The firm Justice Scalia’s son works for has set up several safeguards. Eugene Scalia does not work on any issues related to the representation of Bush.
Almost all of the Justices have sons, daughters or spouses who work for law firms. The mere fact that a relative works for a law firm is not grounds for recusal. Pretty much every single legal ethicist has found no problem with the situation.
I know that emotions run high in these debates, but to imply dishonesty without an understanding of all of the facts is irresponsible.
Get real! This whole “residency” crapola is just left overs from the horse and buggy days. Cheney responded to it just for formalities sake, no one in thier right mind thinks for two seconds that it has any weight. Cheney represents the Sovereign State of Money. Wyoming, Texas, tomato, tomato.
George the Elder, from Kennebunkport, Texas, claimed a Houston hotel room as his residence, for crying out loud. Its on a par with Al being a tobacco-growing ridge runner from Tennessee. Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!
If Boies tried to bring that up to the Supremes, Scalia would leap over the desk, rip his beating heart from his chest and gnaw on it! It’s the equivalent to the law about someone preceding an automobile waving a red flag so as not to scare the horses! I bow to no one in my flaming partisanship, but this is a joke! Just another charming, anachronistic remnant of the Original Daddys.
Of course, if one were an strict Constructionist…
Where’s Counselor DS? Build us a case!
Now, as to that stuff about the firm that “cleaned up” the voter rolls in Florida. I have heard mention of it second hand, where do I get the info? Haven’t had my morning dose of partisan outrage, that should do nicely. Commissar Stoidela?
The following definitions from the web site http://www.m-w.com:
Inhabitant:
Resident:
While minor semantic differences can be detected, in their basic concept these two terms are identical. This does not mean they have legal equivalence, as you might expect; the law, sir, is an ass. (God, I wish I had thought of that summation! ) As an example, I resided in California while clearly inhabiting New York during college, except for summers when I inhabited California (not counting the one summer spent in Eastern Tennessee; don’t ask).
Tejota asserts without offering proof that there is some legally different meaning to ‘inhabitant’. I won’t say that is incorrect; I don’t know. I haven’t ever run across any law where the word ‘inhabitant’ had enough legal value to make litigating its meaning worthwhile, while as we know, ‘resident’ has been litigated to death. Some people have any number of potential legal residences; in the example I gave above, New York would have been a legal residence had I wanted it to be (imagine, I preferred voting in California, YIKES!). As a broad generalization, one that can’t be said to have no exceptions, you can’t have more than one legal residence, from among the various candidates, for any given purpose (this prevents me from voting in multiple jurisdictions, unless I’m a Democrat and living in Florida )
As to the Twelfth Amendment, there has been no litigation on the meaning of ‘inhabit’ before this election. I suppose it isn’t too surprising that we managed to litigate that issue, too, this year. Given that all it means is that the electors would simply have to vote for some other vice-presidential candidate, meaning that Mr. Bush would simply ask Mr. Cheney to step aside and invite someone else to the party, I’m not sure why anyone would care…
I hope that wasn’t too condescending an answer…
) As an example, I resided in California while clearly inhabiting New York during college, except for summers when I inhabited California (not counting the one summer spent in Eastern Tennessee; don’t ask).