posted March 18, 2004 12:13 PM              

Associated Press
March 18, 2004 11:54 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- A defiant Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia refused Thursday to remove himself from a case involving his good friend Vice President Dick Cheney, dismissing suggestions of a conflict of interest.

In an unusual 21-page memorandum, he rejected a request by the Sierra Club, which said it was improper for Justice Scalia to take a hunting trip with Mr. Cheney while the court was considering whether the White House must release information about private meetings of Mr. Cheney's energy task force.

Justice Scalia said the remote Louisiana hunting camp used for a duck-hunting and fishing trip "was not an intimate setting" and that the energy case was never discussed.

The justice said he was guilty only of hunting with a friend and taking a free plane ride to get there. "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," Justice Scalia wrote.

"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?"

Given the circumstances of the trip, Justice Scalia wrote, the only possible reason for recusal would be his friendship with Mr. Cheney. "A rule that required members of this court to remove themselves from cases in which the official actions of friends were at issue would be utterly disabling," he wrote.

Many Supreme Court justices get their jobs "precisely because they were friends of the incumbent president or other senior officials," he wrote.

Supreme Court justices, unlike judges on other courts, decide for themselves if they have conflicts, and their decisions are final.

The environmental group is suing to get information about private meetings of Mr. Cheney's energy task force. The court agreed in December to hear the case, and three weeks later Messrs. Scalia and Cheney flew together on a government jet to the hunting camp of a multimillionaire oil-services tycoon.

Pressure on Justice Scalia to stay out of the case had mounted, with calls from dozens of newspapers for the conservative Reagan administration appointee to recuse himself to protect the court's image of impartiality.

The Sierra Club asked for Justice Scalia's recusal in February, pointing to the "American public's great concern about the continuing damage this affair is doing to the prestige and credibility of this court."

There was no obligation for Justice Scalia to explain his decision, but he did in the 21-page memo. He said he will recuse himself when "on the basis of established principles and practices, I have said or done something which requires this course." He said the hunting trip to Louisiana was planned before the energy case reached the court.

Those "established principles and practices" don't require or even permit him to step aside in the Cheney case, Justice Scalia wrote.

The Supreme Court arguments in the case are scheduled for April 27.

In addition to the Sierra Club, Democrats in Congress and some legal ethicists have called on Justice Scalia to stay out of the case.

Justice Scalia noted in his memo that he has stepped aside in another case this term -- one testing the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. The decision came after he criticized the lower-court ruling during a speech at a religious rally.

For the first time, Justice Scalia revealed details of his trip with Mr. Cheney.

Justice Scalia said he was the go-between to invite Mr. Cheney to hunt with a Scalia friend, Wallace Carline, who owns an oil-rig-services firm. Justice Scalia noted that he and Cheney are friends from their days working in the Ford administration.

"I conveyed the invitation, with my own warm recommendation, in the spring of 2003 and received an acceptance," Justice Scalia wrote. When the time came for the trip, Messrs. Scalia and Cheney flew together, accompanied by one of Justice Scalia's sons and a son-in-law, Justice Scalia wrote.

The case is Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

posted March 18, 2004 02:19 PM            

quote:

---

"A rule that required members of this court to remove themselves from cases in which the official actions of friends were at issue would be utterly disabling," he wrote.

Many Supreme Court justices get their jobs "precisely because they were friends of the incumbent president or other senior officials," he wrote.

---

Am I the only one that thinks this is a problem?

posted March 18, 2004 02:29 PM              

After a while, we begin to realize we're not the only ones thinking the thoughts we have.

In college, I was taught that the best way for judges to get "good" posts was to appear as neutral as possible on the way up the ladder. Sitting on the fence, as you will. Then once they are appointed, all their politics come out because they can't get fired. Technically. Job for life, or until death. Who knows. Not a surprise though. Scalia could probably care less what anybody thinks.

Glad I don't do that for a living. Hahaha.

posted March 18, 2004 08:09 PM            

quote:

---

I would wager that well beyond half the population in this country is in support of a government without corruption.

---

That's not what I said

I said:

quote:

---

Your views* only represent half of the country

---

quote:

---

This sort of thing makes me nauseous. Were Mr Scalia and Mr Cheney raised by wolves? Do these gentlemen have no sense of honor or propriety? Very bad form. At some point I'm going to come to the conclusion that revolution is the only reasonable answer.

---

posted March 18, 2004 08:12 PM            

What is he thinking? How can it look good for either one. Public opinion is going to bite them in the butt and I believe they``ll regret the descision

juniperb

posted March 18, 2004 08:20 PM            

I was speaking more generally. Generally speaking, my impression from TINK's post was an humorously exaggerated way of saying that this buddy buddy buisness between politicians and judges was barbaric (ie- corrupt). Hence, the revolution comment.

I'd wager that at a certain point, when corruption at the highest levels becomes so obvious that the populace can no longer ignore it, revolution will be the only reasonable solution.

Bear in mind that some of us envision a new revolution for a new millenium... A revolution of non-violent resistance.

It's a long shot, I know, but hey... I can dream can't I?