# Scalia: corrupt or just stupid? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 23, 2004, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-corrupt-or-just-stupid/225819 "2004-01-23T21:26:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2004, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-corrupt-or-just-stupid/225819/1 "2004-01-23T21:26:25Z")
> [@](#): > > ## Two top Senate Democrats challenged Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist yesterday to explain the Supreme Court procedures that permitted Justice Antonin Scalia to spend several days recently duck hunting with Vice President Cheney, who is a named party in a case pending at the court. > > - > - > > The Los Angeles Times reported last week that Scalia traveled with Cheney to a Louisiana duck-hunting spot after the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case involving the vice president’s energy task force. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40273-2004Jan22.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40273-2004Jan22.html) 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/](http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/15/scotus.cheney.ap/) But I saved the best for last. > [@](#): > > \*\*Scalia has said that he did not believe that anyone could reasonably question his impartiality in the case as a result of the trip. \*\* 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. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2004, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-corrupt-or-just-stupid/225819/2 "2004-01-23T21:45:01Z")
“We don’t care. We don’t have to care. We’re the Republicans.” ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2004, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-corrupt-or-just-stupid/225819/3 "2004-01-23T21:50:38Z")
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: ---
**Author:** ![Briny\_Deep](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/briny_deep/32/17188_2.png) [@Briny\_Deep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Briny_Deep)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2004, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-corrupt-or-just-stupid/225819/4 "2004-01-23T21:59:18Z")
Dick Cheney is a Beautiful Person now? That’s scraping the bottom of the barrel, really. _I’m_ more beautiful than that. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2004, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-corrupt-or-just-stupid/225819/5 "2004-01-23T22:03:14Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > 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: I haven’t read much about the duck hunting thing, but [recusal was not necessary for the _Bush v. Gore_ case](http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/12/12/supreme.court.conflict/): > [@](#): > > Legal ethics expert Stephen Gillers of New York University’s law school says Scalia isn’t required to step aside. “It’s not a basis for disqualification, so long as neither child is involved in the case,” Gillers said. > > Neither son is directly involved in the case. Eugene Scalia specializes in labor law. John Scalia won’t actually join the Greenberg, Traurig firm until sometime next year, according to partner Joe Reeder, who said the job was offered weeks before the election and has no connection to the Florida case. > > The law could require Scalia to consider stepping aside if Eugene’s income could be “substantially” affected by the outcome of the case. He is one of 242 partners in Gibson Dunn, but the firm excludes from his pay any share in income from any Supreme Court cases. That is aimed at meeting the high court’s written conflict of interest standards, contained in a statement signed by Justice Scalia and six other justices who have spouses, children or other close relatives who are lawyers. > > The policy states they will step aside from cases when a relative is a partner in a firm handling that case, unless the firm has provided to the court “written assurances that income from Supreme Court litigation is, on a permanent basis, excluded from our relatives’ partnership shares.” > > Eugene Scalia’s firm gave the court such a written assurance two years ago. The seven justices said they leaned against stepping aside from any case because – unlike lower courts where replacement judges can easily be found – the high court has only nine Justices. “Even one unnecessary recusal impairs the functioning of the Court,” the seven Justices say in their policy. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2004, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-corrupt-or-just-stupid/225819/6 "2004-01-23T23:39:01Z")
I dunno, why can’t he be both corrupt _and_ stupid? 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. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2004, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-corrupt-or-just-stupid/225819/7 "2004-01-24T02:37:21Z")
> [@Truth Seeker](#): > > 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. 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. > [@](#): > > Not only are judges supposed to avoid impropriety, they are supposed to avoid even the _appearance_ of impropriety. 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. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2004, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-corrupt-or-just-stupid/225819/8 "2004-01-24T02:48:45Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2004, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-corrupt-or-just-stupid/225819/9 "2004-01-24T02:51:44Z")
Yah–isn’t there a third option? “Naive”? ---
**Author:** ![Ukulele\_Ike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/df788c/32.png) [@Ukulele\_Ike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ukulele_Ike)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2004, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-corrupt-or-just-stupid/225819/10 "2004-01-24T19:16:48Z")
I wouldn’t call him “naive,” either. I think I’d go for “criminally arrogant.” ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2004, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-corrupt-or-just-stupid/225819/11 "2004-01-24T19:27:04Z")
[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? ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2004, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-corrupt-or-just-stupid/225819/12 "2004-01-24T19:32:30Z")
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. > [@](#): > > 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. Like **Minty** , I’m not aware of such a rule. Care to offer a cite? ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2004, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-corrupt-or-just-stupid/225819/13 "2004-01-24T19:39:17Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2004, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-corrupt-or-just-stupid/225819/14 "2004-01-24T19:40:16Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2004, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-corrupt-or-just-stupid/225819/15 "2004-01-24T19:43:59Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2004, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-corrupt-or-just-stupid/225819/16 "2004-01-24T19:59:10Z")
I found this amusing since \*\*Minty \*\* practices in Dallas (I think). > [@](#): > > WARNING > > Do not attempt to contact a judge - by mail, E-mail, phone, or in person - about any pending or potential lawsuit! > Doing so may result in serious punishment. [http://www.dallascourts.com/courts.htm](http://www.dallascourts.com/courts.htm) 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. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2004, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-corrupt-or-just-stupid/225819/17 "2004-01-24T21:25:25Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. > > Like Minty, I’m not aware of such a rule. Care to offer a cite? 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. > [@](#): > > The prohibition against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of impropriety applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the proscription is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2004, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-corrupt-or-just-stupid/225819/18 "2004-01-24T22:27:48Z")
> [@Truth Seeker](#): > > While there is no flat prohibition, it seems pretty obvious to me. 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? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2004, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-corrupt-or-just-stupid/225819/19 "2004-01-24T23:03:44Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2004, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-corrupt-or-just-stupid/225819/20 "2004-01-24T23:15:53Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > 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. Err, I already said the following: > [@](#): > > 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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-corrupt-or-just-stupid/225819.md?page=2)