For those of you who may not know, judges in the U.S. are prohibited from having private contacts with a litigant in a case, even if they don’t discuss the case itself. Not only are judges supposed to avoid impropriety, they are supposed to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
The really ironic thing is that the case they talking about involves open government and whether the public should have access to documents detailing “insider” access to policy makers. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/15/scotus.cheney.ap/
But I saved the best for last.
**
Holy Halliburton!
Yeah, right. Gee, Antonin, you are just so in touch with the mood of the American electorate, it’s like you’re psychic or something! I mean, nobody in America is the least concerned about crony capitalism or back-room deals or anything like that. Even Howard Dean thinks America has perfected Athenian democracy and that the Bush adminstration makes policy while strolling around the fucking Agora. Scalia might be a brilliant legal mind, but his classical education is lacking; he’s obviously never heard the story of Caesar’s wife.
Scalia is just losing it. First the completely inappropriate public rant about the Pledge of Allegiance case – which got him recused – now this. The key to the Supreme Court’s authority is its tradition of public impartiality. If Scalia wants to shoot off his mouth and hobnob with the Beautiful People, he can quit the Court and get his own radio show.
It’s not easy being a U.S. Supreme Court justice. It’s probably the most ethically demanding job in the U.S. government, possibly in any government. Ethically-challenged demagogues need not apply.
Scallia didn’t see a need to recluse himself over Bush v. Gore because his sons were working for Bush at the time, either. I’m sure he sees this as the same sort of non-conflict-of-interest. :rolleyes:
No, I don’t seriously think Scalia is corrupt. You might could convince me of stupid. “Scalia has said that he did not believe that anyone could reasonably question his impartiality in the case as a result of the trip.” Now that’s stupid! This sort of thing is the very definition of “appearance of impropriety”.
Dewey, the argument in Scalia’s defense is partially that Cheney is not financially at risk in the case. I’ll buy your explanation on the Bush-Gore situation, though with quibbles. This, I think, is a different can of worms.
This is simply not true. While the rules may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, I am aware of no jurisdiction that imposes a flat prohibition on private judge-attorney contacts during the pendency of a case. It would be an ethical violation to discuss the case ex parte, but private contacts themselves are not a problem.
Of course, some judges are more scrupulous about that than others. Indeed, I personaly know of one judge who wouldn’t know a scruple if it hit him upside the head with a baseball bat. But I digress.
That is precisely why Scalia should recuse himself from this case. While he may not have violated any ethical rule, the appearance is terrible. If I were a judge and my good buddy was a litigant in my court, I’d recuse myself in a half a second.
Corrupt? Perhaps. Definately it was a very stupid thing to do.
But Justice Scalia is certainly not stupid. He’s had a distinguished legal career and he’s written some of the most erudite and influential opinions in the history of the Court. Whether or not you agree with him (I rarely do) it’s evident that he’s a very intelligent fellow.
[QUOTE=minty green]
This is simply not true. While the rules may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, I am aware of no jurisdiction that imposes a flat prohibition on private judge-attorney contacts during the pendency of a case. It would be an ethical violation to discuss the case ex parte, but private contacts themselves are not a problem.
[QUOTE]
I’m connected! Oh, happy day.
Minty, it may be a minor quibble. Mr. Cheney is not the attorney for a party to the lawsuit, but is himself a party. All of us in the lawyer racket are use to pretty constant social contact between judges and lawyers. It is hard to avoid since who else are judges going to hang out with? Clergy-persons? Other judges (they tend to be awful bores with really dull spouses)?
Hanging out with a party to a lawsuit pending before the judge is a different kettle of fish. It may not be patently unlawful; it may not clearly violate the cannons of judicial conduct but it sure looks bad and smells worse.
For Pete’s sake, we all deal with judges who are so concerned with the appearance of favoritism that they will not preside or rule in cases involving parties who belong to the same church congregation as the judge, or cases involving banks where the judge’s spouse has a savings account. If a local judge took a case involving a hunting buddy or a golfing buddy the big boys from the State Supremes would be here faster than you can imagine.
While his language in the decided cases has made me question Justice Scalia’s judicial temperament, this (if true) on top of his public comments about the Pledge of allegiance case raises some real and troubling questions. Do you suppose the man is so convinced of his own infallibility and that no one else’s judgement matters and that he just doesn’t think that the ordinary standard apply to him?
I would want to know more about the case that’s pending before the Court before offering an opinion.
For example, the Commissioner of Labor is nominally a party to every unemployment insurace matter in the State of New York. If I found out that she went on a fishing trip with a U/I judge, I wouldn’t care in the slightest.
Like Minty, I’m not aware of such a rule. Care to offer a cite?
I checked the other link, and yeah it does appear that Cheney is more than just a nominal party. So I would agree that the best practice would probably be for Cheney and Scalia to refrain from spending time together while the matter is pending. I wouldn’t go so far as to call Scalia corrupt, but it is troubling.
That’s a perfectly good quibble, SG. While I still maintain that there is no per se prohibition on judge-litigant contact, the appearance of impropriety seems much more significant than with judge-lawyer contact.
I concur with our esteemed colleague from God, It’s Flat! especially that last sentence, which deserves more attention.
IMHO, the Tighty Righties are a bit out of touch with reality. They have clung for years to the unshakeable conviction that the vast majority of Americans really and truly are on thier side. Ever since Nixon, they have cherished the belief that they have finally come unto the Promised Land, and shall rule forever more, in accordance with Divine Providence, that smiles down benignly on thier efforts. And, yes, I said “rule”. Not “govern”. Rule.
Their recent string of victories has unbalanced their sense of arithmetic. Thier guys loses the popular vote by half a million, they think its a landslide. Secure in thier mandate, they overstep themselves a bit, here and there. The press, which used to occasionally function as watchdog alternates between lap dog and cringing cur.
So they overlook the small stuff, the mere appearances. Why not? Any expression of dismay will be muted, and they will get away with it. No more will be required than a mildly indignant remark about a couple of buddies being persecuted by the liberals for some manly hunting.
No, I personally doubt very much that anything particularly dreadful occured, save for the entirely unnecessary slaughter of birds. But, yes, people in “Big Tony” Scalia’s position should be mindful of propriety, if only as a gesture of respect for the position he holds.
He figures he doesn’t really have to. So does Cheney. They’re probably right.
Of course, it does say not to contact a judge about a case, but I would still be leery to ask a judge out for beers even if I promised not to talk about the case.
While there is no flat prohibition, it seems pretty obvious to me. If a judge actually discusses the case privately with the litigant, it’s actual impropriety. But judges are commanded to avoid “impropiety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.” As a couple of people pointed out, contact with a litigant has a far greater appearance of impropriety than does contact with a lawyer. Second, we’re specifically talking about private contacts here. It’s one thing to sit at the same table as a judge at some awards banquet. It’s another thing entirely to go on vacation with him for a week. Even if they don’t talk about the case – even if everyone knows they didn’t talk about the case – the judge is signalling a strong social bond which would cause a reasonable person to question his impartiality.
One of the commentaries to the code of judicial conduct puts it this way.
Well, your claim seemed pretty flat to me. You said "For those of you who may not know, judges in the U.S. are prohibited from having private contacts with a litigant in a case, even if they don’t discuss the case itself. "
You didn’t say “Based upon my interpretation of the rules, judges in the U.S. are prohibited from having private contacts with a litigant in a case, even if they don’t discuss the case itself.”
I’m not saying you’re wrong. But you haven’t (yet) provided adequate support for your original claim. And would you mind posting a link to the sources you quote?
I’m sort of amazed that they let anybody hold a shotgun in such close proximity to the Veep.
Lucwarm, I think trying to find a per se violation of the law is beside the point. It looks really bad. It looks unethical. It puts Scalia’s objectivity in question. It taints the credibility of his pending decision. It sucks.
