Just curious. Wouldn’t all of the Justices normally be invited to White House functions, regardless of liberal/conservative slant? Just for politeness sake, even if they might decline the invite? And wouldn’t this differ considerably from inviting one potential swing vote to go on a private vacation with the (good old) boys?
I’ve read a lot of Scalia’s writings. The man is most definitely not stupid. That pretty much leaves “corrupt” as the only option.
There is no reasonable way that this cannot be the appearance of impropriety. I’ve read a number of 455(a) cases and this falls squarely within the scope of prohibited conduct. A private meeting with an actual party to the case with no purpose which can be explained by the normal conduct of judicial business is going to be enough to raise the appearance of impropriety.
Yes, this rule tends to socially isolate Supreme Court Justices from the movers and shakers of Washington society. This is why, historically, Justices have tended to socialize mainly with one another and with retired Justices, and not so much with members of the other branches. Scalia apparently wants to have his cake and to eat it too.
He should recuse himself. If he fails to do so, the remainder of the Court should force him to do so, and if they fail to do so, both Scalia and Rehnquist should be impeached, Scalia for breaching the canon of ethics, and Rehnquist for incompetently managing the Court.
Then would you please provide a cite so we can put this issue to bed?
Otherwise, I’ll just assume that this type of statement:
is just more mindless, partisan blather.
That’s funny, I thought the issue was “corruption,” which – if that’s the charge – surely Cheney and Scalia were conspiring to commit. Between shotgun blasts at ducks, that is. Apparently there weren’t many ducks out; further evidence of this conspiracy to foment corruption!
Well, I’ve already proffered the argument that the Code of Judicial Conduct says nothing here that says would distinguish a White House party from a Lousiana duck hunt. But I guess the actual rules and laws that apply here have nothing to do with the matter. How about this one: where is the motion for recusal? If this is so clearly and blatantly corrupt that only the obtuse would argue otherwise, why not file one? It worked for Newdow…