Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 03/09/2004 6:00:08 AM PST by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: OESY
Justice Scalia says he won't recuse himself in the Cheney case, and we hope he sticks to this.

I hope he sticks to it too....

2 posted on 03/09/2004 6:04:12 AM PST by b4its2late (If you think no one cares about you, try missing a couple of payments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Senator Kunte Klinte
Democrats in the press love to run stories for days about alleged improprieties involving Republicans where there is far more innuendo than evidence. Then they can proclaim "an appearance of a conflict of interest" while they excuse actual ethical violations of their own liberal brethren. If they continue to get away with this sham, it is shame on us.
3 posted on 03/09/2004 6:06:38 AM PST by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY
(Flame suit on)

I have a problem with this trip. It is not the trip itself but the fact that Justice Scalia didn't pay for it. An energy company that was involved in the energy company, plus Cheney on AF2 paid for it.

If A.C. Cowlings paid for a golf trip for him, OJ and Judge Ito, and they flew there in OJ's private jet, a few weeks after Ito was designated as the judge in OJ's trial, I think most of us would have had a problem with it. A criminal case is different. We would have had a problem with it, even if Judge Ito paid his own way.

That being said, I think it is an ethical lapse for a Judge, even a Supreme Court justice to take gifts from people he is going to rule on.

I don't think that Justice Scalia necessarily has to recuse himself, but I would feel that ethically, he should reimburse the taxpayers for his usage of Air Force 2, as well as pay the going rate for his hunting trip, back to the energy company.

Supreme Court Justices get paid pretty well. He didn't need the comp and it does put him in an ethically challenged position.

If Harry Blackman was comped a trip to a retreat in the Amazon by Planned Parenthood before he ruled on Roe V Wade would any of you have a problem with that? Ethics should not be situational, based on if we philosophically agree with the people involved. We have a generally acknowledged standard of conduct prescribed for judges. Getting gifts from plaintiffs or defendants is something that is considered unethical. The Journal in this editorial makes no mention of the fact that this was a free trip. It may seem like a small point, but it still is an important one.

Judges (should) know better than taking gifts. I don't know what Justice Scalia was thinking when he decided to let the other parties pay his way.

5 posted on 03/09/2004 6:14:17 AM PST by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY
There's no way a liberal judge would recuse himself if the situation was reversed. In fact there wouldn't even an "issue" with the press if this was a liberal judge.

Scalia seems to be one of the few players on our team willing to play hardball. Imagine what a quivering bowl of jelly a "Justice Orrin Hatch" would be in this situation. Stick it in their eye, Justice Scalia.
6 posted on 03/09/2004 6:24:03 AM PST by Semi Civil Servant (Stoic about asteroids)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY
The concern -- editorial writers are always concerned, often deeply --...

They learned this from little snot-nosed Tommy.

Yes, I'm from Chicago.

8 posted on 03/09/2004 6:32:20 AM PST by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY
Actually, I'll go along with Scalia recusing himself in this case... if Ginsburg recuses herself in every case involving the ACLU.
9 posted on 03/09/2004 6:42:43 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be managed by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY
This has upset some folks with sensitive ethical antenna

I have a very sensitive ethical antenna when it comes to Supreme Court cases. The article tried to skirt the issue by saying "it's the office, not the man" which is idiocy. The case is against Cheney, and Cheney and Scalia went on a personal, private trip together in which Scalia received benefits (free trip).

While I doubt there would be any actual impropriety in Scalia's decision, the appearance of impropriety is enough to have Scalia recuse himself.

11 posted on 03/09/2004 6:50:45 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY
The case involving Mr. Cheney (Cheney v. U.S. District Court) is about his institutional role as Vice President.

Er, no.

A typical case titled something like Joe Blow v. High Muckitymuck Official names the latter in his institutional role as the individual responsible for the actions of his department. Usually, there is not the slightest suggestion that Mr. Muckitimuck has personally participated in or profited from any of the actions to which Mr. Blow takes exception, and Mr. Muckitimuck's personal contacts thus do not create any real or reasonably perceived conficts of interest.

In this case, however, Cheney took an active and direct role in the energy task force. Thus, the issue of personal interest does arise, and Scalia is in a compromised position.

12 posted on 03/09/2004 7:00:44 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson