Did Scalia break the law?

[CrownPrinceBandar]

I just finished reading "Top 10 Conservative Idiots", most particularly the story of Antonin Scalia going to visit with Cheney in Louisiana, on the heels of the SC deliberating the VP new energy plan.

My question is: Isn't that illegal? I'm not a political expert, but I always thought that members of the judicial branch, more particularly the supreme court, must keep themselves free of any kind of influence when hearing a case. I remember distinctly my poli sci professor hammering this point into our heads.

So isn't this little hunting excursion defined as a conflict of interest? Cheney's energy plan is before the SC, Scalia is a member of the same court, Cheney invites Scalia to go hunting, Scalia refuses to recuse himself from the case. I'm not going to say there was influence-peddling going on here, but there is a definite appearance of impropriety.

Anyone know anything more?

[barbaraann]

1. Scalia has broken the entire justice system.

n/t

[HereSince1628]

2. Scalia and Cheney are above the law

by the day it becomes more and more obvious.

[patmacsf]

3. No, but it is an ethical issue

I'll play devil's advocate and explain the difference between "Deserter" and "AWOL" for everyone. What Scalia is being accused of is an ethical violation but no modern day Supreme Court Justice has ever been reprimanded for an ethical violation. It is not illegal for a Justice to be unethical though.

[Bandit]

4. LAW ~ We don't need no stinkin' Law

:shrug:

[lastknowngood]

5. you can't break the law if you interpret it

n/t

[bobbieinok]

after 12-12-2000, it was said Scalia and Thomas should have

'recused' themselves.

Thomas' wife was working for the W transition team.

One of Scalia's sons is a partner in the law firm that argued Bush's case before the FL supreme court, and one is a partner in Ted Olsen's firm who argued W's case before the supreme court.

I read somewhere that federal judges were to 'recuse' themselves if they or any member of their immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the case.

Assuming you could find a real court, it seems both judges broke the law.

[Jacobin]

6. Here's a link to the Canons of Judicial Ethics

http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/judicial/query=*/doc/{t1}?



"appearance of impropriety" looks like it fits the bill to me, at a minimum

[patmacsf]

9. Playing Devil's Advocate .....

I hate defending shrub's favorite justice, Antonin "Anthony" Scalia, (yes, the chimp actually though his name was Anthony) but here goes ... Scalia's argument is that this is a civil suit against the Vice President's office, not Dicky "Big Time" Cheney himself and that to ask a Supreme Court Justice to recuse himself from suits against the executive branch would just be silly. I agree that recusing himself would be a silly move. Should he be socially connected with the Vice President? That's disturbing, but it's not unethical nor illegal.

[Beetwasher]

10. He Wouldn't Have to Recuse Himself

if he didn't go on a private hunting trip w/ the VP while a case is pending. He did though and should recuse himself. Do you honestly believe they didn't discuss the case? Give me a break.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

13. I disagree...

Check out Jacobin's link above. I think this qualifies as an "appearance of impropriety." Yeah, its not illegal, but it is unethical. This is the kinda stuff that the highest court in the land should be above.

[RapidCreek]

14. Let me see if I understand you here

If I brought a civil case against my next door neighbor and the judge went to dinner at that neighbors house the night before he handed down his decision, that would be perfectly legal?

RC

[Bandit]

16. You can't sue an office only the person occupying the office.

How can an office do anything. It is the people running the office that bear responsibility and can be held accountable. Your argument doesn't hold water.

[0007]

15. Definitely an appearance of impropriety, which should be looked into!

Or better ye, let the other Supreme Court justice's decide Scalia's fate. Even give Scalia a point to start with. (Thomas +1) Scalia must sit in the penalty box. Since Thomas has already voted he can hold Scalia's hand.

[MsUnderstood]

7. This is a backward system but. . .

Supreme Court justices are investigated HEAVILY before they are appointed to ensure that once they are appointed they will make good judgement calls. Once they are appointed, we are SOL if they integrate themselves into politics.

Once the justice is appointed it is for life and is difficult to remove him or her because that would setup a justice to fear retaliation for a judgement. What if we tried to remove a justice for upholding gay rights (as Bush as hinted at in the SOTU)?

Basically the supreme court is the highest law of the land, is above the political wranglings of America, and has to be respected as such. Justices should recuse(?) themselves if their actions conflict with a case they are hearing.

I know watching them jump into the politics of the 2000 election makes this hard to swallow for some but we want to be careful of throwing darts at that court because it becomes a slippery slope.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

11. I agree in theory....

but the practice bears a different reality.

It is my belief that the supreme court is not above pandering to the current administration. Ever since the election debacle in 2000, the integrity of the "highest court in the land" has been called into question. The Scalia debacle adds fuel to this fire.

So Scalia didn't go against the word of the law, but he is definitely spitting on the spirit if it. By going to LA with his buddy Dick, he is flouting the impartiality of the SC. It now appears that the SC is becoming nothing more than a kangaroo court with decisions going to the highest bidder.

[Mandate My Ass]

17. The letter vs. the spirit

Scalia is a rabid idealogue and his decisions (like the more liberal justices) come down along partisan lines almost entirely. Yet this is a man who in all seriousness said:

"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached."

I have to question more than his ethics with statements like that.

[jbfam4]

8. Scalia Mustn't Sit in Judgment of His Hunting Buddy

Scalia Mustn't Sit in Judgment of His Hunting Buddy: Newsday



http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpsca263641977jan26,0,5682027.story?coll=ny-editorials-headlines


Posted here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=31646

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

12. Scalia's an activist judge who imposes Cheney's will

which is very different from the ones shrub referred to in his SOTU