Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

dy156 · 03-23-2004, 12:57 PM

I really thought about starting another thread on this, because I'd like ya'll to read these court documets about the case, and let me know your opinions. However, this was the topic of this thread, and it wasn't too long anyway.

I'm reminded of law school, when I would actually read full Supreme Court opinions. The majority would explain the decision it made, and it all sounded perfectly reasonable. Then I would read the Scalia dissent, and think, "Damn! I'm still glad the other side won, but you know, he's right. Glad I'm not a Supreme Court Justice."
If there are other lawyers here, they can probably back me up on this. Scalia likes to go off into historical precedent, and I have to grudgingly admit that he pretty much sticks to his principles, and not render outcomes based on the results, no matter how good those results might be, but stick to what is legally and factually right. (pardon the pun, what is legally and factually correct.) There's no grudgingly about it, I freely admit that he (or his law clerks) is (are) one of the most persuasive writers on the high court.

I'll let ya'll decide, though.

Here is the link to the Sierra Club's motion seeking Scalia's recusal:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/s...2304scrbrf.pdf

(both of these are in pdf format, so I can't paste the articles.)

Sounds fairly compelling, right? All those newspapers around the country calling for his recusal make it sound pretty reasonable that his impartiality could be called into question.

However, his response:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...pdf/03-475.pdf

made me have one of those, "Damn, he's right." moments.
While I don't buy his "The Supreme Court won't be able to recover or have the same stature" argument found late in the memorandum, the rest of his position is very persuasive.

There is historical precedent for not recusing oneself from a case involving a personal friend in their official government capacity. He's recused himself from the pledge of allegience/under God case this term because of statements he made, but he shouldn't here, because the issue to be decided is not personal to the V.P. None of those editorials had their facts straight.

Well, I won't attempt to summarize the whole thing, but suffice it to say, he certainly convinced me. I urge you all to read both of these documents, not just one or the other, and draw your own conclusions, then let us know.

03-23-2004, 12:57 PM	#9 (permalink)
dy156 cookie Location: in the backwoods	I really thought about starting another thread on this, because I'd like ya'll to read these court documets about the case, and let me know your opinions. However, this was the topic of this thread, and it wasn't too long anyway. I'm reminded of law school, when I would actually read full Supreme Court opinions. The majority would explain the decision it made, and it all sounded perfectly reasonable. Then I would read the Scalia dissent, and think, "Damn! I'm still glad the other side won, but you know, he's right. Glad I'm not a Supreme Court Justice." If there are other lawyers here, they can probably back me up on this. Scalia likes to go off into historical precedent, and I have to grudgingly admit that he pretty much sticks to his principles, and not render outcomes based on the results, no matter how good those results might be, but stick to what is legally and factually right. (pardon the pun, what is legally and factually correct.) There's no grudgingly about it, I freely admit that he (or his law clerks) is (are) one of the most persuasive writers on the high court. I'll let ya'll decide, though. Here is the link to the Sierra Club's motion seeking Scalia's recusal: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/s...2304scrbrf.pdf (both of these are in pdf format, so I can't paste the articles.) Sounds fairly compelling, right? All those newspapers around the country calling for his recusal make it sound pretty reasonable that his impartiality could be called into question. However, his response: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...pdf/03-475.pdf made me have one of those, "Damn, he's right." moments. While I don't buy his "The Supreme Court won't be able to recover or have the same stature" argument found late in the memorandum, the rest of his position is very persuasive. There is historical precedent for not recusing oneself from a case involving a personal friend in their official government capacity. He's recused himself from the pledge of allegience/under God case this term because of statements he made, but he shouldn't here, because the issue to be decided is not personal to the V.P. None of those editorials had their facts straight. Well, I won't attempt to summarize the whole thing, but suffice it to say, he certainly convinced me. I urge you all to read both of these documents, not just one or the other, and draw your own conclusions, then let us know.