Last night ABC’s Nightline, which reached its nadir long before Ted Koppel departed, descended into tablod territory when it tried to smear Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
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.
Oh dear God. A seminar. Sponsored by the (evil) Federalist Society. What will we do about this threat to the integrity of the Republic ?
What the report fails to mention is that Scalia was in Colorado as part of a previously planned seminer where he gave a two-day lecture, supplemented by more than 400 pages of written materials, on the contentious issue of seperation of powers. If you believe the ABC report, of course, it sounds like he was out there on a tennis junket sponsored by conservative cronies who spent their evenings conspiring on the ways they would restrict all those so-called rights that the left created during the 60s and 70s. Anyone who knows what the Federalist Society really is would know that this is nonsense. My fear is that the American public will see stuff life this and believe that an honorable man like Justice Scalia is corrupt. Scandalous ABC, just scandalous.
As SCOTUSblog points out, this whole story is just utter nonesense:
I am not a legal ethics expert; far from it. But on the facts as described by ABC (and there may be other details that aren’t known) I completely fail to see the controversy. The Federalist Society does not litigate cases. It does not (so far as I know) even take positions on judicial nominees. Events like these are similar to those hosted by the American Constitution Society, which more liberal Justices attend. These events strike me as very valuable because they expose more people to the Justices, and vice versa.
I’m sure that Justice Scalia would have preferred to attend the swearing in. The story’s assertion that his absence “appear[ed] to be a snub of the new chief justice” is true only in the sense that some people would be willing to take “appear[ances]” without regard to the circumstances. Scalia no doubt explained his unavoidable absence to the Chief, and likely to the full Court.
The implication of the ABC report is that any interaction between judges and lawyers is per se unethical. Anyone who actually reads the relevant codes of judicial conduct would know that this is utter nonsense.
But, ABC didn’t stop there:
One night at the resort, Scalia attended a cocktail reception, sponsored in part by the same lobbying and law firm where convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff once worked.
Stop the presses. Now we need to investigate. What did Justice Scalia drink at this cocktail reception ? And how much of what he drank was paid for by Jack Abramoff ?
Again, what complete and utter nonsense.
Other takes on this issue can be found at Point of Law. The Volokh Conspiracy, Pundit Guy and Crime & Federalism
Technorati Tags: Scalia, Antonin Scalia, SCOTUS, Supreme Court,
