Posted on 01/26/2004 3:23:09 PM PST by Jean S
WASHINGTON (AP) - Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist on Monday rebuffed two Democratic senators who questioned Justice Antonin Scalia's impartiality in an appeal involving Scalia's friend and hunting partner, Vice President Dick Cheney.
Sens. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, a presidential candidate, and Patrick Leahy of Vermont asked Rehnquist last week to clarify disqualification practices after Scalia acknowledged joining Cheney on a recent duck hunting trip.
The Louisiana trip earlier this month came shortly after the Supreme Court agreed to review a lower court's decision requiring the White House to identify members of the vice president's energy task force. Scalia also had dinner with Cheney in November, about two months after the administration asked the justices to overrule the lower court.
Rehnquist said any suggestion that Scalia should recuse himself "is ill considered."
Rehnquist, a Republican put on the high court by Richard Nixon in 1972 and made chief justice by Ronald Reagan in 1986, said that while justices often consult with colleagues when they are considering recusing themselves from a case, there is no formal procedure.
"It has long been settled that each justice must decide such a question for himself," he wrote in a letter sent to Lieberman, Leahy and each of the other court justices.
Rehnquist did not give an opinion about whether Scalia should step down from hearing the case, but made clear that it was up to Scalia - and no one else - to make that decision. After the case is over "anyone at all is free to criticize the action of a justice," Rehnquist wrote.
Leahy said Monday that Rehnquist's letter confirms that the Supreme Court, unlike federal appeals courts and district courts, has no recusal procedure or oversight system. He also defended the timing of the letter.
"Because Supreme Court decisions cannot be reviewed, waiting until after a case is decided needlessly risks an irreversible, tainted result and a loss of public confidence in our nation's highest court," Leahy said.
Ethics expert Steven Lubet of Northwestern University said Rehnquist's response is not surprising, because it follows long-standing court tradition. But he said it will probably not silence critics, including people who were angry at the court's 5-4 Bush v. Gore decision that effectively called the deadlocked presidential election for George W. Bush. Scalia voted with the majority.
The case in question involves Cheney's request to keep private the details of closed-door White House strategy sessions that produced the administration's energy policy. The administration is fighting a lawsuit brought by watchdog and environmental groups that contend that industry executives, including former Enron chairman Ken Lay, helped shape the administration's energy policy.
The court will hear arguments in the case this spring, and the two lawmakers told Rehnquist that "when a sitting judge, poised to hear a case involving a particular litigant, goes on a vacation with that litigant, reasonable people will question whether that judge can be a fair and impartial adjudicator of that man's case."
Scalia, named to the court by Reagan, is one of the court's staunchest conservatives. He has said there is no reason to question his ability to judge the case fairly.
Scalia did step aside in another major case at the Supreme Court this term. He will not participate when the court decides whether it is unconstitutional for public school children to pledge their allegiance to "one nation under God." The father who challenged the Pledge of Allegiance had sought Scalia's recusal because the justice told a religious group last year that lawmakers rather than judges are better suited to decide the pledge question.
The energy case is In re Cheney, 03-475.
---
On the Net:
Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
AP-ES-01-26-04 1803EST
Wasn't the conflict of interest in Bush V. Gore, actually Justice Kennedys personal longstanding friendship with Gore?
Another case of rewriting history perhaps?
Oh please...the court could revisit the case and rule 9-0 in favor of Bush and it wouldnt matter to the groupthink Liberals in this World.
"AP ^ | 1/26/04 | Gina Holland "
http://www.magnoliareport.com/report20.html
"Gina Holland and George Shelton will be married on May 4. Shelton was communications director for Governor Ronnie Musgrove's 1999 campaign and later went on to work for the Democratic Governors Association and now is employed as a political consultant with the firm Strother-Duffy-Strother in Washington, DC.
Holland is Mississippi's former Associated Press correspondent and currently serves as the AP's national writer covering the Supreme Court. "
"George honey, the HillaryFaxTM DNC is ringing, will you check it for me- I'm in the shower!"
Sorry, Leaky, but you're wrong. We, the People are the reviewers of those decisions, and We, the People -- through our Elected Representatives -- will change that decision if warranted and constitutional. Of course, we need Reps that have the stones to understand and apply those constitutional principles. Admittedly, not often; but it has happened.
This article is such hooey. Can you imagine the liberal/ democrat circles Ginsberg et al run in, and ho one is suggesting THEY recuse themselves.
"Strother-Duffy-Strother is the "Oldest Existing Democratic Media Firm." This distinction comes from more than 20 years of experience and the ability to win tough campaigns despite long odds. A combination of seasoned political experience, successful media strategies and young, creative talent helps us position our candidates and develop the key messages that resonate with voters. "
"AP: an equal opportunity Democrat hirer"
The AP is still spinning. Most of the Bush v. Gore votes were 7-2, not 5-4. I do not recall the votes for each specific issue in that horrid time, but it should be easy enough for folks to look up (see bill sammon's book At Any Price, for example).
The 5 to 4 decision was to accept the last offical recount in Florida as the official result.
The Florida Contitution says that if the Secretary of the State of Florida Legislater could not certify a winner, then the decision was to go to the Florida legislature. The Florida supreme court overturned the State SEcretary of state cerificaion ... they did it twice with no real reason to do so other than Bush has won. But with the sec of state Harris's certifcation thrown out he florida constitution said the florida house was to certify. The Florida house was controlled by Republicans with a margin of 3 to 2. Bush would win their.
The Florida Supreme court just ignored the constitution and took it upon them selves to decide a winner and ordered recounts beyond what the Florida constitution called for. It did not order a full recount... just a recound in the big Democrat counties.
The Federal Supreme court ruled the Florida Supreme court cold not violate the Florida constitution which said it was up to the Florida Legislature not the Florida Supreme court. That was a 7 to 2 decision.
That 7 to 2 vote deterimed that Bush was going to win. The 5 to 4 determined it was going to be a bush victory in in the Electoral college. Otherwise it would be a bush victory in the state legislature. If hte state legislature failed to act for som reason the decision would go to the US house of representatives which Republicans controlled.
There was no way gore could win after the 7 to 2 decision.
Can a reporter really be this stupid? The court ruled that the Florida Supreme Court's interferencce was out of bounds.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.