http://www.workingforchange.com/printitem.cfm?itemid=16634
Scalia's right
E.J. Dionne, Jr. - Washington Post Writers Group
03.23.04 - FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- Perhaps because I'm in Florida, I
can't stop thinking about that bizarre memo Supreme Court Justice
Antonin Scalia issued last week. It's the one in which the justice
heaped scorn and ridicule on all who questioned whether he could be fair
in deciding whether Vice President ***** Cheney should have to disclose
which oil and gas bigwigs he consulted when he ran President Bush's
energy task force.
Let me admit: My view is that Scalia should stay out of any case
involving the political interests of this administration. Here, after
all, is the man who played such a central role in putting Bush and
Cheney into office through that abominable Bush v. Gore decision. How
can the kingmaker be expected to offer a fair judgment on the king and
his hand-picked deputy?
But forget the past: Scalia's own argument for why he should stay on the
Cheney case offers the best evidence for why he should get off.
The 21-page Scalia memo is, in part, a heartwarming buddy story. Scalia
fondly describes his tradition of going duck hunting at the camp of a
friend named Wallace Carline. "During my December 2002 visit, I learned
that Mr. Carline was an admirer of Vice President Cheney," Scalia wrote.
"Knowing that the vice president, with whom I am well acquainted (from
our years serving together in the Ford administration), is an
enthusiastic duck-hunter, I asked whether Mr. Carline would like to
invite him to our next year's hunt.
"The answer was yes," Scalia went on. "I conveyed the invitation (with
my own warm recommendation) in the spring of 2003 and received an
acceptance (subject, of course, to any superseding demands on the vice
president's time) in the summer. The vice president said that if he did
go, I would be welcome to fly down to Louisiana with him."
Please read those paragraphs over a couple of times. Is there any doubt
that this is a justice who is great friends with the person whose case
he is deciding? Would a rational person doubt that, all things being
equal, the judge just might tilt toward the man with whom he is so "well
acquainted"?
Imagine you were in a bitter court fight with a former business partner.
Would you want the judge in your case to be someone who went duck
hunting with your opponent and flew to the hunt on your opponent's
plane? Would it make you feel confident to know that the judge was in a
position to issue a "warm recommendation" that your opponent join a
particular hunting expedition and thus make one of the judge's friends
-- an "admirer" of your opponent in the case -- feel good?
And now consider that you, as a citizen, have a right to know with whom
Cheney consulted in writing an energy bill that was overwhelmingly
tilted toward the interests of an industry in which the vice president
was once a central player. Scalia admits that recusal might be in order
"where the personal fortune or the personal freedom of the friend is at
issue." But not to worry. What's at stake here are only Cheney's
political fortunes, the interests of the industry that Cheney once
worked for, and the public's right to know. No big deal.
This is a scandal. Because of ideological connivance across the branches
of our political system, we are abandoning the checks and balances that
make our government work. Scalia put aside his own long-standing
convictions on issues involving states' rights and equal protection to
find a way to put Bush and Cheney in office. Now he says we shouldn't
worry that he is friendly with the guy whose case he is deciding in the
middle of another election campaign.
Citing past rulings, Scalia wrote in his apologia that his "recusal
would be required if, by reason of the actions described above, my
'impartiality might reasonably be questioned.'"
True, Scalia's impartiality can't be questioned. It can't even be
imagined. The justice's memo makes clear that he's in the wrong line of
work.
A fierce ideologue and a staunch partisan ally of the administration he
helped bring to power, Scalia is also very smart and engaging. He
belongs in a great law school or in politics. He'd be a great
commentator and not a bad comedian. But does he belong on a court where
he has to pretend to believe in deciding cases on the merits? If he
can't see why his behavior in this case raises such serious doubts in
the minds of his adversaries, what else is he missing?
(c) 2004, Washington Post Writers Group
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
