Supreme Conflicts of interest -- Rehnquist role in Scalia situation

[enough]

Supreme conflicts of interest

Erwin Chemerinsky is a professor of law and political science at the University of Southern California
Steven Lubet is a professor of law at Northwestern University


In a country dedicated to the rule of law, it is disheartening to see a Supreme Court justice ignore basic conflict-of-interest principles.

No, we are not talking about Justice Antonin Scalia, who went duck-hunting with Vice President Dick Cheney even though Cheney had a sensitive case pending in the Supreme Court at that time. Scalia has refused to disqualify himself from the case, arguing that his friendship with the vice president is irrelevant in a "run-of-the-mill" legal dispute about an administrative decision. Although we disagree with Scalia, it is still just an error of judgment limited to a single case.

The deeper problem is with Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who is perpetuating a rule that prevents such errors from ever being corrected. He has committed the Supreme Court to an each-justice-decides-alone position that places individual decisions beyond review.

A federal statute requires Supreme Court justices to disqualify themselves in any case in which their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." In January, Rehnquist brushed off concerns about Scalia's impartiality as "ill considered." He admonished two senators who had complained that "it has long been settled that each justice must decide such a question by himself."

But in the world of law, an issue becomes "settled" only after it has been fully litigated and decided by a court, usually with a well-reasoned written opinion that takes competing interests into account. That has not happened with the Supreme Court's recusal policy, which has never been the subject of any litigation or public discussion. The policy cannot be called "settled."

more>

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/8252179.htm

[gottaB]

1. The criticism of Rhenquist is on target

but that does not exonerate Scalia, and I must take issue with the assertion that it's too late to rein in Scalia. We must impeach him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1251166

[Malva Zebrina]

2. the honor system does not work for the Supreme Court justices

that's only for little guys who , wide eyed and innocent, believe in such things as integrity and honor.

No wonder we see such arrogance and behavior coming from Scalia. It would seem that being on this court allows one to bask in the delusions and fantasize they are indeed the law and above it! I wonder if they also think of themselves on the same plane as a god.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. Self-policing never works. It's just a green light for people in power to

do whatever they can get away with. Pretty bad when it's the Supreme Court Justices who we're talking about.

It's a shame that this article won't get more attention because of what's happening with the 9/11 hearing.

[teryang]

4. After Bush v. Gore?

How could anyone have confidence in SCOTUS? Not only was Scalia's opinion a legal outrage but he and Thomas had obvious material conflicts of interest.