Up until about 2000, Scalia probably had the best legal mind on the supreme court. Then it started to go sideways. just a little at first but by the end, they were starting to put him in a corner and giving him fewer and fewer controversial opinions to write.
Some clarity on this without trying to jockey or score point:
It looks to me from reading that article that what ACTUALLY happened was that Scalia was staying free-of-charge at this resort, which is owned by J.B. Poindexter, who owns J.B. Poindexter & Co, who owns the MIC group. And the MIC group is a defendant in this case, which was denied certariori on page 40 of this document.
Already things are looking pretty attenuated to me. But I’m super-far from competent at reading cases like this. Here’s what I can gather:
Hinga was fired by the MIC group allegedly for job performance. He says it was age-based discrimination. His suit was dismissed with prejudice. Th eFifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower judgment. Hinga apparently appealed to the supreme court and was denied certariori along with what looks to be hundreds of other cases.
Is this a fair summary?
As a general principle, a judge ought to refuse to accept gifts from someone whose business has recently been before the court in any form: to accept such a gift creates at least the appearance of quid pro quo (“I’ll pass on the case against you, you give me a vacation.”) However, I’m far from convinced that in this case, that’s a reasonable rule. This lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice–a fairly strong dismissal, if I understand things (and I may not). It was affirmed. It was denied cert in the same way hundreds of other cases were. Is it reasonable to treat it as “before the court”? How significant was Scalia’s hand in denying it cert? How far-reaching would this rule be?
It may well be that most wealthy capitalists have at least one lawsuit pending against them at all times; it may well be that most of them have some case that some schmoe is trying to get appealed at the Supreme Court. What are the stats on that? Do we expect SC justices not to accept lavish gifts like free resort stays from anyone outside of their family? I think that’d be a fine expectation to have, but is it actually what we expect?
Yeah. So? The Obamacare Opinion was written by a Republican appointee. There are plenty of reasons to order a stay on the new EPA rules regardless of how urgent YOU happen to think they are.
The whole “liberal hypocrisy” argument only fails if it is effectively a tu coque argument, right? If it is an admission that the conservative is doing something bad but the liberals do it too so its OK?
If the accusations of Liberal hypocrisy is that the Liberals criticize conservatives but not liberals when they do something then its a valid criticism of the sudden new founded one sided concern over this principle that only seems to be a concern when Conservatives do it. So all this concern about Scalia rubbing elbows with other conservatives seems like liberal hypocrisy considering who the liberal justices hang out with.
And it was called by several on the right as judicial activism.
Again, I’m not the only one, read the comments on the previous EPA emissions case.
The evidence was not usually direct testimony. It was something that would lead to physical evidence like a murder weapon or a dead body.
If I beat you into telling me where you buried the body, I cannot use the dead body against you, but if I beat your friend into telling me where he saw you bury the dead body and there is other evidence that proves you put the dead body there, I can use that dead body against you.
The exclusionary rule does not protect you from the fruit of someone else’s poisonous tree. I can’t remember the case but I think there was a case with some Chinese dudes where they beat one to get evidence against the other.
Pointdexter invited Scalia. Pointdexter has a company that was sued for age discrimination, the supreme court denied cert leaving Pointdexter with a favorable lower court ruling.
It doesn’t really sound like compelling evidence of corruption.
Who gives a shit what politicians say. The point is that judges are not slaves to their politics or the politics of those that appoint them.
People have been implying all sorts of shit about Scalia(and admittedly conservative (and more recently a somewhat partisan justice) because they didn’t agree with him. The fact of the matter is that no one but crackpots doubt his honesty and integrity. You may think he’s a scumbag but a lot of conservatives think he’s a hero.
I personally think he was a conservative justice. He was appointed by a conservative president. Elections have consequences and SCOTUS appointments are probably the most lasting legacy of any President. Obama will be replacing Scalia (despite all the storm and fury coming from the right, he will be replacing Scalia with a center left justice (perhaps Jane Kelly or Sri Srivanisan), moving the center of gravity somewhat to the left of kennedy.
Of course that is then the same I think about your sorry opinions. 
BTW I’m not in agreement with the ones that want to see something shady about the people present where judge Scalia died. And yes, elections have consequences. That is why I voted for Obama, also expecting him to choose better judges.
Why? What’s wrong with the ones he’s chosen so far?
We can all thank Mr. Scalia for never ever again writing an opinion in a case put before the Supreme Court. While his methodology in accomplishing this worthy goal was perhaps a bit extreme, I applaud him for it all the same.
There! I did find something good to say about him.
Yes, he did. When he was right, he was really really right.
It was apparently an age discrimination suit against a company Poindexter owns.
You might even say extreme right.
That case was not before the Supreme Court.
An excellent post.
It takes only four votes to grant certiorari. So Scalia, alone could not be responsible, nor could the other three conservative justices AND the swing Justice acting in concert with Scalia, deny cert.
It was brought before the court.
I’m wondering also if Scalia was even aware that Poindexter was affiliated with or had ownership in the MIC group.
Surely justices cannot be and are not expected to know the names of every owner or everyone with an ownership stake in all the companies whose cases come before it for consideration.
Of course if Scalia didn’t know of the association between Poindexter and the case against MIC which was denied certariori, then questions can legitimately arise as to how and why Scalia (and his son, apparently, who was supposed to come but bowed out shortly beforehand) came to be invited to the ranch and why they accepted. Their visit a year after the case against MIC was declined is a coincidence that’s hard to defend against.
I’m wondering, Bricker, what the etiquette or standards are should someone like Poindexter call Scalia and invite him to the ranch while at the same time expressing appreciation that a case against one of his companies was denied. Would Scalia in good faith be allowed to accept, or would he be honor or duty bound to decline due to the possibility or appearance of conflict of interest?
LOL. Except the case I’m thinking of is one where he was on the same side as the ACLU.
That’s what we’re accusing Scalia of.