryin' out loud!!

[reprehensor]

10. Duck-Blind Justice.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=110&topic_id=3277

[yellowcanine]

26. Scalia: Dick's Duck Blind Justice

Someone needs to make up bumper stickers:

Scalia: Dick's Duck-Blind Justice

Ridicule is the best weapon against these fuckers.

[nuxvomica]

11. The appearance of partiality is as corrupting as actual prejudice

Scalia knows that. Any jurist with a half a brain knows that. Scalia's response belies a disrespect for the bench and the rule of law which I guess is warranted considering people like him are serving on the court.

[donhakman]

13. When Johnson appointed Thurgood Marshall

Johnson said on the telephone "I guess this means we can't be friends anymore."
Marshall said "Thats right".

[nuxvomica]

14. Damn straight!

Marshall and Johnson were grown men. Scalia is a recalcitrant child.

[dusty64]

15. What would it take

to remove him?

[tom_paine]

17. Nothing will come of this, of course.

Imperial Amerika is a lawless nation ruled by warlords once the veneer of phony civility is stripped away and the functionless parts like the Imperial Senate ignored.

Luckily, the wretched remnants of the Old Republic have thus far kept things from being as bad as they will be when they ae finally swept away totally, completely and irrevocably.

Bottom line, Fat Tony knows, as Imperial Stooge, that he is beholden to no law.

[0007]

20. Has a Supreme Court Justice ever been impeached?

[pfitz59]

24. Abe Fortas resigned to avoid impeachment....

Another Strom Thurmond coup...

[Bandit]

22. And we will be so shocked when Cheney is upheld

:shrug: What ya gunna do about it?

[northzax]

25. real wingers like Scalia and thomas can't recuse themselves

from things, there aren't enough of them in this country to pick up the slack.

I am so fucking sick of living in amateur hour.

[0007]

27. I thought it was "Howdy Doody Time"