Cheney & Scalia = Duck & Cover!

[Gimpy]

Scalia Tries To Duck Conflict With Waterfowl Reasoning

Published: Jan 26, 2004

U. S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is quick to detect and demolish a flawed legal argument, particularly one that would supposedly manipulate the Constitution to achieve some liberal cause.

So it is difficult to believe that a judge so intolerant for his interpretation of legal tomfoolery would indulge in a brazen flouting of the judicial canon.

Just a few weeks after the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether Vice President Dick Cheney must reveal the names of the private interests who helped him develop the administration's energy plan, Scalia went on a Louisiana duck hunt with Cheney.

The judge claims this does not affect his objectivity. That's duck feathers.

By sloughing around with Cheney in bayou country, Scalia demonstrated a clear bias toward the defendant in the case.

Indeed, Scalia's actions raise questions about the court's accepting the vice president's flimsy case in the first place.

Three courts had already ruled against Cheney, who is being sued by the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch, a conservative government watchdog.

The plaintiffs want the vice president to reveal the names of industry representatives who were collaborators in developing the administration's sweeping energy policy.

This is relevant to the public. The energy policy offered billions in tax breaks to energy interests. The administration relied heavily on such interests in developing the plan, while consumer groups, scholars and environmentalists were shut out of the debate.

Moreover, the court twice rightly rejected arguments similar to Cheney's made by the Clinton administration. The precedent is clear.

Scalia clearly is compromised and should remove himself from the case.

The judge may have bagged his limit in Louisiana, but when it came to legal judgment, he shot the decoys.

**************************

Just one more piece of evidence to support the facts of an adminstration full of deception and lies!

[HARDCORE]

GIMPY et al -

Scalia went on a Louisiana duck hunt with Cheney.

The judge claims this does not affect his objectivity.

"Yeah, and maybe we are the quackers!?"

VERITAS

[SuperScout]

OK, class, let's all synchronize our watches so we can avoid being labeled as dumber than a box of used hair. The case was presented to the full Supreme Court, the Court refused to negate the time-honored principle Executive Privilege as established constitutionally, and the case was not even remanded to the lower courts. Normally, if a justice thinks that he has an abiding prejudice in pending cases, he will recuse himself to maintain impartiality. Since the matter in question had already been settled, no recusing was call for, and the Veep and the Justice went hunting. Ducks were called for, ducks were shot, and so is your argument. Tight-fitting helmets always generate thoughts of evil conspiracies, I suppose.

[HARDCORE]

"Yes, and no helmet at all often leads to sever brain damage from low-fling buzzards!"

And for the record, we are not a college class held under the spell of any professor or task master, but rather a free thinking forum, and that will not be changed, no matter how vested or repetitious the input!!

VERITAS

[Gimpy]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I see that some of Bushs' "space cadets"must have forgoten to turn on the oxygen to their Space Helmets when Baby Bush announced his upcoming glorious Mars Attack. I'll bet they think that those little "Martians" up there are gonna give them a "liberators welcome" like the one we have gotten in Iraq also, huh???

Anyway, back on track for a moment for those who are apparently "current event" challenged! And, speaking of "being labeled as dumber than a box of used hair", as SS stated.

What planet have YOU been on lately where one could say THIS..........."The case was presented to the full Supreme Court, the Court refused to negate the time-honored principle Executive Privilege as established constitutionally, and the case was not even remanded to the lower courts."........... without being so far away from what's actually "happening" with this case.....HUH?

You REALLY need to "bone up" there, SuperCadet on your "current events" & history.

"Refused to negate the time honored principle of Executive privilege"--------------HA........The Supreme Court IS going to hear this case.

Check THIS OUT!

***********************

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two leading Democratic senators asked Chief Justice William Rehnquist on Thursday about the propriety of a hunting trip Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia took with Vice President Dick Cheney while Cheney has a case pending before the high court.

In a letter to Rehnquist, Sens. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut asked the chief justice to tell them what "canons, procedures and rules" are in place to determine when justices should recuse themselves from cases.

They also asked Rehnquist what guidance justices have been given about accepting trips, and whether the full court has any way to disqualify a member from hearing a case if a justice refuses to recuse himself.

"When a sitting judge, poised to hear a case involving a particular litigant, goes on a vacation with that litigant, reasonable people will question whether that judge can be a fair and impartial adjudicator of that man's case or his opponent's claims," the senators wrote.


"The integrity of our courts and the confidence of the American people depend on judges acting without fear or favor."
Leahy is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Lieberman is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and a 2004 presidential candidate.

In December, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Cheney's appeal of a lower court ruling ordering him to disclose details of meetings between his energy policy task force and contacts in the energy industry.

The vice president's lawyers contend that information is protected by executive privilege.

The two groups that brought the suit, Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club, insist the records should be made public so they can determine whether lobbyists for the energy industry helped craft the administration's energy policy.

Earlier this month, Cheney invited Scalia, an old friend, to accompany him on a hunting trip in Louisiana.

The two also dined together along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at a restaurant on Maryland's Eastern Shore in November.

In a letter to the Los Angeles Times, which first disclosed details of the trip, Scalia defended his actions, saying they did not threaten his impartiality.

The groups involved in the lawsuit question whether the trip was proper given Cheney's business before the court -- questions echoed by Lieberman and Leahy in their letter to Rehnquist.
"While judges should not be isolated from the society in which they live, they must take special care that their extra-judicial activities do not create a conflict with their judicial duties," they wrote.

"Setting aside any evidence of actual bias, the ethical rules recognize that the perpetuation of an appearance of partiality is a threat to public confidence in our federal courts."

Members of Congress who have questions about whether actions they are about to take might violate ethics rules can ask for advisory opinions in advance.

The senators asked Rehnquist to tell them whether the Supreme Court has a similar mechanism, and whether Scalia used it before accepting the trip with Cheney.

**************************

Someones "Space Helmet" must be out of oxygen! :cd:

[Gimpy]

I guess ET hasn't phoned in his reply to the "SpaceCadets" yet, huh?

:cd:

[HARDCORE]

HARKEN GENTS - "Was that Commander Buzz Corey or Cadet Happy who just zoomed by?" LOL ROBBIE!!

VERITAS e FIDES

[Gimpy]

NO response from the "oxygen deprived" helmet gang yet??? :cd:

[Gimpy]

They musta REALLY given out of "oxygen", HUH??????