Scalia and Cheney in duck soup

shemp

a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
shemp
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Messages
69,868
Location
The U.S., a wretched hive of scum and villainy.
Scalia-Cheney Trip Raises Eyebrows

(CBS) Vice President Dick Cheney and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spent part of last week duck hunting together at a private camp in southern Louisiana, just three weeks after the court agreed to take up the vice president's appeal in lawsuits over his handling of the administration's energy task force, the Los Angeles Times says in its Saturday editions.

While Scalia and Cheney are avid hunters and longtime friends, several experts in legal ethics questioned the timing of their trip and said it raised doubts about Scalia's ability to judge the case impartially, the newspaper pointed out.

But Scalia rejected that concern Friday, telling the Times, "I do not think my impartiality could reasonably be questioned."

Federal law says "any justice or judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be questioned," the Times notes.
Click to expand...

Why, I would NEVER question Scalia's impartiality! Ya, sure, ya betcha!

But perhaps the ducks were too smart for them:

"The justice had been here several times before. I'm kind of sorry Cheney picked that week because it was a poor shooting week," Naquin said. "There weren't many ducks here, which is unusual for this time of the year."

Scalia agreed with the sheriff's assessment.

"The duck hunting was lousy. Our host said that in 35 years of duck hunting on this lease, he had never seen so few ducks," the justice said in his written response to the Times. "I did come back with a few ducks, which tasted swell."
Click to expand...

I guess he can't tell the difference between duck and crow.
 
shemp said:
Scalia-Cheney Trip Raises Eyebrows


Why, I would NEVER question Scalia's impartiality! Ya, sure, ya betcha!

But perhaps the ducks were too smart for them:

I guess he can't tell the difference between duck and crow.
Click to expand...


I think it's great you've decided to do something with your life, Shemp... Becoming a Certified Dumbass is a bold step toward achieving your ultimate dreams.
 
Re: Re: Scalia and Cheney in duck soup

American said:



I think it's great you've decided to do something with your life, Shemp... Becoming a Certified Dumbass is a bold step toward achieving your ultimate dreams.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, he's still a long way from becoming a Chief Dumbass, such as yourself.
 
Hey , they are just hunting together, what`s wrong with that?
They won`t be talking about nuthin` but huntin...
I hope that has put everyone`s mind to rest.


Edited to add: thats so long as they are hunting on Planet X of course. If they are hunting together on Planet Earth then we are getting stitched up again.
 
Shemp,
Do you think it is possible that out of respect for their friendship, the constitution and the independence of the judiciary that Cheney never brought the issue up?

And that if Cheney had brought it up, Scalia would have refused to discuss it because it would have been inappropriate?

I was listening to Ted Kennedy the other day going on about the mistakes that the Bush administration had made with regards to the Iraq war and I was wondering if he wasn't right when he kept going and decided that Bush couldn't just be wrong he had to be evil too and the whole war was just part of the Evil Bush administration's efforts to gain favor and win the next election. So what if it costs thousands of lives.

I'm just not that convinced that people in power are always evil and corrupt. Can't there be some altruistic, idealistic ones in power too, even if by your judgment they're wrong?
 
davefoc said:

Do you think it is possible that out of respect for their friendship, the constitution and the independence of the judiciary that Cheney never brought the issue up?

And that if Cheney had brought it up, Scalia would have refused to discuss it because it would have been inappropriate?
Click to expand...
Certainly this is possible.

However, the question for me is not simply whether these two did behave improperly (although that is certainly an important concern).

As the cliche goes, Caesar's wife should be beyond reproach. It's not enough for certain high officials simply to refrain from wrong-doing, it is important that they visibly refrain from it.

Because we were not present on their duck hunting trip, we have no way of knowing whether they behaved properly or not. The possibility that they could have discussed the case is an obvious one, and neither Scalia nor Cheney should be surprised (or offended) that the thought they might have talked about it crossed people's minds.

There are enough times when, through no fault of their own, public officials find themselves in a position where they must ask the public to trust them. To deliberately put oneself into a position where questions like this come up, and where they are in effect saying "Trust us!" and "You weren't there, so you can't prove we did anything wrong," is irresponsible.
I'm just not that convinced that people in power are always evil and corrupt. Can't there be some altruistic, idealistic ones in power too, even if by your judgment they're wrong?
Click to expand...
I too am not convinced that people in power are always evil and corrupt, and like you harbor the hope that some of them (including ones I disagree with politically) are honorable people doing their best.

But since we know that venal and corrupt politicians do exist, I think that makes it even more important for those who are honorable to go out of their way to avoid not simply impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety. Politicians who are truly "public servants" should be willing to go that extra mile.

The fact that Scalia and Cheney did not go that extra mile does not mean they are corrupt. But it does indicate to me they are, at best, thoughtless and lacking in respect for the public they are supposed to be serving.
 
Nova Land,
I agree with your view. However, I felt that it was asking a lot that two friends might not see each other or at least not be alone with each other while this litigation was pending.

I think though, that you are right. Given the importance, power and prestige of their positions it would have been better if out of respect for those positions they had made this sacrifice.
 
Because we were not present on their duck hunting trip, we have no way of knowing whether they behaved properly or not. The possibility that they could have discussed the case is an obvious one, and neither Scalia nor Cheney should be surprised (or offended) that the thought they might have talked about it crossed people's minds.

There are enough times when, through no fault of their own, public officials find themselves in a position where they must ask the public to trust them. To deliberately put oneself into a position where questions like this come up, and where they are in effect saying "Trust us!" and "You weren't there, so you can't prove we did anything wrong," is irresponsible.
Click to expand...

What makes it even more disconcerting is that the case in question arose from Cheney's saying "Trust us. I don't want anyone to see the notes associated with the meetings to form an energy plan." He may have valid reasons for such a position; but especially during a case such as this one, Cheney should go out of his way to avoid raising these issues.
 
Its OK they were bought and paid for by Big Oil....I mean the trip was.

The pair arrived Jan. 5 and were guests of Wallace Carline, the owner of Diamond Services Corp. an oil services company in Amelia, La. The Associated Press in Morgan City, La., reported the trip on the day the vice president and his entourage departed.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...1/18/scalia_trip_with_cheney_raises_eyebrows/

Here's a clue Dick and Tony: the appearances of impartiality are important to maintain faith in the system. Basic first year law school.
From the link:
The code of conduct for federal judges sets guidelines for members of the judiciary, but it does not set clear-cut rules. "A judge should . . . act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary," it says. "A judge should not allow family, social or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgments . . . or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge."
 
Dick doesn't care about 'appearance's sake" - Look at the juicy Halliburton contract!
 
Story
Federal law allows officials to keep the records of advisory groups secret as long as all the participants are public employees. But Judicial Watch, joined by the Sierra Club, said Cheney invited Enron executives, other energy company figures and energy lobbyists to the table, and they want to see what went on behind closed doors.

A lower court has ordered Cheney to produce the records as part of the evidence needed for a trial on the dispute. The Justice Department, noting Cheney could face a civil contempt citation, asked the Supreme Court to review.

In light of all this, you would have thought Scalia would have been more careful about his contacts with Cheney before the upcoming Supreme Court argument. After all, Scalia has already withdrawn from hearing April argument in the Pledge of Allegiance case because he said in a summer speech that the phrase "under God" should not be removed from it.

There's also something a little comic about the latest controversy, with all these portly men being trundled down in the lap of luxury to shoot semi-tame game birds on the Texas Prairie. Scalia subsequently told the Los Angeles Times that the few ducks he shot were "delicious."

Scalia compounded the humor by getting up between arguments at the court earlier this week and staring hard into the press section -- something he normally would never do -- like a teacher trying to catch the students throwing the spitballs.

The dispute would be genuinely funny, not slightly comic, if it weren't so damn serious.
Click to expand...
 
Dorian Gray said:
Dick doesn't care about 'appearance's sake" - Look at the juicy Halliburton contract!
Click to expand...

Good point Dorian. I'm one who generally has a non-cynical view of high public officials. This is not to say that I don't think they lie, obfuscate, coverup and generally mislead people for their purposes. But I think in the end most big decisions are not driven by corruption and cronyism.

It is hard to see what the Bush administration could have done that would make me question that view more than to give Haliburton a big no bid contract. Even if you can make some sort of case that the contract was intended to be in the public good it was still counterproductive to the administration's war effort. There was a large segment of the population who believed that the war was undertaken for various corrupt reasons and this contract was exhibit one in the arguments of a lot of those people.

For me it was the straw that broke the camel's back. I just had had enough of this administration and their non-free market policies (agricultural subsidies, steel protection tariffs, nationalization of airport security, etc) and a questionable war effort that they didn't even think was important enough to avoid actions that could give the appearance of unfettered corruption.
 
Its not just no-bids, and overcharges, its kickbacks too

Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, said Friday that it had fired two employees who allegedly accepted kickbacks for helping a subcontractor overbill the Pentagon's Iraq reconstruction program by $6.3 million.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/7785250.htm

And all of it would be bad enough if Cheney hadn't resigned from Halliburton to take the VP appointment.

As long as there is no great outcry about all of these appearances of impropriety they will continue to rob the American taxpayer blind.
 
And all of it would be bad enough if Cheney hadn't resigned from Halliburton to take the VP appointment.
Click to expand...

That should say the VP self appointment. Mr. Cheney was asked to head up a vice-presidential search committee. After a few months he came back and said, "I've examined all eligible Republicans and I have decided that the best candidate is me."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom