Justice Scalia Refuses to Recuse in Cheney Case

[LynneSin]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20040318/ts_nm/court_energy_cheney_dc

Justice Scalia Refuses to Recuse in Cheney Case
8 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) Justice Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) rejected on Thursday a request that he remove himself from a case about Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites)'s energy task force after their recent duck-hunting trip raised questions about his impartiality.

"Since I do not believe my impartiality can reasonably be questioned, I do not think it would be proper for me to recuse," he said in a 21-page opinion.

---

Obviously Justice is not blind - just bribable :eyes:

[tabasco]

1. Outrageous.

His belief is entirely wrong and irrelevant. His fellow justices should demand that he recuse himself. The appearance of impropriety is all that is required, not a "reasonable belief." This corrupt and traitorous scum must be impeached!

[saigon68]

18. Spiro Agnew took bribes too.

I read a couple of years ago the account of one of the highway contractors who paid off Agnew.

He described being in an opulent office surrounded by wonderful moral platitudes, sayings and plaques for all kinds, of man of the year and good deeds --- and then the bony hand of Agnew reaching across the desk to fondle the cash.

It was stunning.

[The Backlash Cometh]

24. Scalia is famous for his word games. As far as lawyering goes,

he's the worst.

[Catshrink]

58. What I really want to say is:

outfuckingrageous!

[BOSSHOG]

2. Must be some pretty damning stuff in the energy task force

report for dick to ensure tony the fixer will have a say in its disposition. Maybe dick and his boys in the task force insisted that george take the iraqi oil fields, by force if necessary, to ensure no bid contracts for halliburton. Now that's something dick wouldn't want the average voting american to know. I can only surmise, but my thoughts are based on the fact that cheney has no integrity, has no moral compass and cares not about this country or the constitution, but knows enough to keep his nefarious deals secret. So sad.

[pfitz59]

9. Fat Tony the Fixer

I like it. Cleans up Junior's messes. Fat Tony the Diaper Changer! Fat Tony the Weasel Fucker! Fat Tony, full of baloney! Ha, the charcterizations are endless!

[Supormom]

3. A 21 page opinion?

Rather full of himself, isn't he?

[stevedeshazer]

19. It took him that 21 pages

to say that everyone trusts him! Amazing.

[The Backlash Cometh]

26. It's his style. He leaves behind non-legal binding, but opinionated

pieces called dicta in many of his court decisions.

[UpInArms]

4. so when this POS finds for Cheney

in this obviously biased cased - the decision will need to be thrown out and he will be impeached.

Simple - he has set himself up for losing his position, credibility and retirement.

[The Backlash Cometh]

27. They're all standing together. It's going to be a tough fight ahead.

First Greenspan, then the house with their vote of confidence on the Iraq war & their vote establishing the tax credits, then Cheney's defiant speech and now, Scalia. It is the conservative conspiracy all over again.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

5. Must...not...let....emotions....take....over...do.. not...smash...computer

I hate this fucking pig. (no disrespect to the porcine species)

[cclark401]

30. gee

shouldn't it be morons???

[Terran]

37. Yes, it should!

That picture has been a long-standing joke at DU, approaching it's first birthday now, I believe. Welcome to DU cclark401!

Dirk

[Galley_Queen]

60. I Don't Know if There is Just One Really Stupid Freeper

who posts all over the place, or if most of them don't know how to spell moron. I've seen moron spelled 'moran' dozens and dozens of times from rightwing freaks. Always makes me laugh!

[texastoast]

6. King Scalia

Surely there is some form of redress??

:wtf:

[Don Claybrook]

7. Thank god that's cleared up!

For a time, I had erroneously thought that Scalia might've been compromised, what with his hunting junket with Cheney. I'm glad that the hard-hitting Scalia was able to get to the bottom of this and find out that Scalia was blameless and pure after all.

I had secretly feared that Scalia might even impose harsh sanctions on Scalia had he found any impropriety.

I wonder if Thomas filed a friend of the court brief.

[saigon68]

20. No Don-- " Long Dong" Thomas filed a Concurring Opinion

For his "brother" J. Scalia

[Warren Stuart]

8. Stupid, Stupid and Stubborn

Plenty of people can reasonably infer a conflict of interest. This is not a "counting the angles who can dance on the head of pin" kind of thing. This is something that any reasonable person can plainly see.

Plus this repeats a pattern, stupid, stupid and stubborn, who else do we know of that exhibits this behaviour? Now we are getting into "fool me twice" territory.

Scalia has given the Democrats yet another talking point, and when he sides with Cheney, this talking point will evolve into a major issue, worth millions of dollars in lost credibility.

Way to go Nino! Quack, Quack!

[FlaGranny]

15. Just the fact that he has been questioned

about conflict of interest PROVES the appearance of conflict of interest. That's so obvious I guess it should not need to be said - but maybe it does.

[Lindsay]

10. Yet another

"I am the government, so fuck you" voice heard from.

:nuke:

[proud patriot]

11. And Justice For All

Metallica was right ...

[librechik]

12. impeach n/t

[benfranklin1776]

17. Agreed. His arrogance is breathtaking.

21 pages worth of babble. Guilty conscience eh Tony? Methinks thou doth opine too much.
Would that he spend as much time and energy on death penalty appeals.
With this decision he has immutably established himself to be nothing but the lowest grade partisan political hack on the same level of those craven "judges" in banana republics and communist dictatorships who fall all over themselves to lick the boots of the totalitarian regime in power by rubber stamping every foul act they perpetrate.

No matter. His failure to recuse when his impartiality reasonably could and has been called into question is a breach of his Article III duty to conduct himself with "good behaviour" in his judicial office and should serve as the basis of impeachment proceedings against him.

[hang a left]

13. The decision better be unanimous one way or the other.

no 5-4 effing split. This case will truly let us know if all is completely lost.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

14. Yep, there goes the shoe.

The fix is in. Quack quack.

[Walt Starr]

16. The standard is the Apearance of impropriety

All that is necessary now to prove his failure to recuse meets that standard is for a large protest over his impropriety to be held on the SCOTUS steps.

This is an impeachable offense. We can get this bum off the court over this.

[wabeewoman]

32. Let's do it!

Now's the time. How do we begin?

[jackstraw45]

21. Scalia is crooked...

Wonder how many more Cheney/Kansas cases there are in his closet.

Yet another chance for the media* to do some REAL journalism.

*sigh*

[stevedeshazer]

22. Two peas in a pod

Tony: I find myself completely impartial. Quack, quack.

Dick: I find myself to be the best candidate for Vice-President. Blam, blam.

[The Backlash Cometh]

23. Jesus Christ! A Supreme Court justice who admits he's a conduit!

"Scalia said he was the go-between to invite Cheney to hunt with a Scalia friend, Wallace Carline, who owns an oil rig services firm, Scalia wrote. Scalia and Cheney are friends from their days working in the Ford administration, Scalia noted."

These people are so deep in their own cronyistic lifestyles, that they no longer have the proper base from which to judge their own unethical behavior.

[Judi Lynn]

25. The Republicans must truly see this as their Golden Age

The world is truly their oyster, they can do no wrong, no matter how hard they try. Who's to stop them?

[BiggJawn]

28. Arrogant Bastard.

Maybe they should name a beer in Tony's honour?

[phantom power]

39. ABA rocks

(But their IPA is still my favorite)

[Skittles]

29. he doesn't believe his impartiality can be "reasonably questioned"

and this arrogant bastard is a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ??? :puke:

[Walt Starr]

31. Scalia is gonna get impeached after we take back the Congress

This is an impeachable offense. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. If the Republicans fail to hold onto the Congress, Scalia is going down.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

33. Scalia is so crooked he eats soup with a corkscrew

:wtf:

[Timefortruth]

34. There was never any doubt about it.

Since there are no longer checks and balances between the branches of government their power has become absolute and absolutely corrupt.

[daleo]

35. Government corruption in the U.S. energy business?

Calling William Saffire, if you can tear yourself away from the U.N. oil for food scandal for a moment or two. Your country needs your investigative talents.

[Judi Lynn]

36. From the AP report

(snip)
Scalia noted in his memo that he has stepped aside in another case this term — one testing the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. The decision came after he criticized the lower court ruling during a speech at a religious rally.
(snip)

Scalia said he was the go-between to invite Cheney to hunt with a Scalia friend, Wallace Carline, who owns an oil rig services firm, Scalia wrote. Scalia and Cheney are friends from their days working in the Ford administration, Scalia noted.

"I conveyed the invitation, with my own warm recommendation, in the spring of 2003 and received an acceptance," Scalia wrote.

When the time came for the trip, Scalia and Cheney flew together, accompanied by one of Scalia's sons and a son-in-law, Scalia wrote.
(snip/)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/05/politics/main598159.shtml

[peterh]

38. Devil’s advocate item…

While I’m in no way in Scalia’s corner here, in fact I feel, the impropriety is rather blatant in this case….But, Justice Ginsburg brought up a good point…

On the Supreme Court, there are only nine of us," she said. "Some believe that a recuse is the equivalent to a vote against the petitioner. We will not lightly recuse ourselves."

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ct--justicevisit0312mar12,0,2091633.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire

While I think there’s a world of difference between just giving speeches and flying as a personal guest in Air Force 2…the fact remains that these justices (being only nine) owe it to themselves and the country at large to exercise a greater degree of restraint where the question of conflict of interest can remotely come into play….Scalia was blatant with regard to the Pledge case and rightfully recused himself. While not exposing his impartiality through direct comments, as he did with the Pledge case, his impartiality is still blatantly in question here via the “private” trip.

Scalia’s continued aloofness with regard to his personal conduct as a SC Justice is a big black eye on what is otherwise a revered institution…

[tom_paine]

40. What a bloated, disgusting Mafioso Fat Tony is

No shame, just like Tony Soprano.

So corrupt, he needs to screw his pants on in the morning, like Vinne "The Chin" Gigante.

His "quack, quack" reminiscent of quotes from Junior Persico, now head of the Gambino Family.

Fat Tony should be in irons for Treason and numerous RICO violations, just like all the mobsters, both fictitious and real, listed above.

[Malva Zebrina]

41. this should not be allowed to stand

it is corruption. He does not think his impartiality can reasonably be questioned? This is the logic and reasoning behind this blatant arrogance? It is a non sequitur. Hey I'm impartial--you know it--going duck hunting with Cheney just recently and before his case comes up--why what does that mean? YOu cannot question my impartiality.

I think this man is also insane and psychologically challenged.

[AP]

42. Scalia's idiotic logic:

SC justices are often appointed because their friends of the president. So, they can't recuse themselves just because they are friends, or they'd always be recusing themselves.

Uh, hello. Firstly, Clinton didn't appoint friends to the SC.

Secondly, this is probably the best argument for why Presidents shouldn't appoint friends to the SC. If they knew that their friends would constantly be recusing themselves, there'd by no incentive in appointing them. DUH!!!!!!

Scalia has to be one of the stupidest asses wearing a robe in America.

[alarcojon]

43. "brilliant legal mind"

Isn't that what so many on the right call him? Let's protest this corrupt POS.

:wtf:

[Manix]

44. No surprise here. He must obey his masters.

[minkyboodle]

45. no shame

How Fat Tony gets away with things like this over and over again is a mystery to me.
Scott

[Cat Atomic]

46. "The people must have confidence in the integrity of the justices...

He's right.

That's why his flagrant hobnobbing with energy executives is so contemptible. He's arrogantly undermining public confidence in the Supreme Court.

[seafan]

47. More choice Scalia quotes from *his* ruling..... scary.

He said a recusal "would give elements of the press a veto over participation of any justices who had social contacts with, or were even known to be friends of, a named official. That is intolerable."


"My recusal would also encourage so-called investigative journalists to suggest improprieties, and demand recusals, for other inappropriate (and increasingly silly reasons)," he wrote.


"The people must have confidence in the integrity of the justices, and that cannot exist in a system that assumes them to be corruptible by the slightest friendship or favor, in an atmosphere where the press will be eager to find foot-faults."


Wow, this sounds like some *so-called investigative journalists* are tightening some screws. Bring it on.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20040318/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_scalia_cheney&e=5&ncid=

[benfranklin1776]

50. Also of note from the opinion an outrageous quote.

He is blatantly telegraphing the outcome and his vote!

These are his exact words from his opinion denying recusal at page 4:

"Moreover, granting the motion is (insofar as the outcome of the particular case is concerned) effectively the same as casting a vote against the petitioner. The petitioner needs five votes to overturn the judgment below, and it makes no difference whether the needed fifth vote is missing because it has been cast for the other side, or because it has not been cast at all."

www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-475.pdf

Hey, why bother having oral argument at all since we can see the outcome right now as clearly as we could see the coutcome when the court order was issued stopping the Florida recount when he said: "It suffices to say that the issuance of the stay suggests that a majority of the Court, while not deciding the issues presented, believe that the petitioner has a substantial probability of success."

[alarcojon]

52. A slippery slope argument

from our "brilliant legal mind"...

"My recusal would also encourage so-called investigative journalists to suggest improprieties, and demand recusals, for other inappropriate (and increasingly silly reasons),"

Kind of like the old "if we allow gay marriage, next thing you know guys will be marrying their pet hamster" argument.

What's with the swipe at investigative journalists, from a so-called judge?

[DiverDave]

48. We WILL win

the house and the Senate.
President Kerry and the forces of light will set this straight.
I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK, GODDAMNIT!
If the repukes win, I am going on the warpath.
We will have a civil war, and it will be bad for them.

[Kolesar]

49. "We need to storm more Bastilles in this country" --John Stewart

Seriously, we should demonstrate at the Supreme Court.

Here is the salon.com version
Scalia won't remove self from Cheney case


- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Gina Holland



March 18, 2004 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- A defiant Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia refused Thursday to remove himself from a case involving his good friend, Vice President Dick Cheney, dismissing suggestions of a conflict of interest.

In an unusual 21-page memorandum, he rejected a request by the Sierra Club. The environmental group said it was improper for Scalia to take a hunting trip with Cheney while the court was considering whether the White House must release information about private meetings of Cheney's energy task force.

Scalia said the remote Louisiana hunting camp used for a duck hunting and fishing trip "was not an intimate setting."

"My recusal is required if ... my impartiality might reasonably be questioned," Scalia wrote. "Why would that result follow from my being in a sizable group of persons, in a hunting camp with the vice president, where I never hunted with him in the same blind or had other opportunity for private conversation?"
the Salon.com version

[Voltaire99]

51. Justice Pangloss!

"Since I do not believe my impartiality can reasonably be questioned..."

This must be one of our era's greatest gaffes. I see a t-shirt gold mine. ;-)

[Jacobin]

53. Brace yourselves for the Scalia quote to end all quotes:

"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached." - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia


This was his comment about denying an appeal to a man condemned to death by a court, whose innocence had been established conclusively by DNA testing.


This man is clearly demented and belongs in an institution for the criminally insane. His presence on the Supreme Court makes a mockery of this nation, really of "civilization" itself.

[alarcojon]

59. I've always been partial to this quote

Severe, mandatory penalties may be cruel, but they are not unusual in the constitutional sense, having been employed in various forms throughout the Nation's history

U.S. SUPREME COURT - HARMELIN v. MICHIGAN, 501 U.S. 957 (1991)

Thus a penalty, if imposed enough times, is okay regardless of how cruel it is.

[osaMABUSh]

54. Good news - Case starts next month!

Arguments in the case will be heard in April, with a ruling expected by late June.

If by some miracle the SCOTUS rules against Cheney it would be beautiful timing to be just prior to the Conventions.

I think that the Cheney is not only hiding that energy companies like Enron dictated the energy policy but there were discussions with Taliban about a pipeline deal. Remember, this happened three years ago - before 9/11. If the real dirt from these meetings is exposed I'd be dancing in the streets.

Fat chance, however, with Scalia on board.

[stevebreeze]

55. Is this any surprise? If Scalia reused himself now what would it say

about the legal travesty that is Bush v. Gore? How big were those conflicts of interest? Not just Scalia but also Thomas and O'Connor's.
:kick:

[Tellurian]

56. So...who would or could FORCE the recusal of these JUDGES?

The Senate?

While they're at it, could they outlaw racing stripes on Judge's dresses?

[Democat]

57. Nader supporters, take notice

This guy is a moderate compared to people Bush would like to see on the court.

A vote for Nader is a vote that helps Bush and Scalia.