Scalia at it again

[kchoya]

Oh my, he spoke a dinner for a group that's anti-gay rights! Two months later he wrote a dissent in the Texas sodomy case. Who knew that Scalia would vote to uphold an anti-sodomy law?

news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=us&cat=supreme_court

[showcase]

What's beginning to emerge here is a sense of hubris — that he is above the rules.

It's disappointing that so sharp a jurist is letting his ego get in the way. I'm no fan of his reasoning, but there's no doubting he's pretty sharp. That being said, you got to wonder if in another ten years, Justice Scalia won't do something truly stupid that nets him an impeachment trial.


Nice shot of McDonough, by the way.

[hoyarooter]

Scalia definitely thinks he is above the standards that apply to other jurists. I'm ashamed to call him a Hoya.

[showcase]

At least Scalia hasn't gone this far...

A Richmond General District Court judge will retire this month because of remarks he made in an Internet chat room that he acknowledged would be interpreted as racist.

Judge Ralph B. Robertson, who heard criminal cases for 19 years in the Public Safety Building, took sick leave last week and will not be on the bench before his retirement becomes effective March 19.

He notified the Virginia Supreme Court of his retirement plans last week, without giving a reason, according to a spokeswoman for the court.

Efforts to reach Robertson for comment were unsuccessful.

However, The Richmond Free Press reported yesterday that he resigned because the newspaper had told him that it intended to report his chat room messages.

The newspaper reported Robertson said he did so because he realized that disclosure of the statements would bring his impartiality into question and tarnish the courts.

"I have no intention contesting or trying to justify my remarks," he told the Free Press in an e-mail. "Taken as a whole they were wrong.

"My heart and my deepest apology go out to the black community in the city of Richmond," he said. "I want them to know that I have never done anything in my court that has ever reflected racism. I have made many friends in the African-American community, and I hope they will accept this apology."

The exchanges in the Atticus chat room on Yahoo! Groups included a reference by Robertson to Martin Luther King Jr. as a plagiarist who "turned things upside down" and a description of Jesse Jackson as "a thief, a liar and a traitor to his own people."

He called the civil-rights movement "the scam it [is] and was." In another reply, Robertson said, "I felt far more comfortable in Russia, Germany, Hungary, Poland and other European countries [than] I do in many parts of my own country.

"I recall several years ago watching the Russians and the U.S. playing basketball. I remember thinking that if I turned off the sound and didn't know which team was which, that I would certainly have been rooting for the Russians," he said. "They were all similar in appearance to myself, while the U.S. had one substitute sitting on the bench with whom by sight I could identify."

To someone who expressed an equal liking for all races, he responded, "I simply don't think you understand 'all' races. I think it's a wonderful thing in the generality of your home, but ill fit for survival on the street, similar to saying I like all animals."

Robertson responded to suggestions that only those of European descent should be allowed in the United States and that interracial marriage should be banned with, "Personally, I like a country where morality has a meaning. We have had more people killed in the city I live in by minorities in the last 15 years than ever were supposedly lynched. When do they get through being even?"

To someone who responded to another forum member's observation that she resented "the implication that minorities are dirty, lazy and dishonest," Robertson wrote, "A lot of them I know aren't, which precludes the ones who are from living in such situations. You can't have your cake and eat it as well. A broom costs about the same as a bottle of 'Wild Irish Rose.'"

In another response, Robertson disputed a characterization of him as a racist. "I am not a racist. I am a racialist. The difference being I don't discriminate against an individual, but I do recognize the fact that there are a lot of differences between races, which I assume from a biological standpoint is caused by a difference in DNA.

"I look at an Arab horse and a dray horse. I know that all things equal the Arab is going to be faster, but the dray is going to be able to outpull him all day. That makes me a realist, not a racist."

News of Robertson's retirement and the reason for it came as a complete surprise yesterday to his judicial colleagues and to the lawyers who routinely appear in front of him. Most were shocked at the comments and agreed with his conclusion that he could not continue on the bench. They were not willing to be quoted.

www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031774093895

Nice work, Judge Robertson. Enjoy your retirement.

[Z]

well i rarely miss a chance to take potshots at scalia, but this seems like small potatoes to me (especially in contrast to the cheney controversy). many justices, on all points of the political spectrum, make public speaking appearances that would be "ethical violations" according to the rigid standard that the article advocates. it seems clear that scalia was there to honor the retiring clergyman, not to help finance legal attacks on gay rights.

[showcase]

Z said:

well i rarely miss a chance to take potshots at scalia, but this seems like small potatoes to me (especially in contrast to the cheney controversy). many justices, on all points of the political spectrum, make public speaking appearances that would be "ethical violations" according to the rigid standard that the article advocates. it seems clear that scalia was there to honor the retiring clergyman, not to help finance legal attacks on gay rights.

On the other hand, you don't think that the organization got a nice moral boost by having a sitting Justice at their event? Particularly given that an appeal in which they had a huge stake had yet to be decided? Maybe no substantial funds were generated that night, but I wouldn't be surprised if word of Justice Scalia's presence at the dinner somehow made it out to that organization's faithful, and more money came rolling in as a result.

I agree it's fairly trivial in and of itself, but it is another example of the Justice's poor decision making on these issues and adds to the perception that the good Justice believes himself to be above the law in some respects.

[Z]

my point is that the whole "moral boost" standard would disqualify a wide range of supreme court justices from speaking in front of a wide range of organizations, which i think would be a shame. my opportunities to hear ginsburg, kennedy, and breyer in person were really delightful--and two of them wouldnt have happened under the exacting ethical threshold you are pushing. but overall, i see your point, and it's at least equally as valid as mine.

[hoyarooter]

The pattern is the problem. Taken alone, I would have just shrugged off this speech by Scalia. Also, there is a huge difference between a justice speaking before various support groups at one time or another, and going on a paid junket with a person whose actions are going to come before him in a case shortly thereafter. Perhaps I'm judging Scalia too harshly, but I honestly think his attitude is that he is going to do what he pleases, and since there is only the most remote likelihood that he will be removed from his position, damn the consequences.

[showcase]

Apparently, the pattern is not confined to Scalia. Ginsburg is indulging herself in a similar fashion. I don't like either's approach to this.

From the article...

Another high court justice faces questions on ethics

Los Angeles Times
Thursday, March 11, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has lent her name and presence to a lecture series co-sponsored by the liberal NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, an advocacy group that often argues before the court in support of women's rights that the justice embraces.

In January, Ginsburg gave opening remarks for the fourth installment in the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Distinguished Lecture Series on Women and the Law.

Two weeks earlier, she had voted in a medical screening case and taken the side promoted by the legal defense fund in its friend-of-the-court brief.

The liberal Ginsburg's involvement with the legal activist group, and recent outside activities by a conservative colleague, Justice Antonin Scalia, have touched off a debate over what kinds of extra-judicial appearances and contacts are appropriate for Supreme Court justices.

The code of conduct for the federal courts does not set clear rules for judges' involvement with advocacy groups. But it warns jurists to steer clear of outside legal activities that would "cast reasonable doubt on the capacity to decide impartially any issue that may come before" them.

Federal law says a judge or justice "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

Several legal experts said Ginsburg's ongoing affiliation with the legal activist group undercuts her appearance of impartiality. Ginsburg declined to comment.

[/i][/size][/quote]
www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/auto/epaper/editions/today/news_04f4fe8d07a132d90065.html