Scalia and the Duck Hunt

luvmetender · #1 (**permalink**) 02-24-2004, 10:44 PM

I would have posted this under my last thread about this issue, but it was closed

Here's the latest:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

IMO, this is a no-brainer. If this judge is permitted to sit on this case, there needs to be a major rehauling of our judicial system.

bwsmom · #2 (**permalink**) 02-25-2004, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvmetender

I would have posted this under my last thread about this issue, but it was closed

Here's the latest:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

IMO, this is a no-brainer. If this judge is permitted to sit on this case, there needs to be a major rehauling of our judicial system.

I agree! And how disturbing is this quote, from the article you linked:

Quote:

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

Who made that rule?!?!

pandybat · #3 (**permalink**) 02-25-2004, 01:54 AM

Did Scalia really say "Quack, Quack"??

I wonder who the millionaire oil-services tycoon that owned the hunting camp is? That sure doesn't sound good for Cheney considering there's lots of people in this country thinking we went to war for oil.

Quote:

Judges must disqualify themselves from cases in which their impartiality "might reasonably be questioned."

Ummm....I'd say when you got 20 of the 30 biggest newspapers in the country asking you to recuse yourself, that's reason enough...lol

bwsmom · #4 (**permalink**) 02-25-2004, 02:00 AM

I honestly don't know which shocks me more... the idea that he still thinks he can be objective, or the idea that they get to decide whether or not they have a conflict! Truly unbelievable! If this was a local or state judge, he'd be off the case in a heartbeat, whether or not he thought he could still be impartial!

pandybat · #5 (**permalink**) 02-25-2004, 02:18 AM

Ok...I got a few questions. I don't really know anything about this case against Cheney about the energy meeting. Save me some time here......what is the big deal about releasing names of people that attended the energy meeting? What is the purpose of keeping the names of the attendees a secret? I don't understand what the hoopla is. If the enviromentalists weren't shut out, why not just release the names and prove it? Are all meetings like this one usually closed? Why are any meetings closed???