Questions arise from Scalia-Cheney hunt

[JoseCuervo]

DanR,

Now you could have came in here and shed some light on the Jeffersonian allegations of Mr. Paws. Still a question that has been unanswered.

Or, you could have came in here and weighed in on the strange bedfellows that Hillary and Cheney make as they both resist exposure on the disclosure Cheney is being sued on.

But instead, you come in like Moosie, and merely serve to disrupt the flow of a most unflowing thread.... As if you haven't figured out, this thread has little to do with "THE FACTS"... As they have been in short supply....

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by BuzzH:
After I display all this cordial behavior...thats the thanks I get???

Good grief!

Buzz,
I too am a bit offended by the animosity shown to you in light of your cordial behavior. It is a bit offensive for someone to invite themselves into sombody else's party, and then display rude behaviour in a place known for rude behaviour.

 

[dgibson]

display rude behaviour in a place known for rude behaviour.

What's most important is that you used the British spelling of "behavior." How very civilized of you.

 

[JoseCuervo]

God Save the Queen!!!

 

[JoseCuervo]

And so there are no threats of Lawsuits about this topic being "false advertising" due to the detour away from the Cheney-Scalia issue, I thought I would bring some more perspective to the original issue/topic.

And again, has there ever been a president more indebted to a single industry than Bush is to Oil? Providing $21.5Billion in Tax Breaks while accepting $4.7 million in Campaign dollars....

Cheney, Scalia Louisiana hunting trip wrong

Watchdog groups say that the vice president and judge's
duck-hunting trip may create a potential conflict of interest


WASHINGTON — Government watchdogs are raising concerns about a potential conflict of interest for Justice Antonin Scalia because he had dinner and went on a hunting trip in Louisiana with Dick Cheney while the Supreme Court was involved in a case about the vice president's energy task force.

Scalia and Cheney, longtime friends, had dinner at a restaurant on Maryland's Eastern Shore in November, two months after the Bush administration asked the justices to overrule a lower court's decision requiring White House to identify task force members.

The men went duck hunting in Louisiana this month, not long after the court agreed to hear the case.

Scalia says there is no reason to question his ability to judge the case fairly. Cheney's office referred questions about the propriety of the social encounters to the court.

Watchdogs said Scalia and Cheney should have kept their distance until the court had ruled.

"It gives the appearance of a tainted process where decisions are not made on the merits where you have judges fraternizing with people before the court," said Charles Lewis, director of the Center for Public Integrity.

Rogan Kersh, a Syracuse University political science professor, said Scalia should withdraw from the case. He said questions remain about the court's evenhandedness in the aftermath of its decision to stop the Florida recount, which gave the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush.

"There's the adage of where there's smoke, there's fire," Kersh said. "There may be no fire in this case. Supreme Court justices, more than any other actors in national politics, want to avoid even a whiff of smoke."

The administration is resisting efforts by Judicial Watch, a watchdog group, and the Sierra Club, an environmental organization, to make public the names of those on the task force.

"It certainly raises questions about the appearance of impropriety, which is the standard that judges are held to," said David Bookbinder, the Sierra Club's Washington legal director.

The groups contend that industry executives, including former Enron chairman Ken Lay, helped shape the administration's energy policy.

Scalia, in a written statement to the Los Angeles Times for its story Saturday on the duck hunting trip, said: "I do not think my impartiality could reasonably be questioned." A court spokeswoman, Kathy Arberg, confirmed the statement Saturday and said Scalia would have nothing more to say.

In September, the administration asked the Supreme Court to overrule a lower court's ruling requiring public disclosure of task force members.

Two months later, Scalia and Cheney joined Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others for foie gras, lamb and crab cakes at a restaurant on Maryland's Eastern Shore, according to accounts of the dinner in The Star Democrat of Easton, Md., and The Daily Times of Salisbury, Md.

The court agreed to hear the case in December. Earlier this month, Cheney and Scalia spent several days in south Louisiana on a duck-hunting trip.

Both Cheney and Bush are former energy company executives, and the administration-backed energy bill, which passed the House but stalled in the Senate, provides $21.5 billion in tax breaks for the energy industry.

The energy industry has contributed $4.7 million to Bush's two presidential campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a research group.

Scalia withdrew in October from the court's consideration of whether it is unconstitutional for public school children to pledge their allegiance to "one nation under God."

Scalia had told a religious group that courts went too far to keep religion out of public schools and other forums, and lawmakers rather than judges were better suited to decide the pledge question.

 

[JoseCuervo]

While waiting for all the questions to be answered in the above posts, I will continue to strive to keep from getting sued for False Advertising.....

from the February 13, 2004 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0213/p02s01-usju.html

Was the duck hunt a conflict of interest?
Debate swirls over Justice Scalia hearing a case that involves Cheney.

At the center of the dispute over Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's controversial duck-hunting trip is a question only one person can answer.

The issue isn't whether the private hunting trip with Vice President Dick Cheney compromised the justice's ability to be fair and impartial in a case pending before the high court involving the vice president. No one is challenging Justice Scalia's honesty.

Instead, the question is broader. Did the trip create an appearance of judicial favoritism?

Congressional Democrats, a growing number of newspaper editorial writers, and several judicial-ethics experts say it has. They say the justice must recuse himself from hearing the vice president's case or risk tarnishing the Supreme Court's image and his own.

But the federal recusal law that governs such issues authorizes only one person to decide that question - Scalia himself. Specifically, the relevant law requires a judge or justice to disqualify himself from any case "in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

"It is Justice Scalia himself deciding what a reasonable person would believe," says Richard E. Flamm, author of "Judicial Disqualification: Recusal and Disqualification of Judges." "What matters here is not what some appellate court believes, but what Justice Scalia believes is proper."

The 1974 recusal law is aimed at promoting public confidence in the judiciary in part by putting judges on notice that it isn't enough to act ethically, they must also be seen to be acting ethically. Appearances matter.

At the same time, Congress left it up to each Supreme Court justice to decide when or if recusal is appropriate. It is an important protection to guard the high court against those who might use recusal motions to eliminate a justice they fear will vote against them.

Scalia has already recused himself from one high- profile case this term, which examines whether the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violate the Constitution's separation of church and state. In that case, the litigant who is challenging the pledge filed a motion charging that public comments Scalia made last year about the Pledge of Allegiance suggested bias. Scalia did not attempt to argue the point, or justify his earlier statements.

The justice has taken a different posture following the duck-hunting episode, actively defending his actions. "It's acceptable practice to socialize with executive branch officials," he told the Associated Press after a recent speech.

Details about the hunting trip are still somewhat sketchy. On Jan. 5, Scalia and Mr. Cheney flew together to Louisiana on Air Force Two. They were among others invited to a hunting camp by a Louisiana businessman. Cheney stayed for two days. Scalia hunted for four.

Judicial-ethics experts say the ride aboard Air Force Two could be viewed as an improper gift from a litigant to a justice. In addition, some say the fact that the justice and a litigant are vacationing together undermines the appearance of judicial impartiality.

Cheney's case involves lawsuits filed by a government watchdog group, Judicial Watch, and the environmental group Sierra Club. Both are seeking disclosure of information about consultations between energy officials and the vice president's Energy Task Force back in 2001. Neither group has filed a motion seeking Scalia's recusal, but Sierra Club officials say they are considering it.

The Cheney case is significant because it involves a broad assertion of executive branch authority to conduct White House affairs in secret. Some analysts say the case could result in a 5-to-4 split, or 4-to-4 if Scalia bows out.

Legal experts say the prospect that a recusal could determine the outcome of a case is one reason Congress left it to each justice to decide whether to recuse.

Not every judicial-ethics expert agrees that Scalia must pull out of the case. Richard Painter, a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law, says Scalia's trip with Cheney "might not have been the smartest thing to do." But he says that in his view, one duck-hunting trip isn't enough to justify recusal. "The general rule is you are not allowed to talk about the case with the judge, but there is no flat prohibition on contacts between a litigant and a judge in a purely social setting," Mr. Painter says.

It would be clear grounds for disqualification if Scalia and Cheney discussed the case while on the hunting trip, he says. But there is no allegation that they did.

Scalia and his supporters say judges have lives, too, and there is nothing improper in maintaining a social life while simultaneously deciding contentious issues.

Still, there is no significant body of case law involving judges who went hunting or fishing with litigants. Some analysts say that is because the vast majority of judges routinely avoid such situations.

"Most judges would not do what Justice Scalia did," says Cynthia Gray, director of the Center for Judicial Ethics at the American Judicature Society in Chicago.

"It is important that the public have confidence that judicial decisions are impartial," Ms. Gray says. "The closer the relationship between a judge and a litigant or attorney, the harder it is for the public to believe in the judge's impartiality."

Leslie W. Abramson, a professor and judicial-ethics specialist at the University of Louisville's Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, agrees. "Judges need to think before they act," he says. "That is not to say that every judge has to be a hermit. But judges are in a special position of trust, and they need to conduct themselves in a way that doesn't raise an issue in reasonable people's minds."

 

[Moosie]

But instead, you come in like Moosie, and merely serve to disrupt the flow of a most unflowing thread....

I don't know If I'm offended or Honored by that post

I still want to know about the Ducks, to me, thats the Important thing. Little things about Politics and stuff don't make me no Nevermind

 

[Whiskers]

Darren is this what you were refering to. Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University, said it would be "an easy call" for Scalia to disqualify himself because Cheney apparently paid at least some of the justice's expenses. A law professor at a New York University (who wouldn't be a liberal now would he) suggest that Cheney paid for some of the expenses.

Paws whats wrong with this It is obvious to me that you are not interested in behaving like adults but previously you stated Whiskers, in your case a simple "BITE ME!!!" will suffice Real ADULT.
Did they kill any damn ducks at all. Did they get any shooting?? They left the meat and taters out of the article.

 

[danr55]

These are the real facts..

1. Two long time friends, got together and had a meal that one of them paid for;
2. They went duck hunting together like they have for many years; and
3. They enjoyed each other's company like all of us do every chance we get.

It so happens that they happen to be involved in a legal debate that is being closely watched by the folks who believe that they may lose. As a result, anything that happens that may be interpreted as giving one side an advantage, is being played to the hilt. In a manner of speaking, it is all bullshit.. Given the amount of time that Antonin Scalia and Dick Cheney have been friends, if there is anything that is going to influence the outcome of the Supreme Court Decision, it's not going to be a dinner or a duck hunt. The entire episode is being spun by the spin doctors who are hoping to throw a wrench into the wheels. Besides, it sells copy.

Any person who aspires to and achieves a position of Supreme Court Justice, is going to be capable of determining Constitutionality of any question based on the facts or they are not. It has little to do with who buys thier dinner or who they hunt with. Seems to me that it's more important that they hunt.. Give them credit for that.

 

[dgibson]

Just so, Whiskers!

Dan, of course all of that's true. The point is that someone as experienced as Scalia should know that the media is going to pick up on it and make a frenzy out of it. He should have avoided it if no other reason than to save himself the trouble. He can go duck hunting with Cheney next year...it's just not worth it.

 

[Whiskers]

I am going to keep an eye out to see if that Rascal Cheney takes any of the remaining 8 Supreme Court Justices out to lunch, or a duck hunt.

 

[Michaelr]

I totally agree with Dan..
It is bullshit.

I think it way more important that they are hunters.

How many and what kind of ducks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[JoseCuervo]

Easiest way to kill a thread.... Post facts/information relvant to the topic....

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg refused to say Tuesday whether she thought Scalia should stay out of the case, when asked about it during an appearance in Hawaii. Ginsburg joked, however, that she has enjoyed deer meat from her longtime friend's hunting expeditions.

"Justice Scalia has been more successful at deer hunting than he has at duck hunting," Ginsburg said to laughter.

 

[Whiskers]

Scalia has been giving venison to other Justices?? I bet that meat at one time was kept in Cheney's freezer

 

[dgibson]

Perhaps he bought her vote with a fine venison dinner and promises of love.

 

[Whiskers]

I think the other justices are being influenced by using fuel in their vehicles that is manufactured by Cheneys oil intrest friends.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Whiskers,

You and D-Gib are just Hell bent on killing threads....

 

[danr55]

Can't you all see the headlines...::

"JUSTICE SCALIA STICKS MEAT TO JUSTICE GINSBURG!"

"CHENEY RUMORED TO KEEP DEAD FLESH IN FREEZER IN GARAGE"

"SUPREME COURT JUSTICES CAUGHT EXCHANGING DEAD ANIMAL FLESH FOR FAVORS!"

I wonder when the headlines will strike??