EXCLUSIVE: Supreme Ethics Problem?

ABC News ^ | Jan 23, 2006 | Brian Ross

[Hoodlum91]

What Was Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Doing on Day of Supreme Court Swearing-In?

Jan. 23, 2006 — At the historic swearing-in of John Roberts as the 17th chief justice of the United States last September, every member of the Supreme Court, except Antonin Scalia, was in attendance. ABC News has learned that Scalia instead was on the tennis court at one of the country's top resorts, the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Bachelor Gulch, Colo., during a trip to a legal seminar sponsored by the Federalist Society.

Not only did Scalia's absence appear to be a snub of the new chief justice, but according to some legal ethics experts, it also raised questions about the propriety of what critics call judicial junkets.

[Hoodlum91]

Notice the only Justices named are Scalia and Thomas, yet it's implied others are involved. Also, no mention of the Ginsburg/NOW relationship brought up here on FR.

[Vaquero]

ABC D*uchealert!!!!!!!

[satchmodog9]

Every time this has been posted in the past few days I get more and more pissed. I re read it and still I can't believe the blatant disregard the media has for intellectual honesty. This is like the stories the MSM ran about Scalia's duck hunting trip.

[wagglebee]

This is just getting more ridiculous by the day. Missing Roberts' swearing-in due to a previous committment IS NOT UNETHICAL. What was Scalia supposed to do? Should he rearrange his whole schedule based on whether or not the 'Rats decided to filibuster Roberts or not?

[msnimje]

What about the fact that Justice Ginsburg ruled in some 20 cases involving companies in which her husband had a direct financial interest?

[Sender]

It's merely ABC having a desperate smear hit piece on a conservative Justice, as if we gave a flying Clinton.

[Nateman]

If this is the best smear job they can perform then its no wonder they are losing market share every day.

[saveliberty]

Oh puh-leeze! Note the infantile pettiness of the reporters that is transferred to conservative justices.

Employee Assistance Programs are there for the reporters.

[Semi Civil Servant]

[silverleaf]

Have Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens or Kennedy spoken at any meetings or conferences hosted by advocacy groups or professional associations?

Inquiring minds want to know...

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

They'd just love to inject a little bad blood among the conservative justices, wouldn't they?

[SittinYonder]

"You know a lot of people would be embarrassed at that. I don't think Antonin Scalia will be embarrassed," Gillers continued.

Here's how you know it's a hit piece (as if the letters ABC didn't give it away). Is this guy an expert on judicial ethics as we're told or is he an expert on what embarrasses Scalia? This crack sounds like it comes from someone who is politically and ideologically opposed to Scalia, not an "expert" who doesn't have a dog in the fight.

[ShowMeMom]

That is honestly the sorriest excuse for a "news" item I've ever read. No wonder ABC News is sinking like arock.

[Hoodlum91]

Agree on the hit piece.

I actually posted this more as an example of media bias (I know, ABC gives it away) than an actual news item. The slant is amazing.

[slowhand520]

"Roberts, Scalia and Thomas declined comment and requests for interviews by ABC News. A spokesman for the Federalist Society also declined to comment."

This is such a contrived hit piece on the right side of the court. Why is there no mention of Ginsburg or Bryer? They are trying to portray every conservative in every branch of government as corrupt. They want us to think "hmm Abramoff, donations, conservatives" what a transparent piece of crap