# Scalia may be biased; bear may shit in woods **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 9, 2004, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-may-be-biased-bear-may-shit-in-woods/233321 "2004-03-09T18:50:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2004, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-may-be-biased-bear-may-shit-in-woods/233321/1 "2004-03-09T18:50:28Z")
In the wake of Duckhuntgate and Kansasgate and following his recusal in the Pledge case, yet [another](http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/03/030904scalia.htm) report of Scalia’s potential mischief. This time he gave a speech before an anti-gay group battling a Philadelphia ordinance offering domestic partnership benefits to city workers at a time when the Texas sodomy case Lawrence v Texas was before the Court. The contents of his speech are unknown as he won’t release a copy, but both sides agree that the case will likely end up in front of the Court. Has this man never heard the phrase “appearance of impropriety”? ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2004, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-may-be-biased-bear-may-shit-in-woods/233321/2 "2004-03-09T20:19:21Z")
Yea he may be biased, but at least he is intellectually dishonest… :rolleyes: On a serious note, at least he did not sew yellow stripes on his sleeves. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2004, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-may-be-biased-bear-may-shit-in-woods/233321/3 "2004-03-09T20:33:07Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > Has this man never heard the phrase “appearance of impropriety”? Heard of it, almost certainly; accept that it can be applied to limit the things that he _really_ wants to do, that’s a bit more problematic. Of course, there is that recusal on the Pledge case that he can point to as proof that he believes the principle applies to him. Considering that he was appointed to the bench by the President whose administration brought the term “plausible deniability” into popular culture, it seems only fitting that he would interpret his own obligations as narrowly or as loosely as he can craft an argument for, in favor of his own inclination. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2004, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-may-be-biased-bear-may-shit-in-woods/233321/4 "2004-03-09T21:12:46Z")
Scalia recused himself in the Pledge case because had a genuine conflict of interest. Do you have any evidence that he’s compromised in other cases, other than mere appearance? Or that he would fail to recuse if he was? If you have evidence of a conflict of interest, bring it on. Otherwise, what we have here are merely speeches and social calls. ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2004, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-may-be-biased-bear-may-shit-in-woods/233321/5 "2004-03-09T21:20:10Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Scalia recused himself in the Pledge case because had a genuine conflict of interest. Do you have any evidence that he’s compromised in other cases, other than mere appearance? > > Or that he would fail to recuse if he was? > > If you have evidence of a conflict of interest, bring it on. Otherwise, what we have here are merely speeches and social calls. Let a federals appeals court judge do the things Scalia has done and see how far his ass can go up in a sling. Or perhaps you think Scotus judges should not be held to the same rules? ---
**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:** [March 9, 2004, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-may-be-biased-bear-may-shit-in-woods/233321/6 "2004-03-09T21:50:35Z")
> [@Reeder](#): > > Let a federals appeals court judge do the things Scalia has done and see how far his ass can go up in a sling. Or perhaps you think Scotus judges should not be held to the same rules? Of course the official response from the Court, or from the Vice-president, when Duck-gate came up a couple of weeks ago was along the lines of a statement that the Supreme Court makes it own rules, blazes its own trail and generally does what ever it wants to do, thank you very much. This is perilously close to the motto of Boss Tweed’s administration of New York in the Nineteenth Century: What ya’ go’n to do about it. As has been suggested before the Boss Tweed approach may be imputed to the Bush Administration. See also, the arrogance of power. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2004, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-may-be-biased-bear-may-shit-in-woods/233321/7 "2004-03-09T21:53:53Z")
If you want to refer to the Supreme Court of The United States with the acronym SCOTUS, it would be helpfull if you would use capital letters. It would prevent dumb asses like me from thinking you were talking about people from Scottland. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2004, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-may-be-biased-bear-may-shit-in-woods/233321/8 "2004-03-09T21:56:35Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Do you have any evidence that he’s compromised in other cases, other than mere appearance? Do you think appearance doesn’t matter? Credibility is all a court or a judge ultimately _has_, isn’t it? > [@](#): > > Or that he would fail to recuse if he was? Where’s his recusal in the case of the energy task force created by and advising his duck-hunting buddy? ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2004, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-may-be-biased-bear-may-shit-in-woods/233321/9 "2004-03-09T21:58:32Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Scalia recused himself in the Pledge case because had a genuine conflict of interest. Do you have any evidence that he’s compromised in other cases, other than mere appearance? > > Or that he would fail to recuse if he was? > > If you have evidence of a conflict of interest, bring it on. Otherwise, what we have here are merely speeches and social calls. Let’s posit that you are the plaintiff in a lawsuit. You are suing your neighbor because he ran his car through your living room and did $25,000 in damage. You learn that the judge assigned to your trial has recently been the guest of your neighbor, at your neighbor’s expense, at a vacation resort. Would you request that the judge recuse herself from the case based on the appearance of impropriety? I certainly would, and in all likelihood you wouldn’t even have to because the judge herself would recognize that hearing a case in which she vacationed with the defendant doesn’t pass the smell test. If some muni court judge in bumblefuck recognizes that the appearance of a conflict in this case should lead her to remove herself from it then I expect that Scalia, a sitting Supreme Court justice with aspirations to the Chief Justice’s chair, would recognize that vacationing with Dick Cheney when the Court is poised to hear arguments in a case where Cheney is a named plaintiff is either over the line or close enough to it that he either shouldn’t have gone on the hunting trip or he should recuse himslef from the case. Scalia’s line about how he vacationed with the person and it’s the office that’s being sued is bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2004, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-may-be-biased-bear-may-shit-in-woods/233321/10 "2004-03-09T21:59:23Z")
Where exactly is this “arrogance of power” to which you refer in your last sentence? 😕 ---
**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:** [March 9, 2004, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-may-be-biased-bear-may-shit-in-woods/233321/11 "2004-03-09T23:24:30Z")
**askeptic** , what arrogance of power, you ask. Let me suggest that a justice of the Supreme Court going on a hunting trip with the Vice-president while a case to which the Vice-president is a substantive party and in which the Vice-president has a political interest and then saying that the rules do not prohibit it when the rules are written by that justice and enforced by that justice, is arrogant and that arrogance derives from the justices’ position of power. When a person is expected to police his own behavior, as is the case with justices of the Supreme Court, decided that the rules either do not apply to him or that he is exempt from the rules, that is the arrogance of power. Let me suggest that when a elected official chooses to go on an expensive trip with a justice of the Supreme Court when there is pending before the Court a case in which the elected official is a party and has a substantial interest but can not recognize that reasonable men might reasonably question the propriety of the whole thing, that is an example of arrogance derived from power. Let me suggest that when a high official insists that chemical, biological and nuclear weapons will turn up in a conquered and occupied country, when the conquest and occupation was premised on the country’s possession and potential use or distribution of those weapons, when a year of searching has turned up not so much as forensic traces of such weapons, that is arrogance derived from power. Let me suggest when hundreds of men are imprisoned at an off shore military (naval) base, and a citizen is imprisoned on a domestic military base, without access to the basic tools provided by the organic law and the legal tradition of this country to challenge their imprisonment under the claim that those men are members of a class heretofore unknown to the law for whom there is no legal recourse, that is the arrogance of power. Let me suggest that to now claim that a foreign sovereign nation which now appears to have had little or nothing to do with an irregular attack of the domestic territory and little or no capability to do the nation harm was invaded and occupied in order to rid the foreign nation of a bad ruler and to bring that foreign the blessings of liberty is the arrogance of power when the justification for the invasion was that the foreign nation was complicit in the irregular attack and was on the verge of attacking the us and that immediate action was needed to forestall such and attack. Let me suggest that for the national leaders to publicly insist that tax cuts that facilitate national budget deficits and which independent government agencies conclude will have negligible effects on economic growth will cause the nation to become prosperous is the arrogance of power. Let me suggest that when the national leader beats the drum for free trade, and with it the necessary flow of employment to foreign shores in search of cheap labor, while doing little or nothing to regulate the rate of outflow of employment or assuage the plight of those displaced by the outflow and proclaims the whole works a good thing, that is the arrogance of power. Let me suggest that when a government agency requires a native born middle aged man of portly physique and clean shaven face to traipse around domestic airports in his stocking feet in the name of combating air piracy and terrorist attack, that is the arrogance of power. Let me suggest that when ever a government does unproductive stuff that benefits the few a the cost of the many, comforts the comfortable and afflicts the afflicted, panders to the political donor class, purports to think that people really pay $1500.00 for the privilege of eating a hot dog and a small bag of potato chips while listening to one public official or another expound on their own fitness for office, and claims that their feelings are hurt when someone suggests that the hot dog eaters might just be buying access to the corridors of power, that is the arrogance of power. Goodness, I enjoy a flight of rhetoric. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2004, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-may-be-biased-bear-may-shit-in-woods/233321/12 "2004-03-09T23:33:42Z")
Once again my stupid but FRIENDLY sarcasm is missunderstood. I completely agree with all you have said (in this thread so far) I was merely pointing out that when one writes “See, the arrogance of power” it is usually a reference to some already existing source material, not a general as yet unarticulated concept. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![photopat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e95f7d/32.png) [@photopat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/photopat)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2004, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-may-be-biased-bear-may-shit-in-woods/233321/13 "2004-03-10T02:00:00Z")
Applause **Spav**. Nicely orated. I wish I could say it as well. ---
**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:** [March 10, 2004, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-may-be-biased-bear-may-shit-in-woods/233321/14 "2004-03-10T03:41:57Z")
Sorry. It’s been a hard day. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Eternal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecb155/32.png) [@Eternal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eternal)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2004, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-may-be-biased-bear-may-shit-in-woods/233321/15 "2004-03-10T05:50:37Z")
> [@Spavined Gelding](#): > > Sorry. It’s been a hard day. 🙂 It would be easier if you tried to be less dramatic. Although I do now believe that you should know a little something about arrogance. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2004, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-may-be-biased-bear-may-shit-in-woods/233321/16 "2004-03-10T07:37:08Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Scalia recused himself in the Pledge case because had a genuine conflict of interest. Do you have any evidence that he’s compromised in other cases, other than mere appearance? > > Or that he would fail to recuse if he was? > > If you have evidence of a conflict of interest, bring it on. Otherwise, what we have here are merely speeches and social calls. Before you begin blabbering on about something you know nothing about, try looking up the relevant laws. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts\_search.pl?title=28&sec=455](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=28&sec=455) > [@](#): > > Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. His impartiality need only be reasonably _called into question_ for him to have the obligation to recuse. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2004, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-may-be-biased-bear-may-shit-in-woods/233321/17 "2004-03-10T15:58:13Z")
Here’s an interesting [counterpoint](http://slate.msn.com/id/2096883/), focused largely on the idea of investigating every speech a justice gives but also covering the recusal ground. I understand where she’s going with what she’s saying, but obviously I don’t completely agree. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2004, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-may-be-biased-bear-may-shit-in-woods/233321/18 "2004-03-10T17:43:11Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > Here’s an interesting [counterpoint](http://slate.msn.com/id/2096883/), focused largely on the idea of investigating every speech a justice gives but also covering the recusal ground. I understand where she’s going with what she’s saying, but obviously I don’t completely agree. I followed the link, but it made my head explode. (I realize you’re not defending her POV, **Otto**.) The applicable portions: > [@](#): > > Scalia addressed an antigay-rights group in Philadelphia at a $150 a plate dinner last spring—shortly after the high court heard argument in the gay sodomy case Lawrence v. Texas—and just before the court issued its decision. Seems pretty clear: not only did he give a speech to a bunch of people who strongly supported one side on a case he was deciding right then, but he even **helped them raise money**. (When a sitting Supreme Court justice gives a speech at an event, how often is it _not_ the main draw?) Seems to me that tosses any credible assertion of impartiality right out the frickin’ window. But that apparently isn’t equally obvious to the columnist: > [@](#): > > What the connection might be between his presence at that Philadelphia event and the Texas sodomy case is never quite spelled out in the Times piece. The implication that there is a connection at all seems unfair. Evidently, simply attending an event sponsored by people who feel strongly opposed to gay rights is now enough to create an appearance of bias in the justice and to launch yet another lengthy discussion of Scalia’s shaky legal ethics. An ethical standard that suggests Scalia should quit attending church as well. Boy howdy, are we failing to make distinctions today. First of all, there’s a big difference between _attending_ an event and indicating support for any ideas or causes associated with that event. (I’ve gone to hear Falwell speak. Twice. And you know what I think of him.) But that aside, most of the stuff we do in our everyday lives doesn’t have partisan (“a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person” says my dictionary) associations to it. Church doesn’t, nor does the PTA. And JMHO, but it seems reasonable to me, if you’re one of the nine highest justices in the land, that you should go out of your way to avoid partisan associations. You shouldn’t join groups that are all about taking strong stands on issues of controversy in the body politic. (Life is really, truly possible without doing so.) You shouldn’t speak before such groups. (It’s amazing, the number of ‘safe’ venues for speaking. Colleges and universities. American Bar Association events. League of Women Voters. And on and on.) A Supreme Court justice can enrich the national dialogue from pretty much any pulpit s/he chooses, so what’s the need to seek out a controversial group to speak in front of? OK, that was JMHO: it doesn’t seem that hard to me for a justice to at least maintain the appearance of being above the fray. Mr. Bush, if you want to appoint me to the Supreme Court, I’ll cheerfully abandon GD forever, and stick to MPSIMS. It’ll be worth the tradeoff any day. But the business about Scalia’s being the main drawing card at a _$150-a-plate banquet_ for a partisan group, that’s unquestionably playing a partisan role. How can one reach any other conclusion? That’s bad enough. But here’s the part that _really_ made my head explode: > [@](#): > > According to the report in the Times, Scalia did not profit personally from the Philadelphia speech (he even insisted upon paying for his own parking). _Nor did the event raise any funds for the advocacy group in question._ _WTF???_ Explain, please, how a group can have a $150-a-plate dinner, with a sitting Supreme Court justice as the draw, _and not raise any money_. He apparently didn’t even let them pay his expenses (see the parking comment in the quote), so there isn’t even that. OK, Dahlia Lithwick has made my head explode. I’m outa here. ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2004, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-may-be-biased-bear-may-shit-in-woods/233321/19 "2004-03-10T21:38:35Z")
With such a casual attitude toward the appearance of impartiality, I worry about what would happen if SCOTUS got a really big case. I mean, one can imagine, not that I’m saying this is likely, that a presidential election could come down to a disputed vote count in a single state. Various civil actions filed by the parties could well be appealed to SCOTUS. It’s been reported that Justice O’Connor wants to retire to Arizona and she’s only staying on the bench because she wants to make sure a Republican remains in the White House so he can appoint a conservative replacement. Wouldn’t that present the appearance of a conflict of interest? The American people would never accept a President put in office by decree of an obviously biased SCOTUS, would they? That would totally bite. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-may-be-biased-bear-may-shit-in-woods/233321/20 "2004-03-11T15:36:56Z")
OK all you “appearance of conflict” dudes, so what do you think of [Justice Ginsburg’s ties to the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund](http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/auto/epaper/editions/today/news_04f4fe8d07a132d90065.html)? I sit back and await the howls of outrage… [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-may-be-biased-bear-may-shit-in-woods/233321.md?page=2)