Chief Justice Balks at Ethical Questions Raised by Senators (AP)

[WillyT]

<snip>

WASHINGTON (AP) - Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist on Monday rebuffed two Democratic senators who questioned Justice Antonin Scalia's impartiality in an appeal involving Scalia's friend and hunting partner, Vice President Dick Cheney.
Sens. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, a presidential candidate, and Patrick Leahy of Vermont asked Rehnquist last week to clarify disqualification practices after Scalia acknowledged joining Cheney on a recent duck hunting trip.

The Louisiana trip earlier this month came shortly after the Supreme Court agreed to review a lower court's decision requiring the White House to identify members of the vice president's energy task force. Scalia also had dinner with Cheney in November, about two months after the administration asked the justices to overrule the lower court.

Rehnquist said any suggestion that Scalia should recuse himself "is ill considered."

<snip>

Link: http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA3N9E5XPD.html

Well... When it comes to 'ill considered', Rehnquist oughta know!!!

:mad::nuke::grr:

[CaptainClark23]

1. "Ill-Considered"

Is it just me, or does that sound like a threat?

[Dookus]

2. well...

then a few key senators oughtta start throwing around the word "impeach" in relation to the Supreme Court.

[HereSince1628]

8. More like dismissive and patronizing...

[DrBB]

3. Of course the choice of a Gilbert and Sullivan inflected robe

...during the impeachment trial of a president of the United States wasn't ill-considered. Nothing like a little light-hearted japery by the sitting judge in the most serious proceeding in US politics. Just a little jolly fun, that was. All part of the exciting pageantry and delight of that event, if you listened to Nina Totenberg. What a wit. And not the least bit ill-considered.

[benfranklin1776]

9. Good point.

Thanks for the reminder. He looked like a prancing fool with his "racing stripes." Perhaps then the Chief Justice has decided to abrogate the canons of judicial conduct for federal judges which provides in relevant part:

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

Since Rehnquist has stated that the recusal decision is Scalia's, if I were the litigants I would request he recuse himself.

[indepat]

15. Is a mockery being made of Canon 2?

[benfranklin1776]

18. IMHO yes if he does not step aside.

The perception of bias created by his actions is IMMENSE. This is a textbook case of the appearance of bias being so great it demands recusal. I mean imagine how the litigants must feel knowing that one of the judges hearing their case is yucking it up in private with the other side on a cozy private secret hunting trip. I know how I or anyone else would feel, namely like I would be getting the shaft in a kangaroo court. This was not a routine social affair in which all members of the court were present. It was Dick and Antonin having a private excursion together in seclusion. There is no way any litigant could feel that justice would be done when it came time for this unabashed "friend of the other side" to hear the case, especially after the private vacation together occurred just before the case was heard and decided. Thus to preserve the integrity of the judicial process, which has as its basic cornerstone the supposed impartiality of the judges who preside, he should step aside. If he does not under these circumstances then Scalia has established a precedent that renders Canon 2 a hollow sham i.e. a do as we say not as we do rule.

[Ernesto]

21. Thank You BF1776.

[UpInArms]

4. the SCOTUS decision on

December 12, 2000 was and is "ill considered" by many (including myself).

These criminals in cloaks have no ethics and are to be pilloried at every turn.

[arcane1]

5. kinda like CLinton playing golf w/Ken Starr...

how well would THAT go over??

[laylah]

11. Not well at all

because our last duly ELECTED President's penis was present!

Jenn

[HereSince1628]

6. When the checks are cancelled and the balances fail

it becomes time to reconsider how to create a more perfect union.

[thebaghwan]

7. Write the bastards, let them know what you think of Scalia's impatiality.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/comments.html

Substantive questions should be directed, in writing, to the Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, DC 20543.

I did not find an email address.

[Robbien]

19. Thanks for the link

The email address was on the page

mailto:[e-mail]

I emailed them and tomorrow am planning on calling them. They have a toll free number [phone] .

[0007]

24. I would doubt that an e-mail would be as powerful as a hand

written letter with the proper salutations.

[burrowowl]

10. Rehnquist should be

IMPEACHED along wit Bu$h and cohorts!

Damn, these rethugs don't give a flying f**k do they. I think they all think that they are getting away with murder and that nobody cares.

[Maccagirl]

13. They think they can get away with it

because they HAVE gotten away with it.

[amber dog democrat]

12. Why am I not surprised?

Cracks are forming in the dam, but we have a ways to go yet.
"Ill Considered", as if he would know.

This has to a concern for him all the same. I wonder what he says in private.

[atre]

14. This comes as no surprise- What most of you probably don't know about Bill

Rehnquist is that he is the very reason that the Canons of Judicial Ethics were modified in the area of "impropriety or the appearance of impropriety."

See Laird v. Tatum- As a federal prosecutor, Rehnquist gave testimony before Congress about a pending case, Laird v. Tatum (and while not relevant to this discussion, we now know this testimony was false and he probably knew that)... After his appointment to the Supreme Court, this very case came back up before him and he cast the deciding vote and authored the majority opinion in a 5-4 decision. Many legal scholars were shocked- absolutely floored- that he did not recuse himself.

The Senators' appeals to his ethical backbone were doomed from the start.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

22. That's too bad.

Reinquist has a short memory on these matters. During Watergate he recused himself from several cases involving the Nixon administration.

[Amager]

16. ill considered??

arrogant bastard

[Gin]

17. can anything be done to replace them? or is it like marriage...till death

do they part?

[Democat]

20. Someone needs to be impeached

These Supreme Court joke-justices have done more damage to this country than Bill Clinton's sex life every could.

[RainDog]

23. Vincent Bugliosi had an impeachment petition before 9-11

...another convenient issue for the fascist-thug Bush gang which was set aside.

Bugliosi made an excellent case for the impeachment of Scalia, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Thomas...and ALL OF THEM should have recused themselves in the ruling that overturned democracy in this country in 2000 because of their conflicts of interest, their family members who were part of the Bush team...

Is this getting any coverage on tv, I wonder?

I know 60 minutes nailed Halliburton for their shell companies offshore on Sunday. Leslie needs to do a follow up on this one.

Any repuke who mentions Clinton as morally compromised without acknowledging the scumminess of the Supreme Court and Cheney and Bush and the whole junta deserves a wake up slap, and I would be so happy to deliver it.

[kodi]

25. shameful kabuki theater by those honored to help set our laws

democratic governments can not provide justice without impartiality in the judicial system.

claims of judical impartiality are not servied when a judge in a case flies a 1,000 miles to a gathering knowing full well he will be spending a few days with a current defendent in his court.

Rehnquist and Scalia believe they are above both the law, and by Rehnquist's remarks, above senatorial reproach for their behavior. such arrogance casts doubts about and corrupts further the judical system in the eyes of the common citizen.

can we all agree that even al capone and his chicago judge buddies at their worst were not so bold as Undisclosed and Fat Tony?