POLL: Should Justice Scalia Recuse Himself From Cheney Case?

[DealMonkey]

Is it possible for Scalia to remain unbiased in a case that involves a personal friend? Where is the line that must be crossed before a Supreme Court Justice recuses himself?

Scalia Refuses to Drop Out of Cheney Case

WASHINGTON ? Justice Antonin Scalia (search) says he won't step down from judging a case facing the Supreme Court that involves Vice President Dick Cheney (search), a close friend.

Scalia wrote in a 21-page memo that "since I do not believe my impartiality can reasonably be questioned, I do not think it would be proper for me to recuse."

The Sierra Club (search), an environmental group that is suing Cheney over his withholding information about private meetings of an energy task force, argued that Scalia faces a conflict of interest in judging the pending suit since he and Cheney are hunting buddies.

Cheney and Scalia recently went duck hunting together. Scalia has maintained there was nothing improper about the trip he took with Cheney three weeks after the court agreed to consider the case.

"Even one unnecessary recusal impairs the functioning of the court," Scalia wrote in a 21-page memo.

Pressure on Scalia to stay out of the case had mounted in recent weeks, with calls from dozens of newspapers for the conservative Reagan administration appointee to recuse to protect the court's image of impartiality.

Supreme Court (search) justices, unlike judges on other courts, decide for themselves if they have conflicts, and their decisions are final.

Judges must disqualify themselves from cases in which their impartiality "might reasonably be questioned." The Sierra Club asked for Scalia's recusal in February, pointing to the "American public's great concern about the continuing damage this affair is doing to the prestige and credibility of this court."

In his response, Scalia said he would recuse himself when "on the basis of established principles and practices, I have said or done something which requires this course."

He said the hunting trip to Louisiana was planned before the energy case reached the court.

Those "established principles and practices" do not require or even permit him to step aside in the Cheney case, Scalia wrote.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

I trust him to stand above it.

 

[fitzhue]

I think regardless of whether or not Cheney tried to influence him, it sure does seem a little strange. I don't know if he should remove himself from the case, but in my mind it seems like it would be more difficult for him to be impartial.

 

[Gravity]

No more than ginsberg. She just gave a passionate speech to the NOW gang that she has supported her entire career.

 

[Perknose]

Is it possible for Scalia to remain unbiased in a case that involves a personal friend? Where is the line that must be crossed before a Supreme Court Justice recuses himself?

The pervasive and long held standard in these matters is to avoid not just a conflict of interest, but even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Scalia clearly crosses that line. :|

In commentaries on this, I've heard that, well, justices often attend the same cocktail parties with potential (Washington based, connected and/or famous) litigants. Being at the same party with someone (amongst 200 other people) is not the same as going on a hunting trip in which the only other person is the same person who will now be a defendant before you.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

The pervasive and long held standard in these matters is to avoid not just a conflict of interest, but even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

This is quite true, and Scalia's refusal to recuse himself just adds to that appearance.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Is it possible for Scalia to remain unbiased in a case that involves a personal friend? Where is the line that must be crossed before a Supreme Court Justice recuses himself?

The pervasive and long held standard in these matters is to avoid not just a conflict of interest, <STRONG>but even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

</STRONG>Scalia clearly crosses that line. :|

In commentaries on this, I've heard that, well, justices often attend the same cocktail parties with potential (Washington based, connected and/or famous) litigants. Being at the same party with someone (amongst 200 other people) is <STRONG>not</STRONG> the same as going on a hunting trip in which the only other person is the same person who will now be a defendant before you.

Spot on.
Not only that but if Cheney had Scalia flown in on Air Force 2 for that cocktail party, then that would have been suspect too. I do not know if Scalia is biased or not, but he showed very bad judgement taking that ride to go hunting with someone who you know is going to be coming before you for judgement.

BTW, the NOW post by Gravity confused me. Is Cheney a member of NOW? I am not sure why Ginsberg should step out based on that comment.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: fitzhue
I think regardless of whether or not Cheney tried to influence him, it sure does seem a little strange. I don't know if he should remove himself from the case, but in my mind it seems like it would be more difficult for him to be impartial.

I dont think so, This is a supreme court justice, not some little county yokel. Im not sure if I think he shoudl recuse himself but I think if he doesnt he can be fair.

 

[SuperTool]

I don't think he should recuse himself. It's not like anyone believes in the impartiality and fairness of the USSC anyways, so what's the point? A bunch of political hacks.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Is it possible for Scalia to remain unbiased in a case that involves a personal friend? Where is the line that must be crossed before a Supreme Court Justice recuses himself?

The pervasive and long held standard in these matters is to avoid not just a conflict of interest, <STRONG>but even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

</STRONG>Scalia clearly crosses that line. :|

In commentaries on this, I've heard that, well, justices often attend the same cocktail parties with potential (Washington based, connected and/or famous) litigants. Being at the same party with someone (amongst 200 other people) is <STRONG>not</STRONG> the same as going on a hunting trip in which the only other person is the same person who will now be a defendant before you.

If this is the case, then most justices should recuse themselves on most issues. And if thats the case, Ginsberg SHOULD HAVE recused herself from the Texas Sodomy case. Scalia isnt the only one that has apparent conflicts of intrest, they all do.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Perknose

Is it possible for Scalia to remain unbiased in a case that involves a personal friend? Where is the line that must be crossed before a Supreme Court Justice recuses himself?

The pervasive and long held standard in these matters is to avoid not just a conflict of interest, <STRONG>but even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

</STRONG>Scalia clearly crosses that line. :|

In commentaries on this, I've heard that, well, justices often attend the same cocktail parties with potential (Washington based, connected and/or famous) litigants. Being at the same party with someone (amongst 200 other people) is <STRONG>not</STRONG> the same as going on a hunting trip in which the only other person is the same person who will now be a defendant before you.

If this is the case, then most justices should recuse themselves on most issues. And if thats the case, Ginsberg SHOULD HAVE recused herself from the Texas Sodomy case. Scalia isnt the only one that has apparent conflicts of intrest, they all do.

yep;

but you ARE right Perk, we can't justify behavior that wrongfully benefits us by pointing to the hypocrisy of the other side in asking for it.

 

[SuperTool]

Where is the option for "Scalia is biased but should not recuse himself?"
If every biased USSC justice recused themselves, there wouldn't be USSC. If they weren't biased, they wouldn't be nominated in the first place, since all presidents want to stuff the USSC with idealogues who push their party line.

 

[AEB]

Look if the vote coms up where scalias would actually makea difference then complain, untill then you guys need to liten up. As scalia said something to the effect of do they really think we are that cheap to buy? it was a hunting trip lets divert more attention away from relavent high points and ignore the fact that unemployment is the lowest in 3 years and that Bush is leading kerry in the polls. duck hunting is far more important

 

[chess9]

Scalia doesn't have to be bought. He just has to demonstrate the sort of insensitivity and stupidity he is now demonstrating. He is a party ideologue and would have made a fine hack for Stalin or Hitler. No difference.

-Robert

 

[Romans828]

Originally posted by: chess9
Scalia doesn't have to be bought. He just has to demonstrate the sort of insensitivity and stupidity he is now demonstrating. He is a party ideologue and would have made a fine hack for Stalin or Hitler. No difference.

-Robert

Now thats quite a stretch and a very ugly thing to say

 

[heartsurgeon]

Scalia goes duck hunting, and you want him recused from a Supreme Court case?

What about recusing Ginsburg??? She has a promotion role for the N.O.W. which helps raise money for lawsuits!!

You don't hear the liberals braying about conflict of interest when it comes to one of their own...typical hypocritical b.s.

linky linky2 linky

i know the uber-liberals will spout off about how this isn't "the same thing" and how Ginsburg's activities are "completely innocent"...
o.k. imagine for a second that Scalia was involved in promotional activities that raised money for lawsuits by the N.R.A......the liberals would be calling for his impeachment!!!!!

 

[Czar]

What would people think if a personal friend of the Enron execs would be judging that case?

 

[AEB]

I would hope the judge would be fair, Enron execs arent their friends. Thats like saying if you like martha stewarts show and buy her crap from Kmart you are can't think shes guilty. Which you can. Her friend testified AGAINST her.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Perknose

Is it possible for Scalia to remain unbiased in a case that involves a personal friend? Where is the line that must be crossed before a Supreme Court Justice recuses himself?

The pervasive and long held standard in these matters is to avoid not just a conflict of interest, <STRONG>but even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

</STRONG>Scalia clearly crosses that line. :|

In commentaries on this, I've heard that, well, justices often attend the same cocktail parties with potential (Washington based, connected and/or famous) litigants. Being at the same party with someone (amongst 200 other people) is <STRONG>not</STRONG> the same as going on a hunting trip in which the only other person is the same person who will now be a defendant before you.

If this is the case, then most justices should recuse themselves on most issues. And if thats the case, Ginsberg SHOULD HAVE recused herself from the Texas Sodomy case. Scalia isnt the only one that has apparent conflicts of intrest, they all do.

the moral of the story here is that we have to trust that the justices can set aside any prejudices they may have when they try a case

 

[Moonbeam]

I can't see how he could recuse himself. He would have to be unbiased to see why he should.

 

[arsbanned]

I can't see how he could recuse himself. He would have to be unbiased to see why he should.

DING DING DING WINNAR.

He put the President into power by shutting down the recount (maybe the gangs of thugs attacking the recount sites convinced him to rule the way he did) in Florida, why not rule on things affecting a close friend and fellow idealogue?