Robert "Canard-o-Matic" Scheer is back with a brand new canard. This time it's an actual canard, as in duck:
Quack, quack. So much for the constitutionally mandated separation of powers.The section of the Constitution where it says that "separation of powers" means that members of the Supreme Court aren't allowed to socialize with vice presidents must be right after the section that says that employees of the Executive Branch are not allowed to lobby for special favors from Congress.
Quack, quack. Say goodbye to judicial integrity. Quack, quack. Forget about holding the nation's vice president accountable for his dealings. Quack, quack. Trash the right of citizens to transparent government. Quack, quack.Bizarre as it sounds, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia quacked like a duck last week during his defensive denial that a duck-hunting trip with Vice President Dick Cheney was improper.
Still, it looks like a definite conflict of interest case that Scalia, who will be hearing and judging the case, is so chummy with the target of a case before him. Altogether too cosy for my taste. I don't suppose that if I got a speeding ticket I could take the judge to lunch hoping for a dismissal.
Suppose that Scalia judges in favor of Cheney for the best possible reasons. It will still look like a putup job, and will stain Scalias reputation. He should have better judgement. Surprising.
B
Perhaps I don't know enough about the case, but I was under the impression that it wasn't Cheney who has a case pending before the Supreme Court, but the Office of the Vice-President, or whatever the title of that particular office is. It's not a question of whether Cheney did anything wrong, but whether the Executive Branch has the legal right to do what it did and is still doing. Saying that there's a conflict of interest because Scalia is buddies with the current occupant of that office is a stretch, since the decision will impact not just the current occupant, but all future occupants as well, some of whom (it's quite likely) will be people that Scalia doesn't care for in the least.
Posted by: Bob on February 22, 2004 11:17 PMAlright, separation of powers is not relevent. But the conflict of interest is obvious to anyone.
And Bob - you're kidding yourself.
Posted by: dov on February 23, 2004 10:31 AMNo, dov, I'm serious. If you can, perhaps you would elaborate an alternative viewpoint. Saying something "is obvious to anyone" is an argument I find less than compelling.
Posted by: Bob on February 26, 2004 03:01 AM