I am taking the judge that will be hearing my drunk driving case golfing at my friend's country club. I am picking up the tab.


Does this sound improper? Well, if it was fact, it would be.
Same thing with the Cheney Scalia duck hunting trip.

I just don't undestand why Scalia will not recuse himself.

Input from anyone who has an opinion is invited.

I served as a public official for many years. "Conflict of Interest" was something I took very seriously and feel all public officials should do the same. Rather than ask "Is it illegal?", I would ask myself "Would this (action) APPEAR to be improper?". If I answered 'Yes', I would recuse myself from the hearing. When something can be PERCEIVED to be REALITY, it quickly Becomes reality. If one is really serving for the good of society, it behoves one to be aware of how the Public could Perceive an action.  Yes, Scalia, or any other public officlal, should Recuse themself if it could reasonably be perceived that a conflict of interest occurs.

He had the nerve to say that he went duck hunting with Dick Cheney the "Private Party" while the Lawsuit involved Dick Cheney in his government capacity thus there was no need to recuse himself.  

Pardon me, but where does a "Private Party" like me go to get Air Force #2 to fly ME and MY buddies on a hunting trip?   What a crock!

After some of the outrageous decisions that Scalia has made in the past and some of the ridiculous things he has said and written, no one should be surprised.  My favorite is when he stopped the count in Florida in 2000 in Bush v. Gore and then later in the process said that since the count had been stopped there was insufficient time remaining to continue.  Actually Bush v. Gore was the worst decision in US Supreme Court history and that is saying somthing.  Of course, they appointed the worst president in US history and that also is saying something.

Anyone interested in trying to make a differance should send a letter to Chief Justice William Rehnquist as well as associate justices, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Conner, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer @

The Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street NE
Washington, DC 20548
202-479-3211

Together lets keep our judicial system honest. It's all we have.

This is somewhat unusual. The Canons of Ethics call for a judge to recuse himself if there is the **appearance** of impropriety.
  The impropriety need not be actual; it is the appearance that triggers this canon. I'm somewhat surprised that of all the justices, we're talking about Justice Scalia (not Justice Thomas or Rehnquist)

Absolutely improper.  Scalia's judgements and leanings have never been in doubt.  Cheney may be left of his Honor...

Forget about writing them. Justice in this country is for the rich and powerful. She's not blind and you won't see her boob being flashed in public.

I am not in any way defending the Cheney Scalia duck hunting trip but think that our judicial system needs to be cleaned up from top to bottom in some respects.

Let's be honest about the way things work even at the local level of jurisprudence.  Lawyers from large law firms wine and dine judges and their wives at fancy restaurants and purchase relatively expensive gifts for the judge and his wife.  This sort of thing happens on a fairly routine basis.

In the above instance there may not be any direct linkage to any specific case that the law firm has in front of the judge.  However when a case appears in front of this judge where party A is represented by a small firm attorney that does not wine and dine the judge and party B is represented by his buddy from the large law firm who takes him out to dinner and showers him with gifts it seems unlikely that the judge can really be impartial and treat these two attorneys and as a result these two parties in an impartial manner.

It was the beginning of a civil trial.  The jury was picked and arguments were to begin.  Before opening agruments, the judge made his own opening statement.

"In the interests of fairness" he said, "I want to disclose that representatives of both parties have come to me and offered me cash to support them in this matter.  The plaintiff $350,000 and the defendent $300,000".  He followed "This puts me in an untenable situation.  To deal with the matter, I am returning $50,000 to the plaintiff so I can judge this case on it's merits".

For one thing, the Canons of Ethics don't apply to Supreme Court justices.  That's not a statement of whether that is as it should be; that is how it is.

As for "honest" judiciary?  Aren't most TER people from the Left Coast?  Ever hear of the Ninth Circus?  That's the most dishonest court in the country, issuing opinions which read as though the result were decided, and then justified by whatever pathetic reasoning could scrounged together.

As for Scalia's explanation, he's right.  Is anyone stupid enough to believe that a Supreme Court Justice who's been on the bench through four Administrations is going to decide a question of Executive Branch power (the issue before the Court) based upon a ride on the Vice President's airplane, or on duck hunting.  It is highly doubtful that Cheney, who is not an attorney, even knows much about the case, much less discussed it with Scalia.  The rantings of the Left on this one are nonsense, and evidence that attack is the only logic they understand.

In fact, you got it the other way around.  Scalia has almost certainly already made up his mind, and Cheney is just thanking him in advance for being a loyal friend.

That is what is known as the appearance of impropriety.