Become a part of the TranceAddict community!Frequently Asked Questions - Please read this if you haven'tSearch the forums
TranceAddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > Cheney/Justice Scalia hunting buddies? Conflict of Interest?
  Last Thread   Next Thread
Share
Author
Thread    Post A Reply
MisterOpus1
Grumpy Old Fart



Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Kansas City
Cheney/Justice Scalia hunting buddies? Conflict of Interest?

Oh c'mon, this is getting ridiculous!:

quote:
Trip With Cheney Puts Ethics Spotlight on Scalia
Friends hunt ducks together, even as the justice is set to hear the vice president's case.
By David G. Savage
Times Staff Writer

January 17, 2004

WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spent part of last week duck hunting together at a private camp in southern Louisiana just three weeks after the court agreed to take up the vice president's appeal in lawsuits over his handling of the administration's energy task force.

While Scalia and Cheney are avid hunters and longtime friends, several experts in legal ethics questioned the timing of their trip and said it raised doubts about Scalia's ability to judge the case impartially.

But Scalia rejected that concern Friday, saying, "I do not think my impartiality could reasonably be questioned."

Federal law says "any justice or judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be questioned." For nearly three years, Cheney has been fighting demands that he reveal whether he met with energy industry officials, including Kenneth L. Lay when he was chairman of Enron, while he was formulating the president's energy policy.

A lower court ruled that Cheney must turn over documents detailing who met with his task force, but on Dec. 15, the high court announced it would hear his appeal. The justices are due to hear arguments in April in the case of "in re Richard B. Cheney."

In a written response to an inquiry from the Times about the hunting trip, Scalia said: "Cheney was indeed among the party of about nine who hunted from the camp. Social contacts with high-level executive officials (including cabinet officers) have never been thought improper for judges who may have before them cases in which those people are involved in their official capacity, as opposed to their personal capacity. For example, Supreme Court Justices are regularly invited to dine at the White House, whether or not a suit seeking to compel or prevent certain presidential action is pending."

Cheney does not face a personal penalty in the pending lawsuits. He could not be forced to pay damages, for example.

But the suits are not routine disputes about the powers of Cheney's office. Rather, the plaintiffs — the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch — contend that Cheney and his staff violated an open-government measure known as the Federal Advisory Committee Act by meeting behind closed doors with outside lobbyists for the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries.

Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor, said Scalia should have skipped going hunting with Cheney this year.

"A judge may have a friendship with a lawyer, and that's fine. But if the lawyer has a case before the judge, they don't socialize until it's over. That shows a proper respect for maintaining the public's confidence in the integrity of the process," said Gillers, who is an expert on legal ethics. "I think Justice Scalia should have been cognizant of that and avoided contact with the vice president until this was over. And this is not like a dinner with 25 or 30 people. This is a hunting trip where you are together for a few days."

The pair arrived Jan. 5 on Gulfstream jets and were guests of Wallace Carline, the owner of Diamond Services Corp., an oil services company in Amelia, La. The Associated Press in Morgan City, La., reported the trip on the day the vice president and his entourage departed.

"They asked us not to bring cameras out there," said Sheriff David Naquin, who serves St. Mary Parish, about 90 miles southwest of New Orleans, referring to the group's request for privacy. "The vice president and the justice were there for a relaxing trip, so we backed off."

While the local police were told about Cheney's trip shortly before his arrival, they were told to keep it a secret, Naquin said.

"The justice had been here several times before. I'm kind of sorry Cheney picked that week because it was a poor shooting week," Naquin said. "There weren't many ducks here, which is unusual for this time of the year."

Scalia agreed with the sheriff's assessment.

"The duck hunting was lousy. Our host said that in 35 years of duck hunting on this lease, he had never seen so few ducks," the justice said in his written response to the Times. "I did come back with a few ducks, which tasted swell."

In October, Justice Scalia announced he would not participate in the court's handling of a case involving the Pledge of Allegiance; that case is due to be heard in March. It stems from a U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling two years ago that declared unconstitutional the use of the words "under God" in the Pledge that is recited daily by millions of schoolchildren. These words were added to the Pledge by Congress in 1954, and they amount to an official government promotion of religion, the appeals court said.

Last year, Justice Scalia appeared to criticize that ruling in a speech at a Religious Freedom Day event in Fredericksburg, Va. "We could eliminate 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance," he said. "That could be democratically done."

But this is contrary to the wishes of most Americans, and it should not be done by judges or courts, he added.

The California school district that was on the losing end in the Pledge case appealed to the Supreme Court last summer.

Its lawyers urged the justices to restore the use of the words "under God."

While the appeal was pending, the Sacramento-area atheist who won the ruling in the 9th Circuit filed a motion suggesting Scalia withdraw from the case. He cited news account of Scalia's speech and the federal law mandating disqualifications whenever the judge's impartiality "might reasonably be questioned." When the court announced it would hear the case, Scalia also announced he would not participate.

Steven Lubet, who teaches judicial ethics at Northwestern University Law School, said he was not convinced that Scalia must withdraw from the Cheney case but said the trip raised a number of questions.

"It's not clear this requires disqualification, but there are not separate rules for longtime friends," he said. "This is not like a lawyer going on a fishing trip with a judge. A lawyer is one step removed. Cheney is the litigant in this case. The question is whether the justice's hunting partner did something wrong. And the whole purpose of these rules is to ensure the appearance of impartiality in regard to the litigants before the court."

The code of conduct for federal judges sets guidelines for members of the judiciary, but it does not set clear-cut rules. A judge should "act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary," it says. "A judge should not allow family, social or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgments," it says. Nor should a judge "permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge."

In the lower courts, litigants may ask a judge to step aside. And if the request is refused, they may appeal to a higher court.

At the Supreme Court, the justices decide for themselves whether to step aside. On occasion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has withdrawn from business cases because she owns stock in one of the companies.

The justices have been reluctant to withdraw from a case simply because a former clerk is handling the dispute, or their son or daughter works at a law firm participating in the case. Last year, for example, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said he did not see a need to withdraw from a pending appeal in the Microsoft antitrust case simply because his son, a lawyer, was working on a related case.

http://www.latimes.com/la-na-ducks1...220,print.story


Can we at least see a tiny conflict here?!? It's bad enough that the GOP controls both Legislative and Executive branches, but controlling the Judicial branch as well is just a little too much power for anyone to hold.

side note: I realize the SC has sided with liberal issues as of late, nevertheless the majority is still controlled by Conservatives.


___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Old Post Jan-20-2004 16:52  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for MisterOpus1 Click here to Send MisterOpus1 a Private Message Add MisterOpus1 to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
DaveSZ
When The Levee Breaks



Registered: Jan 2003
Location: ATX

Yeah, I agree the current state of our government is simply beyond corrupt and doesn't favor the people.


We're going to put an end to the corruption in 2004 though. I hope.


O'Connor is a pretty decent judge though.

Edit-

I can remember on the NPR special about Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas President Eisenhower called in Earl Warren to meet with one of the opponents of school desegregation.

Eisenhower said, "These are good people. They just don't want their little white girl to sit next to some overgrown Negro."

Of course, Warren was probably one of the better Supreme Court justices we've ever had, and at that time there wasn't as much of a "conservative" or "liberal" litmus test for judges as there exists today. When Warren was on a trip to the South, the driver of his car was black. The driver had to sleep in his car overnight because he couldn't find a room at any hotels (due to his skin pigmentation). That's when Earl Warren made the right decision to rally all the justices to overturn Plessy Vs. Ferguson. Good ol Thurgood Marshall argued that case for the NAACP, and was later appointed to the Supreme Court by LBJ.

Thurgood Marshall also had some choice words for the man who replaced him.


___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

Last edited by DaveSZ on Jan-20-2004 at 17:58

Old Post Jan-20-2004 17:08 
Click Here to See the Profile for DaveSZ Click here to Send DaveSZ a Private Message Add DaveSZ to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
MisterOpus1
Grumpy Old Fart



Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Kansas City

Hehe. This guy's got some gems on his website:

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/duck.html


___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Old Post Jan-29-2004 15:02  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for MisterOpus1 Click here to Send MisterOpus1 a Private Message Add MisterOpus1 to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
MisterOpus1
Grumpy Old Fart



Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Kansas City
Hey, I knew this guy from KU!

I actually helped train Dean McAllister in a health research study in KU grad. school. Helluva nice guy!

But geez, seems like common practice for Scalia to play Elmer Fudd with council. It's just a little too cozy for a SC Justice to be doin' this kinda crap with prosecuting/defense attorneys from which he's directly involved with:

quote:
Scalia Took Trip Set Up by Lawyer in Two Cases
Richard A. Serrano and David G. Savage
The Los Angeles Times

Friday 27 February 2004

Kansas visit in 2001 came within weeks of the Supreme Court hearing arguments.
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was the guest of a Kansas law school two years ago and went pheasant hunting on a trip arranged by the school's dean, all within weeks of hearing two cases in which the dean was a lead attorney.

The cases involved issues of public policy important to Kansas officials. Accompanying Scalia on the November 2001 hunting trip were the Kansas governor and the recently retired state Senate president, who flew with Scalia to the hunting camp aboard a state plane.

Two weeks before the trip, University of Kansas School of Law Dean Stephen R. McAllister, along with the state's attorney general, had appeared before the Supreme Court to defend a Kansas law to confine sex offenders after they complete their prison terms.

Two weeks after the trip, the dean was before the high court to lead the state's defense of a Kansas prison program for treating sex criminals.

Scalia was hosted by McAllister, who also served as Kansas state solicitor, when he visited the law school to speak to students. At Scalia's request, McAllister arranged for the justice to go pheasant hunting after the law school event. And the dean enlisted then-Gov. Bill Graves and former state Senate President Dick Bond, both Republicans.

During the weekend of hunting in north-central Kansas, Graves and Bond said in separate interviews recently, they did not talk about the cases with Scalia, nor did they view the trip as a way to win his favor.

Scalia later sided with Kansas in both cases.

In a written statement, Scalia said: "I do not think that spending time at a law school in which the counsel in pending cases was the dean could reasonably cause my impartiality to be questioned. Nor could spending time with the governor of a state that had matters before the court."

Earlier this year, the Los Angeles Times reported that Scalia had been a guest of Vice President Dick Cheney on Air Force Two when they went duck hunting in southern Louisiana. That trip came shortly after the high court had agreed to hear Cheney's appeal seeking to keep secret his national energy policy task force.

The details of the Louisiana hunting trip, coupled with the visit to Kansas, provide a rare look at a Supreme Court justice who has socialized with government officials at times when legal matters important to them were before the high court.

Federal law says that "any justice or judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be questioned." By tradition and court policy, justices are free to determine for themselves what constitutes a conflict.

Specialists in legal ethics differed on whether the Kansas trip presented a conflict of interest for Scalia.

"When a case is on the docket before a judge, the coziness of meeting privately with a lawyer is questionable," said Chicago lawyer Robert P. Cummins, who headed an Illinois board on judicial ethics. "It would seem the better part of judgment to avoid those situations."

Added Monroe Freedman, who teaches legal ethics at Hofstra University: "A reasonable person might question this, and that's the problem." He said Scalia "should have rescheduled the trip until after" the cases were over.

Other experts noted, however, that no one who met Scalia in Kansas was a named litigant in the two cases, in contrast to the trip with Cheney, who is the appealing party in the upcoming energy task force case.

"I'm not troubled by this because of the law school setting," said Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor. He said he saw no problems with the hunting trip. "The dean was an advocate, not the litigant."

Scalia said that if Supreme Court justices were prohibited from taking such a trip, then they "would be permanently barred from social contact with all governors, since at any given point in time virtually all states have matters pending before us."

Since the two sex-offender cases in 2001, the state of Kansas has not had any matters argued before the high court.

Scalia said he accepted an invitation to the law school "sometime before October 2000."

"I had worked for a couple of years on getting him to come here. And he asked whether there was any good hunting," McAllister said. "He said he had hunted turkey and deer, but not pheasant, so that was appealing."

In the spring of 2001, the high court voted to hear both Kansas cases, and they were set for argument that fall. McAllister said he called to alert Scalia that he would be arguing the two Kansas cases before the court at about the same time as the justice's scheduled trip.

McAllister said Scalia responded that he would come as scheduled, and that he would not accept a speaking fee and would pay for his own hunting.

On Oct. 30, 2001, two weeks before the trip, McAllister and state Atty. Gen. Carla Stovall appeared before Scalia and the other Supreme Court justices in the case of Kansas vs. Crane.

The case tested whether the state could continue to hold sex offenders after they had completed their prison terms. The two Kansas attorneys argued that inmates likely to be a danger should be kept in custody.

Scalia arrived in Kansas on Nov. 15, 2001. He addressed a class and spoke to law students, and attended a reception with local judges and lawyers.

"We kept him busy," the dean said. "And the students really loved it. It's also a good change from Washington for the justices."

The University of Kansas, a state school, paid for Scalia's flight, meals and lodging, according to Scalia's financial disclosure statement.

The next day, the dean dropped the justice off at the airport in Lawrence, Kan., where he met the governor and the former state Senate leader.

Bond, a 14-year state senator who retired at the end of 2000 as president of the Kansas Senate, said he spoke with McAllister before Scalia came to Kansas. "He was bringing out Scalia and he said Scalia really wanted to go pheasant hunting," Bond recalled.

"He said he [McAllister] couldn't go because he was going to have a case before the court and it would be inappropriate. He said he had no problem with bringing him in and having him speak to students, but that he could not go out and socialize with him."

Bond spoke to Graves. The former governor, in a separate interview, said he was honored to have the chance to go hunting with a Supreme Court justice.

Graves said he and Bond decided to take Scalia to the Ringneck Ranch near Beloit, Kan., which was owned by Keith Houghton, a friend of the governor.

Graves said they flew from Lawrence on the governor's official plane, which he described as a King air prop, and returned on the same plane after hunting. Scalia reimbursed the state $121.87 for the round trip.

"The controlled shooting part of the trip was good," Graves said. "They plant birds, and that gives you a better attempt to get some birds."

Added Bond of Scalia, "We stayed the night and had a delightful time. He was just charming to be around."

Bond said that because the trip was two months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Scalia had told them in advance that he did not think it wise to fly from Washington with his own firearm. So, Bond said, "I loaned Scalia a gun. I have plenty."

Graves and Bond said the two court cases never came up during the trip. "There was no conversation along those lines," Graves said.

Added Bond, "The cases were never discussed or mentioned. Zero."

However, both officials said the legal matters were critically important to the state, or they would not have expended the money and effort to take them to the Supreme Court.

The two also said they did not see a conflict in socializing with the justice while the legal matters were pending.

"It's kind of a stretch to tie that together," Graves said.

When the trip was winding down, Bond recalled, "Graves and I told him we would like him to be our guest and pay his way, and he said no."

Houghton, the ranch owner, said Scalia wrote a personal check for "several hundred dollars" to cover his hunting, meals and lodging at the camp. "Once he realized that we were a commercial institution, he made a point that he had to pay for this," Houghton said.

To commemorate the trip, Houghton said, they took several photographs of the justice — including one that now hangs in a large frame at the camp.

After Scalia returned to Lawrence, McAllister said, the dean and others associated with the law school took the justice to dinner.

Two weeks after hosting Scalia, the law school dean was back in Washington to argue on behalf of Kansas in a case called McKune vs. Lile. That case tested whether Kansas could force sex offenders to confess all their past sex crimes as part of prison treatment.

Robert Lile, an inmate, argued that the state policy would force him to incriminate himself. A federal district court and appeals court agreed, and Kansas was asking the high court to overturn those rulings.

During the oral argument, Scalia questioned whether the inmate had a constitutional basis for his complaint. "Your client had been deprived of no liberty to which he was entitled, not a single liberty to which he was entitled," he told Lile's lawyer, Matthew J. Wiltanger.

The Supreme Court sided with Kansas in both cases, with Scalia voting on McAllister's side each time.

In January 2002, the high court said in a 7-2 ruling in Kansas vs. Crane that state officials could hold sex criminals beyond their prison terms if they prove the convicts had a "serious difficulty" in controlling their behavior.

Scalia dissented, but not because he opposed the Kansas law. The court, he said, should have given the state even greater freedom to hold sex offenders. The ruling "snatches back from the state of Kansas a victory so recently awarded," he wrote, referring to a Supreme Court decision allowing the state to hold certain inmates indefinitely.

In the second Kansas case, the court in a 5-4 ruling said state prison authorities could compel inmates to confess to past crimes as part of a treatment program, and they could take away privileges from those who refused.

The lawyers who lost the two Kansas cases said that while they were curious about the law school visit and the hunting trip, they never expected to win Scalia's vote in the first place.

"I trust that Justice Scalia would have stepped aside had his ability to rule been compromised by his hunting trip in the state," Wiltanger said.

Back in Kansas, Bond and Graves said Scalia had earned their respect as a marksman. At one point in the field, the hunters were surprised by a quail, and Scalia shot the bird in midflight.

"He came back with a bag full of birds," McAllister said, "cleaned and packed in ice, ready to take back on the plane to Washington."

Justice Scalia's Statement

The following statement was issued by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in response to a Los Angeles Times inquiry about his 2001 trip to Kansas:

I was not the guest of Stephen McAllister, but of the University of Kansas Law School. The invitation, in fact, had come not from Stephen McAllister but from his predecessor as dean of the law school, Michael Hoeflich. That invitation was issued in December of 1999 and accepted (by phone) some time before October of 2000 — long before the October and November, 2001, cases you refer to were on our docket. My travel expenses to Lawrence were reimbursed by the University of Kansas, not by the state. I flew with the governor and others on the governor's plane from Lawrence to Beloit and back, and promptly reimbursed the state of Kansas for the cost.

I do not think that spending time at a law school in which the counsel in pending cases was the dean could reasonably cause my impartiality to be questioned. Nor could spending time with the governor of a state that had matters before the court. Indeed, if the latter were so, Supreme Court justices would be permanently barred from social contact with all governors, since at any given point in time virtually all states have matters pending before us, either in accepted cases or in petitions for certiorari [or requests for the court to hear a case].

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...-home-headlines


___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Old Post Mar-01-2004 16:04  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for MisterOpus1 Click here to Send MisterOpus1 a Private Message Add MisterOpus1 to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
MrSquirrel
Auf Wiedersehen



Registered: Aug 2003
Location: In a Tree.

Everyone who has head a single bit of information on this story knows that Scalia should disqualify himself from this case. But unfortunately the only way that can happen is if he chooses to. There is no way to force him to do it. And since Rehnquist has become a pretty arch conservative over the years, I doubt he will put any pressure at all on Scalia.

MrS


___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

Old Post Mar-01-2004 16:23  United Nations
Click Here to See the Profile for MrSquirrel Click here to Send MrSquirrel a Private Message Visit MrSquirrel's homepage! Add MrSquirrel to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message

TranceAddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > Cheney/Justice Scalia hunting buddies? Conflict of Interest?
Post New Thread    Post A Reply

 
Last Thread   Next Thread
Click here to listen to the sample!Pause playbackHybrid [2005] [4]

Click here to listen to the sample!Pause playbackBT - The Force of Gravity (Dylan Rhymes Pushup Mix) [2010]

Show Printable Version | Subscribe to this Thread
Forum Jump:

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:01.

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
 
Search this Thread:

 
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict

Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
Support TA!