View Single Post
Old 03-24-2004, 12:45 PM   #38 (permalink)
onetime2
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
I identify the oil extraction company very broadly as a litigant, which is a party engaged in a lawsuit. This is because they have an interest in the outcome and they had input in preparing the policy that is at the center of this lawsuit. If you don't like me using that word, pretend I'm not using it and instead replace it with "Party of Interest"
I have seen in several different places that this trip was paid for by the oil company.


I am not sure what you are specifically looking for me to answer here. Please explain this out a bit more.

I don't ignore that a district justice is different from the Supreme Court. A dj can be replaced much more easily and thus should be able to be recused more easily. But a SC justice can also be recused and I believe the nature of the relationship and circumstances surrounding the vacation they took together (At one point Scalia did have Cheney "alone" with his son and son-in-law for a long period of time on a plane) falls under the notion of "impartiality being reasonably questioned".
Scalia points to other examples in his discourse where Supreme Court Justices have been socially acquainted with Presidents and others who are "Parties of Interest".

A completely fictitious and extreme example of what I'm talking about would be something like this:
A legal professor (or a President, or Federal judge, etc) who has maintained a social or mentoring relationship with several past students (or law partners, classmates, etc) who go on to be Justices of the Supreme Court brings a case to the Court. Do all of these Justices then recuse themselves leaving the case (which obviously has substantial legal implication since it's gotten that far) without any possibility of gaining the 5 Judge concensus?

Or perhaps a President with a legal background ends up in the odd position of having appointed a majority of the Justices who he had social connections to. How could the Supreme Court make decisions in cases where that President has an interest? If Supreme Court Justices had to recuse themselves in this situation, the checks and balances system of our government would obviously be broken.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360