|
New Yortk Times
March 15, 2004
Beyond the Duck Blind
upreme Court arguments are only six weeks away in the Sierra Club's
challenge to the secrecy surrounding Vice President Dick Cheney's
energy task force and the formulation of the Bush administration's
energy policy. And Justice Antonin Scalia, Mr. Cheney's duck-hunting
buddy, still stubbornly resists stepping out of the case. To protect
the Supreme Court's integrity and legitimacy and honor the rule of
law the final choice can no longer be left to Justice Scalia alone.
Unless he suddenly reverses himself, the Supreme Court as a whole has
a duty to intervene, much as it reviews the recusal decisions of
lower-court judges.
As late-night comedians have embarrassingly noted, again and again,
Justice Scalia went duck hunting with Mr. Cheney, and accepted free
rides on Air Force Two for himself and his daughter, shortly after the
Supreme Court agreed to hear the task-force case. Mr. Cheney had
appealed a lower-court's order to reveal the names of some of the
people who helped formulate President Bush's energy policies in 2001.
Extended private socializing between a litigant and a judge poised to
hear his case triggers serious concerns, not least because it gives
one side a chance to talk about the case without the opposite side
present. Justice Scalia has said the case did not come up, which is
reassuring but inadequate. Federal judges at all levels are legally
mandated to disqualify themselves from cases in which their
"impartiality might reasonably be questioned." This case plainly meets
that standard. No matter how Justice Scalia might rule, his
involvement would hurt the court's reputation.
When the Sierra Club moved formally for Justice Scalia's recusal, the
court properly referred the motion to him initially. The court has a
practice of letting individual justices handle their own recusal
issues and Chief Justice William Rehnquist and the other justices
probably do not relish second-guessing Justice Scalia's personal
contacts. But Justice Scalia has had time to do the proper thing, and
his eight colleagues now need to render an institutional judgment on
the widely expressed concern about his impartiality.
The swelling controversy has exposed other less egregious but still
troubling outside activities by Justice Scalia. The Los Angeles Times
recently reported that he delivered a speech to a $150-a-plate dinner
of an anti-gay advocacy group in Philadelphia even as the Supreme
Court was deliberating in the Texas sodomy case last year.
This problem is not Justice Scalia's alone. On the other side of the
court's ideological spectrum, as another L.A. Times article noted,
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg maintains involvement in a lecture series
named for her that is co-sponsored by New York City's bar association
and the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, which frequently
participates in Supreme Court cases. Justice Ginsburg is relatively
circumspect in her public remarks, but it's still unwise for her to
retain an ongoing affiliation with such an active advocacy and
litigation group.
As the newly released papers of the late Justice Harry Blackmun
demonstrated, Supreme Court justices are human beings with
intellectual and personal strengths, foibles and frailties. They
cannot be expected to live in a bubble, never speaking before bar
organizations, for example, or expressing anything but the most
innocuous personal views. Like the rest of the world, legal and
judicial ethics are full of nuances. Everyone would benefit from an
overall reappraisal of what kinds of actions are exemplary, borderline
or unacceptable.
That said, Justice Scalia chose a terrible moment to go duck hunting
with the vice president and ride on his airplane. That decision, and
his refusal to recuse himself in the upcoming case, are clear examples
of bad judgment that his colleagues on the court can no longer
responsibly ignore.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/15/opinion/15MON1.html
Copyright 2004The New York Times Company
|
| |
| |
Ode to Corruption in the Supreme Court.? Disbar or Impeach ?
There once was a country where some did regret
the Rulings of judges which are all wet
when asked how the rulings can be appealed they said that judicial
accountability was not part of the deal
while the VP might be corrupt he is a friend with whom to hunt a
duck.....
so when it comes to justice and money what the @$#*.......#@($..out of
luck
~~
when asked if the Judge would recuse
himself in these matters to avoid being possibly corrupt we are told he
laughed like a duck
which is not the same ethically
as quacking like one
so as to not be abrupt
the next stage would be to disbar or
impeach those seeking to make rulings which are corrupt using the Rules
of Judicial Misconduct
the Canons to be fair and impartial
removing the unethical instead of the ethical Judges that can not be
bought
To be corrupt or not to be corrupt
is part of Judicial Misconduct
~jn
march. 2004
|
| |
| |
On 15 Mar 2004 08:04:53 -0800, Sufaud <sufaud@hotmail.com> wrote:
When the Sierra Club moved formally for Justice Scalia's recusal, the
court properly referred the motion to him initially. The court has a
practice of letting individual justices handle their own recusal
issues and Chief Justice William Rehnquist and the other justices
probably do not relish second-guessing Justice Scalia's personal
contacts. But Justice Scalia has had time to do the proper thing, and
Rehnquist has already said that he doesn't see any reason for Scalia
to recuse himself.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
After the last election it was obvious that what you have in the Supreme
Court is enough Republican puppet judges so when these Issues of
Contracts and money and all come up they just get dismissed~
they must go to "how to make the courts corrupt
school"
1. first they pick judges they can control
you hear this on tv ~
2. then you go on a fun trip to test the puppet strings
3.then when the case comes up you get a favorable judgement or dismissal
~In Shakespeare's time Judges were given golden buttons for favorable
judgements ~just like today~
They could/should be Impeached~via~a Judicial Qualifications Commission~
Codes of Judicial Conduct~
Canon3(E)~ A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding
in which the judge's impartiality might be reasonably be questioned ~(a)
the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a
party's lawyer, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts
concerning the proceeding
~jn
|
| |
| |
=A0=A0
HomeNewsMain CategoriesNews briefsOpinionStatesWashingtonWorldMore
NewsHealthPoliticsColumnistsLotteriesScienceWeird newsTalk
TodayMoneySportsLifeTechWeather
=A0
=A0 =A0=A0
12/01/00- Updated 04:41 PM ET
=A0
Text of U.S. Supreme Court hearing
DALE BOSLEY, MARSHAL OF THE SUPREME COURT: The honorable, the chief
justice and the associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United
States. All persons having business before the honorable, the Supreme
Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their
attention for the court is now sitting. God save the United States and
this honorable court.
CHIEF JUSTICE WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST: We'll hear argument this morning in
Number 00836, George W. Bush v. The Palm Beach County Canvassing Board.
Mr. Olson?
THEODORE OLSON, BUSH CAMPAIGN LAWYER: And may it please the court. Two
weeks after the Nov. 7 president election, the Florida Supreme Court
overturned and materially rewrote portions of the carefully formulated
set of laws enacted by Florida's legislature to govern the conduct of
that election and the determination of controversies with respect to who
prevailed on Nov. 7.
These laws have been formulated by the Florida Legislature pursuant to
an expressed delegation of authority to it by the United States
Constitution.
The election code that the Florida Legislature developed conformed to
Title 3, Section 5 of the United States Code. That provision invites
states to devise rules in advance of an election to govern the counting
of votes and the settling of election controversies.
JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR: Well, Mr. Olson, isn't Section 5 sort of a
safe harbor provision for states? And do you think that it gives some
independent right of a candidate to overturn a Florida decision based on
that section?
OLSON: We do, Justice O'Connor. It is a safe harbor, but it's more than
that. And Section 5 of Title 3 needs to be construed in connection with
the history that brought it forth ...
O'CONNOR: Yes, but I would have thought it was a section designed in the
case some election contest ends up before the Congress, a factor that
the Congress can look at in resolving such a dispute. I just don't quite
understand how it would be independently enforceable.
OLSON: That's why I mentioned the context in which that section was
adopted, in light of the extreme controversy that was faced by this
country as a result of the 1876 election, and as this court knows, that
election was very close. It led to controversy, contests, discord.
Congress was very much concerned about the possibility of that happening
again, and what...
JUSTICE ANTHONY M. KENNEDY: What they did was - and it's typical of the
grant and aid programs, they said, if you run a clean shop down there,
we'll give you a bonus. And if you don't, well, you take your chances
with everybody else.
OLSON: Justice Kennedy, I submit that it is much like a compact that
Congress is offering the form of Section 5. Yes, if you do these things,
certain things will happen. But among these things, what Congress wanted
to accomplish with Section 5 is not only to provide the benefit to the
states, but to provide the benefit to the United States of the states
accepting that implicit ...
KENNEDY: Well, what is there, in the opinion of the Supreme Court of
Florida, that indicates that it relied on this federal statute, in that
reasoning for its decision and in its judgment.
OLSON: Well, I think the fact is that it did not. What it did was it
disregarded the compact when the state adopted a code of ethics - a code
of election procedures to govern the election and the determination of
disputes pursuant to the election, it brought itself into that safe
harbor and guaranteed to the voters and the candidates in that state
that the controversy and turmoil that infected this country after the
1876 ...
KENNEDY: Well, but we're looking for a federal issue. And I thought that
you might have argued that the secretary of state was instructed by the
Supreme Court not to jeopardize the state's chances, and it cited 3
U.S.C. Sections 1 through 10.
And so if the state Supreme Court relied on a federal issue or a federal
background principle and got it wrong, then you can be here.
OLSON: Well, I certainly agree that it mentioned those provisions. I'm
simply saying that it blew past the important provisions of Section 5
and the benefits that Section 5 gives to the states, to the voters in
that state, and to the people running for office in that state. That is
to say that if the rules are complied with, if disputes are resolved
according to the rules that are set forth, then not only will the
electors chosen by the voters in that state be given conclusive effect
at the time they are counted by Congress, but we will not have the
controversy, dispute and chaos that's been taking place in Florida since
then.
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: Mr. Olson, suppose a less controversial federal
benefit scheme. Let's say the scheme that says states can get highway
funds if they hold their highway speeds to a certain level, all right?
And suppose you have a state Supreme Court that, in your view,
unreasonably interprets a state statute as not holding the highway speed
to the level required in order to get the benefit of that safe harbor.
Would you think that that raises a federal question and that you could
appeal a state court decision here, because it deprived the state of the
benefit of the highway fund?
OLSON: No, I don't think so.
SCALIA: Why is this any different?
OLSON: This is a great deal different, because this is the - first of
all, Article II of the Constitution, which vests authority to establish
the rules exclusively in the legislatures of the state, tie in with
Section 5. Secondly, as this court has stated ...
SCALIA: Well, let's just talk about Section 5. I mean, the
constitutional questions and other - why is Section 5, in that regard,
any different from the highway funding?
OLSON: I think it can't be divorced from Article II of the Constitution,
because it's a part of a plan for the vesting in the legislatures of a
state. And Section 5 implements Article II, in the sense that it
provides a benefit, not just to the state, but to the voters of this
county.
KENNEDY: But just talk about the statutory issue. I assume that if we
worked long enough with Justice Scalia's hypothetical, we could find a
case where a court adjudicated with reference to the federal principle
and got the federal principle wrong. Did Indiana v. - that kind of
thing. Did that happen here? OLSON: Well, I think that the state did not
pay - the state Supreme Court did not pay much attention to the federal
statute. It was obviously aware of it. It did get the federal...
KENNEDY: Well, then there's no federal constitutional issue here.
OLSON: Well, there is a federal...
KENNEDY: I mean
|
| |
| |
From reading the Transcripts it seems
that Judge Scalia was/is part of a scheme
they get to choose the president
and set a bad precedent
and the will of the people is just nonsense it seems
they sell democracy~ hope it isn't hypocrisy$
and make money on the war it seems
no blood for oil please
~nothing is impossible in Iraq but reform~
but now and again
in this new trend the Supreme Court is asked
to mask the crimes of money lust
by rubber stamping the case with such ease
so refuse to recuse and now dismiss the Issues
you have only the Judge to choose and use
and the secrets while obvious are part of the
scheme..
~jn
march 2004
|
| |
| |
Good old NYT. You can always count on them.
I wonder when the "upreme Court" will get some new blood. Hopefully before
the Supreme Court, I like the "upreme Court" much better.
New Yortk Times
March 15, 2004
Beyond the Duck Blind
upreme Court arguments are only six weeks away in the Sierra Club's
challenge to the secrecy surrounding Vice President Dick Cheney's
energy task force and the formulation of the Bush administration's
energy policy. And Justice Antonin Scalia, Mr. Cheney's duck-hunting
buddy, still stubbornly resists stepping out of the case. To protect
the Supreme Court's integrity and legitimacy - and honor the rule of
law - the final choice can no longer be left to Justice Scalia alone.
Unless he suddenly reverses himself, the Supreme Court as a whole has
a duty to intervene, much as it reviews the recusal decisions of
lower-court judges.
As late-night comedians have embarrassingly noted, again and again,
Justice Scalia went duck hunting with Mr. Cheney, and accepted free
rides on Air Force Two for himself and his daughter, shortly after the
Supreme Court agreed to hear the task-force case. Mr. Cheney had
appealed a lower-court's order to reveal the names of some of the
people who helped formulate President Bush's energy policies in 2001.
Extended private socializing between a litigant and a judge poised to
hear his case triggers serious concerns, not least because it gives
one side a chance to talk about the case without the opposite side
present. Justice Scalia has said the case did not come up, which is
reassuring but inadequate. Federal judges at all levels are legally
mandated to disqualify themselves from cases in which their
"impartiality might reasonably be questioned." This case plainly meets
that standard. No matter how Justice Scalia might rule, his
involvement would hurt the court's reputation.
When the Sierra Club moved formally for Justice Scalia's recusal, the
court properly referred the motion to him initially. The court has a
practice of letting individual justices handle their own recusal
issues and Chief Justice William Rehnquist and the other justices
probably do not relish second-guessing Justice Scalia's personal
contacts. But Justice Scalia has had time to do the proper thing, and
his eight colleagues now need to render an institutional judgment on
the widely expressed concern about his impartiality.
The swelling controversy has exposed other less egregious but still
troubling outside activities by Justice Scalia. The Los Angeles Times
recently reported that he delivered a speech to a $150-a-plate dinner
of an anti-gay advocacy group in Philadelphia even as the Supreme
Court was deliberating in the Texas sodomy case last year.
This problem is not Justice Scalia's alone. On the other side of the
court's ideological spectrum, as another L.A. Times article noted,
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg maintains involvement in a lecture series
named for her that is co-sponsored by New York City's bar association
and the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, which frequently
participates in Supreme Court cases. Justice Ginsburg is relatively
circumspect in her public remarks, but it's still unwise for her to
retain an ongoing affiliation with such an active advocacy and
litigation group.
As the newly released papers of the late Justice Harry Blackmun
demonstrated, Supreme Court justices are human beings with
intellectual and personal strengths, foibles and frailties. They
cannot be expected to live in a bubble, never speaking before bar
organizations, for example, or expressing anything but the most
innocuous personal views. Like the rest of the world, legal and
judicial ethics are full of nuances. Everyone would benefit from an
overall reappraisal of what kinds of actions are exemplary, borderline
or unacceptable.
That said, Justice Scalia chose a terrible moment to go duck hunting
with the vice president and ride on his airplane. That decision, and
his refusal to recuse himself in the upcoming case, are clear examples
of bad judgment that his colleagues on the court can no longer
responsibly ignore.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/15/opinion/15MON1.html
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
|
| |
| |
|
