interesting choice

Member

Scalia recuses himself from cases like the 10 commandments on the courthouse and Pledge of Allegiance b/c he's commented publicly on them, but he won't recuse himself from the Cheney case, although they're good friends. (Cheney is fighting a federal court's order that he release internal files of a task force he headed for the Bush administration. A lawsuit claims he had made improper contacts with energy industry lobbyists when developing government policy.)

The rule is there are no rules. Supreme Court justices are to determine for themselves whether to recuse. My view is that whatever he does, it should be consistent, and to me, this doesn't appear to be.

What's yours?

Member

And we wonder where the public gets the impression that the Court system is NOT fair and unbiased. Someone needs to explain about the APPEARANCE of a conflict of interest.

Member

I'll admit ignorance to the case at hand. Has Scalia been called on this by any organization? I'm curious as to his rationalization.

Member

I think that consistency should be the key. Isn't that the whole concept behind setting a precedent and follwing it?

Member

Well, the point of precedent is consistency and certainty. The way the Court shakes out on matters is supposed to help us understand what to do in future, in part so we don't clog up the courts. (This is called the "floodgates" issue and it gets brought up as a fear of the court all the time.)

Someone asked about the cases. One is Justice Antonin Scalia made public comments about the issues surrounding the Ten Commandments on an Alabama courthouse, a hot mess a few months back. So when it came up again for discussion, he recused himself from it. He's also fairly recently commented his views on whether the Pledge of Allegiance should be a mandatory part of the school day and recused himself from that. In this third case, a good friend of his may go to trial (at the SC level) but he sees no conflict of interest.

One view is that we should presume the justices to be above inserting their own personal views into these matters. I agree, but Scalia himself, in cases I've read for class, downplays the notion that anyone can really, actually do that.

Anyway, I just wanted to start a discussion. It's not a political thread and let's not hijack it into one.

Member

While I most definitely agree with you in theory, and believe that as a Supreme Court justice he should be held to a higher standard, maybe he has good (as in justifiable) reasons for not recusing himself. I'm completely ignorant on the Cheney issue, but maybe he sees that case as clearly defined by law, and not so in the others. (and yes, I do realize that the SC interprets law) :dunno:

All in all, the SC baffles me. I just always like to consider the other side of things. Makes life more interesting, and keeps me less jaded. (don't forget all those years I spend behind bars, I can be very jaded)

Adjunct

it swings every which way. What I hate is how they legislate a lot of law by "interpreting" the constitution.

For example search and seizure for the police changes just about every year.

Abortion has become a "privacy" issue cloaked in the 10th amendment, which does not mention privacy (I prefer the 14th amendment and due process and equal rights for all-including the unborn-but that is a whole other arguement)

They also have little accountability with their lifetime appointments as well. They can be impeached but that is next to impossible. They have got to have the greatest job in the world

Member

It's true--they interpret what they think the Leg meant by the statutes it wrote. And they also look to prior cases. But there are lots of times that the decisions of prior cases get totally blown off. Times change, our needs change, and sometimes the law changes, and should. But sometimes it's frustrating to see someone's agenda be so blatant in their decision.

I agree, Joe, they have practically no accountability. G-man and all you recovering lawyers out there, what do you say?

Member

Member

Don't get me started on the Supreme Court! That instituiton has long been out of control and in need of a major overhaul, beginning with the end of appointments for life. Justices routinely have rewritten the constitution to suit their own political/social agendas by "enacting" legislation through case law. I think the court is far too powerful and they infringe on the delicate balance between the three branches of government.

Member

It blew my mind to learn that in a typical year, they accept about 4% of all the cases they're asked to hear.

interesting choice

LIFEFORM SOCIAL COMMUNITY NETWORK