Scalia
You know, I am starting to believe that there is no part of our federal government that hasn't succomb to some manner of corruption or lax ethical principles...
...most of you probably know that many people are asking Supreme Court Justice Scalia to recuse himself from a particular case involving his close friend Dick Cheney. He refuses to do so. These clips were taken from a NYT article I just read. Anyone else feel a little sick?
Do not these two statements seem a direct contradiction? If they flew together on a private jet and only direct family members were also present... THAT is an opportunity for private discussion. Like the guy's son or son-in-law is going to parrot what they heard to the media. They may as well have not even been there in this context!
Uncle... if this is all the more ethical concern one of our Supreme Court Justices has, I am more than a little worried our system of government is falling apart. If this were me and my friend the VP was in the spotlight, I would recuse myself to even avoid the appearance of something being amiss. It's like Scalia thinks he's working in a vacuum.
...most of you probably know that many people are asking Supreme Court Justice Scalia to recuse himself from a particular case involving his close friend Dick Cheney. He refuses to do so. These clips were taken from a NYT article I just read. Anyone else feel a little sick?
Quote:
"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?"
[then later it is cited that]:
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.
"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?"
[then later it is cited that]:
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.
Do not these two statements seem a direct contradiction? If they flew together on a private jet and only direct family members were also present... THAT is an opportunity for private discussion. Like the guy's son or son-in-law is going to parrot what they heard to the media. They may as well have not even been there in this context!
Quote:
"A rule that required members of this court to remove themselves from cases in which the official actions of friends were at issue would be utterly disabling," Scalia wrote.
Many Supreme Court justices get their jobs "precisely because they were friends of the incumbent president or other senior officials," he wrote.
Supreme Court justices, unlike judges on other courts, decide for themselves if they have conflicts, and their decisions are final.
"A rule that required members of this court to remove themselves from cases in which the official actions of friends were at issue would be utterly disabling," Scalia wrote.
Many Supreme Court justices get their jobs "precisely because they were friends of the incumbent president or other senior officials," he wrote.
Supreme Court justices, unlike judges on other courts, decide for themselves if they have conflicts, and their decisions are final.
Uncle... if this is all the more ethical concern one of our Supreme Court Justices has, I am more than a little worried our system of government is falling apart. If this were me and my friend the VP was in the spotlight, I would recuse myself to even avoid the appearance of something being amiss. It's like Scalia thinks he's working in a vacuum.
Comments
Originally posted by Moogs
It's like Scalia thinks he's working in a vacuum.
And unquestionably abusing his position.
Originally posted by Scott
Didn't we do this thread already? Then we had the converse thread about Ginsburg deeply involved with NOW. Blah blah blah. I guess all we have to do in the future to get someone off of a court is to trump up some "impartiality" charge and then get up on the soap box with some fake outrage.
Perhaps we could just hope that any Judge in question would recuse themselves without a bunch of bullsh*t excuses.
Originally posted by Scott
Didn't we do this thread already? Then we had the converse thread about Ginsburg deeply involved with NOW. Blah blah blah. I guess all we have to do in the future to get someone off of a court is to trump up some "impartiality" charge and then get up on the soap box with some fake outrage.
Of course had this happened in the Clinton era, with Al Gore and a Democratic Justice your perspective would be the complete opposite. Fanaticism clouds your mind. So partisanship aside (although it might be imposible in your case Scott) you have no problem at all with this?
On topic, was that airplane Air Force 2?
oh wait.
No one on this board can make any critical comments whatsoever about anyone or anything tied to the current administration or GOP, without you blindly defending their every action or word.
Do you believe these people are Gods? Incapable of any wrong doing or poor thinking? Everything looks perfect from Scott's World ? ?
I didn't even say Scalia was a bad judge or anything of the kind. My main point was that he -- a Supreme Court Justice -- seems to not even care about the appearance of impropriety, and that bothers me. He has direct ties to the Vice President and clearly his argument about "not having opportunity for private discussion" is an exaggeration. He did have opportunity. Even 90 seconds alone with someone is an opportunity for important things to be said or heard.
Sometimes its best to take the conservative rout in situations like this to put the public's mind at ease; especially when it's your job to police yourself. He has the public's trust and he's abusing it IMO.
Not even saying anything bad happened on the hunting trip; I'm saying that's besides the point and neither he nor you seem to get that. No one but he and Cheney know what was said, so the prudent thing (for a Supreme Court Justice) is to step aside for this one casse and put people's minds at ease that one of the highest judges in the land does the right thing when put to task.
I'm honestly to the point of feeling sorry for you. Unlike others I don't think your purpose is to troll; I think you genuinelly believe the "logic" you put forth. Not saying any of us are perfect, but I suggest you take stock of your opinions on matters like these and ask yourself why you always fall squarely on one side of the fence no matter how illogical it is.
Originally posted by Scott
Two friends....
Yup, that's enough.
Originally posted by Scott
I just don't bite the hook like so many others.
No, you're too busy biting somthing else.
Joke people, it's a joke.
Originally posted by Scott
I just don't bite the hook like so many others.
Oh, I guess all but about two people on this board are just naive while you have the enlightened ability to know when a criticism is just politics vs. when it's warranted. Silly us. Or maybe we're all just trolling for a response from you... yeah, that's the ticket. We're all trolls.
Damn me!