Sierra Club May Seek Scalia Recusal in Cheney Case

Reuters ^ | Sat Feb 7, 9:23 AM ET | Caren Bohan

[hattend]

Sierra Club May Seek Scalia Recusal in Cheney Case Sat Feb 7, 9:23 AM ET Add U.S. National - Reuters to My Yahoo!

By Caren Bohan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Sierra Club (news - web sites) environmental group said on Friday it was considering formally asking U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) Justice Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) to recuse himself from a case involving Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites)'s energy task force.

AP Photo

Cheney and Scalia flew to Louisiana on Jan. 5 to go duck hunting together, and the trip has prompted accusations of a potential conflict of interest because Scalia and his high court colleagues have agreed to hear an appeal in the energy task force case.

"We are examining the facts," said David Bookbinder, Washington legal director for the Sierra Club. "We certainly understand why there is a public uproar about this."

But Bookbinder said the group had not decided yet whether to move to ask Scalia to bow out of the case.

Cheney is being sued by the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch, a government watchdog group. The two groups want Cheney to release documents about White House contacts with the energy industry in 2001 but the vice president has appealed a judge's ruling ordering him to produce the documents.

In mid-December, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Cheney's appeal.

Several Democrats in the U.S. Congress have sent letters to Chief Justice William Rehnquist (news - web sites) asking him to look into whether Scalia should recuse himself from the case.

"When a sitting judge, poised to hear a case involving a particular litigant, goes on vacation with that litigant, reasonable people will question whether that judge can be a fair and impartial adjudicator of that man's case or his opponent's claims," senators Patrick Leahy and Joseph Lieberman wrote to the chief justice.

When asked about the matter, a Supreme Court spokeswoman said Scalia was traveling out of town and could not be reached for comment.

But Scalia last month told the Los Angeles Times -- which first reported the hunting trip -- that he did not think he needed to recuse himself.

"I do not think my impartiality could be reasonably questioned," he was quoted as saying. He said "social contacts" between justices and senior government officials are not improper and likened it to attending the vice president's annual Christmas party.

Kevin Kellems, spokesman for Cheney's office, referred questions to Scalia's office. "Justice Scalia has addressed it. I would refer you to that," he said.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said his group would not ask for Scalia's recusal.

"Unless information comes out that they discussed the case, we don't see an issue here," Fitton said. "And certainly if they discussed the case, there would be no doubt that Scalia would recuse himself. We have no reason to doubt his integrity on the issue."

A date has not been set for oral arguments in the energy task force case.

[hattend]

Hmmm...Judicial Watch is no longer portrayed as a "right wing" group since it's going after a Republican. I believe this is a first time that is hasn't been labeled as such.

Oh, Sierra Club sux

[Republican Wildcat]

If Ginsburg recuses herself in any case involving the ACLU we have a deal.

[thoughtomator]

Why the heck did Scalia go duck hunting with Cheney? He should have known it would create the appearance of a conflict of interest.

[Texas_Jarhead]

Re: JW, I noticed that too

Actually, when I was reading it I think my brain actually registered the text as "conservative legal watchdog group" Judicial Watch...

[tcuoohjohn]

well....Sometimes you just gotta bite the bullet and address reality I guess. I am a great admirer of Justice Scalia and think he writes some of the finest opinions in the last fifty years. But even great men can screw up sometimes. In this issue Justice Scalia used extraordinarily bad judgement. Even the most novice judge on any circuit court in America knows that ex parte meetings between a sitting judge and a plaintiff or defendant in a pending case is a no-no. It would be immediate cause for appeal. There can be no appeal since this is a SCOTUS case. At Minimum Judge Scalia should have foregone the pleasures of Duck Hunting and Dinners with the defendant in this case regardless of his prior friendship. After the case he could have shot the hell out of as many ducks (within the bag limit laws) as he liked with the Vice President.

Scalia used extremely bad judgement here. He should recuse himself. The Sierra Club shouldn't even have to ask.

[tcuoohjohn]

If Ginzburg had ex parte meetings with the ACLU while pending a case, then you are absolutely correct, she should immediate recuse herself in all matters related to that case.

[RicocheT]

The term ex parte only applies if you discuss the case or pending case without the other side being present.

If Justice Scalia and VP Cheney talked guns, ducks and how well the dogs retrieved, the conversations were not improper.

Judges and lawyers talk socially all the time. Go to the courthouse coffee shop and you will see several tables of judges and lawyers at break times. They go to parties and charity fundraisers and chat about the weather and how fat they are getting.

[stillafreemind]

This just looks inappropriate. I do not know what either of them was thinking. I swear they love shooting themselves and the party in the foot.

[Zeppo]

The case involves the institution of the office of the Vice President and separation of powers issues. It does not directly involve Cheney personally. The resolution of the case by the Court would bind not just Cheney but also future Presidents and Vice Presidents (and Congress as well). So, this is much ado about nothing.

[tcuoohjohn]

We don't know what was discussed. That is why Judges have to guard against the perception of impropriety. A judge may make all the assurances in the world that no ex parte discussions occurred but the mere fact that the question is capable of being asked indicates a lack of judgement.

As to Judges socializing. Yes they do. But they don't do it in a manner that gives rise to questions of impropriety. Judges will not have ex parte meetings in cafes with defendants/ plaintiffs or their attorneys on pending cases. Doesn't happen..on the rare times is does happen lots of ears prick up and lots of appeals get filed.

[KRinNYC]

The "Quack, quack" comment by Scalia today is supreme arrogance and a total disgrace. I'd link the article but don't know how. It will be on the news tonight, I suppose. Just more ammo for the Dems. Bush might be smart to dump Cheney as his running mate after all of this. They can surely save face by citing "health concerns." But back to Scalia -- with the "quack, quack" coment, this man is basically thumbing his nose at all of us. Is he saying, perhaps, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck....... i.e., if it looks improper, it is improper.... He should recuse himself from Cheney's case. The appearance of impropriety is enough. This is cronyism at the highest level and very dangerous for separation of powers and checks and balances. I'll leave alone for now my take on the disgusting nature of "canned hunts".

[hattend]

I have no idea what "quack quack" comment you're talking about.

To link, just post the URL, FR will make it a link for you

[KRinNYC]

OK, sorry, here's a link to the article on Yahoo:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20040211/ap_on_go_su_co/scalia_cheney

[hattend]

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

Guess he doesn't see a conflict of interest.

Thanks for the link