Justice Scalia must resign

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...hould-resign/2012/06/27/gJQApkO06V_story.html

By E.J. Dionne Jr.,

Justice Antonin Scalia needs to resign from the Supreme Court.

He’d have a lot of things to do. He’s a fine public speaker and teacher. He’d be a heck of a columnist and blogger. But he really seems to aspire to being a politician — and that’s the problem.
So often, Scalia has chosen to ignore the obligation of a Supreme Court justice to be, and appear to be, impartial. He’s turned “judicial restraint” into an oxymoronic phrase. But what he did this week, when the court announced its decision on the Arizona immigration law, should be the end of the line.
Not content with issuing a fiery written dissent, Scalia offered a bench statement questioning President Obama’s decision to allow some immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children to stay. Obama’s move had nothing to do with the case in question. Scalia just wanted you to know where he stood.
“After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the secretary of homeland security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants,” Scalia said. “The president has said that the new program is ‘the right thing to do’ in light of Congress’s failure to pass the administration’s proposed revision of the immigration laws. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind.”
What boggles the mind is that Scalia thought it proper to jump into this political argument. And when he went on to a broader denunciation of federal policies, he sounded just like an Arizona Senate candidate.
“Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem,” the politician-justice proclaimed. “Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are simply unwilling to do so.
“Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty — not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it.” Cue the tea party rally applause.
As it happens, Obama has stepped up immigration enforcement. But if the 76-year-old justice wants to dispute this, he is perfectly free as a citizen to join the political fray and take on the president. But he cannot be a blatantly political actor and a justice at the same time.
Unaccountable power can lead to arrogance. That’s why justices typically feel bound by rules and conventions that Scalia seems to take joy in ignoring. Recall a 2004 incident. Three weeks after the Supreme Court announced it would hear a case over whether the White House needed to turn over documents from an energy task force that Dick Cheney had headed, Scalia went off on Air Force Two for a duck-hunting trip with the vice president.
Scalia scoffed at the idea that he should recuse himself. “My recusal is required if . . . my ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’ ” he wrote in a 21-page memo. Well, yes. But there was no cause for worry, Scalia explained, since he never hunted with Cheney “in the same blind or had other opportunity for private conversation.”
Don’t you feel better? And can you just imagine what the right wing would have said if Vice President Biden had a case before the court and went duck hunting with Justice Elena Kagan?
Then there was the speech Scalia gave at Switzerland’s University of Fribourg a few weeks before the court was to hear a case involving the rights of Guantanamo detainees.
“I am astounded at the world reaction to Guantanamo,” he declared in response to a question. “We are in a war. We are capturing these people on the battlefield. We never gave a trial in civil courts to people captured in a war. War is war and it has never been the case that when you capture a combatant, you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts. It’s a crazy idea to me.”
It was a fine speech for a campaign gathering, the appropriate venue for a man so eager to brand the things he disagrees with as crazy or mind-boggling. Scalia should free himself to pursue his true vocation. We can then use his resignation as an occasion for a searching debate over just how political this Supreme Court has become.

He should have resigned a long time ago.

Scalia won't recuse himself from Cheney case


U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia refused Thursday to recuse himself from an upcoming case involving Vice President Dick Cheney, with whom he recently hunted and dined.
"I do not believe my impartiality can reasonably be questioned," Scalia said in a 21-page memorandum, rejecting suggestions of an appearance of a conflict of interest.
"If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court Justice can be bought so cheap, the Nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined," he wrote.



Cheney's office had no immediate response.
In the detailed memo, Scalia cited legal precedent and offered personal observations about the controversy.
He dismissed a call from the environmental group Sierra Club that he recuse himself because a January hunting trip he and Cheney took together gave the "appearance of impropriety."
That trip came three weeks after the high court agreed to hear a case over whether the White House had to turn over documents relating to the energy task force Cheney headed in 2001.
Under judicial rules, Supreme Court justices, unlike other judges, have the power to decide whether to remove themselves from cases. The justices have wide discretion since their decisions cannot be appealed.
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont was one of two Democratic lawmakers to call on Scalia to recuse himself. The other was Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.
"Instead of strengthening public confidence in our court system, Justice Scalia's decision risks undermining it," Leahy said in a statement.
"Such near-sightedness on a matter so basic to public trust in the independent judiciary is as puzzling to the American people as it is harmful to the court. For other courts, the reason to recuse under such circumstances would be self-evident."
Federal laws dictate judges or justices should remove themselves from cases if questions arise about their fairness or impartiality.
Scalia concluded friendship alone did not meet that standard. "My recusal is required if ... my impartiality might reasonably be questioned," he said.
"Why would that result follow from my being in a sizable group of persons, in a hunting camp with the vice president, where I never hunted with him in the same blind or had other opportunity for private conversation?"
Scalia said that he did not remember being alone with Cheney and that they never discussed the case.
"The only possibility [for recusal] is that it would suggest I am a friend of his. But while friendship is a ground for recusal of a Justice, where the personal fortune or the personal freedom is at issue, it has traditionally not been a ground for recusal where official action is at issue, no matter how important the official action was."
Scalia and Cheney also had a private dinner with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Maryland's Eastern Shore in November, when the Supreme Court was considering Cheney's appeal.



Scalia said he was worried a recusal in this case would lead to calls by journalists and others "to suggest improprieties and demand recusals, for other inappropriate (and increasingly silly) reasons."
The justice also suggested he was being held to a legal double standard. Scalia noted an attorney for the Sierra Club had invited him to speak at Stanford Law School, where the lawyer teaches, two days before the environmental group filed a brief in the case.
"I saw nothing amiss in that friendly letter and invitation," Scalia wrote. "I surely would have thought otherwise if I had applied the standards urged in the present motion."
Cheney is fighting a federal court's order that he release internal files of the energy task force he headed for the Bush administration. A lawsuit alleges he made improper contacts with energy industry lobbyists when developing government policy.
Cheney's task force met throughout in 2001 and developed a report recommending opening up more federal land to oil, natural gas and coal development.
The White House has argued the courts and Congress have no business making inquiries, even limited ones, into the decision-making power of federal agencies and offices. Cheney has said executive power needs to be increased in such confidentiality cases.
A lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, a private watchdog group, and the Sierra Club seeks to gather records related to the task force.
Attorneys for the groups have said they want to know whether lobbyists for the energy industry privately helped craft the U.S. government's long-term energy policy.
Arguments in the case will be heard next month, with a ruling expected by late June.
The case is Cheney v. USDC for District of Columbia (03-0475).

LOL...coming from a leftwing hack columnist who couldn't ever hope to approach Scalia intellectually....

When Dionne expresses similar outrage at the fact that Kagan didn't recuse herself from Obama-Care, I'll think about taking him seriously. Until then, a hack is as a hack does.

I hope Scalia writes the majority decision that pounds a stake into the heart of Obamacare.

If that's the way it goes, Roberts would never let anyone steal the spotlight from him on that one.

Scalia has always been a scumbag. I mean look who he hangs out with.

Yeah, you're probably right - I'd like to see either Scalia or Alito do it, however, because they would tell it like it is and not treat the issue with kid gloves as Roberts will.

Mike hit it head on with his point about Kagan. You can't get any lower than that.

I disagree, that's an apples/oranges comparison. Justice Kagan served the Obama administration in a professional capacity, while Justice Scalia has a personal connection to Vice-President Cheney.

For what it's worth, I would have just as quickly made that distinction if the situation was reversed.

Shouldn't actively participating in the formulation of a legal defense to Obamacare be considered grounds for a recusal?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cit...gans-confirmation-testimony-49-lawmakers-call

As solicitor general, I'd be surprised if she didn't have a hand in this. So which scenario seems more likely?

Take it easy...I'm not saying that Kagan shouldn't have recused herself. All I'm saying is that to compare her not recusing herself from the Obamacare ruling to Scalia refusing to recuse himself from the Cheney case is not an accurate comparison.

You're right, it isn't an accurate comparison because Scalia only had associated himself with Cheney on one occasion, whereas Kagan had direct dealings with Obamas defense.

It should also be added that it's doubtful Cheney had much skin in the game anyway because he was sued in his official position, not for his doings.

It should be added that Cheneys position was upheld 7-2.

I'm not arguing with any of that. I'm merely pointing out the need to differentiate between personal vs professional connections. What can I say, I'm a stickler for details.

Bottom line: All the deflection and conjecture aside, Scalia should not be a SC Judge. Or a judge period. It's the highest court in the land and he's a disgrace.

He has proven his bias time and time again. !

If Scalia goes who`s going te tell Clarence Thomas what his opinion is?

Supreme Court Justices have never, EVER been "expected to be" impartial...ever. this partisan fiction has bubbled up every few decades, to minor effect.

I have yet to see legitimate reasons to support this claim. Scalia is farther to the right than I am and I don't agree with some of his positions but I don't see a reason for his removal either.

disgraceful corporate activist greaseball.

That was hardly the only time he associated himself with Cheney. They were long time friends.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-588582.html

Being on the up and up should be a top priority for any judge. For a SC Judge it should be iron clad.

Instead of doing the right/moral/proper thing and recusing himself from the case, he arrogantly made a SC judgement on a longtime personal friend all the while taking hunting trips together.

Look at Hop Sing oozing his prejudices against Italians here....lmao

Look ! zimmie licking his wounds because Obama out smarted the Defeatist Obstructionist Republicans ! Guess an affirmative action degree from Harvard Law will do that for you !!!!!!

Even if he was Cheney's gay lover, when Cheneys office gets sued there is no personal investment on anyone's part. This was really my point.
Everyone in Washington knows everyone, there are judgment calls to make. Just like Kagan couldn't recuse herself from every case until she no longer knew anyone in the solicitors office.