posted on April 9, 2004 12:05:09 PM new
If this jerk doesn't want to be recorded or his picture taken ,then he needs to stop "promoting" himself as a public figure by prancing around the country giving speeches to backwater conservative enclaves. He is a public servant and intentionally makes himself a public figure. If he doesn't like it he needs to keep his mouth shut and stay home.
Marshal Defends Erasure of Scalia Speech
U.S. Marshal in Mississippi Defends Erasure of Reporters' Recordings of Scalia Speech
The Associated Press
JACKSON, Miss. April 9 The U.S. marshal on Friday defended the erasure of two journalists' recordings of a speech by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia but suggested that Scalia's request that his remarks not be recorded should have been publicly announced.
During Scalia's speech Wednesday in Hattiesburg about the Constitution, a woman who identified herself as Deputy Marshal Melanie Rube demanded that a reporter for The Associated Press erase a digital recording of the justice's comments.
The reporter, Denise Grones, initially resisted, but later showed the deputy how to erase the recording after the officer took the device from her. Rube also made a Hattiesburg American reporter erase her tape.
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press said Thursday that the deputy violated the law and "the fundamental tenets of press freedom."
But Rube's boss, Nehemiah Flowers, the U.S. marshal for the Southern District of Mississippi, defended the deputy's actions, saying Friday that one of the service's responsibilities is to provide a traveling Supreme Court justice with security.
"The justice informed us he did not want any recordings of his speech and remarks and when we discovered that one, or possibly two, reporters were in fact recording, she took action," Flowers told The Associated Press.
"Even with hindsight, I can't think of what other steps she could have done," Flowers said.
Scalia spoke Wednesday at Presbyterian Christian High School and at William Carey College. He did not warn the high school audience that recording devices would be forbidden, but issued a warning before the college speech.
Flowers said the fact no announcement was made at the high school regarding Scalia's wishes, "could have possibly been a faux pas on our behalf."
"It would have been handled, on hindsight, a little bit different," he said.
In a letter to Flowers and to U.S. Marshals Service Director Benigno G. Reyna and Attorney General John Ashcroft, the reporters group said the deputy violated the Privacy Protection Act. The act says government officers may not seize journalists' materials.
"It is clear that the statute's purpose is to provide maximum protection for the news media against seizures of work product," the group said in a letter signed by Committee Executive Director Lucy Dalglish and two other staffers.
Justice Department employees should receive approval from the attorney general before ordering a journalist to turn over work materials, the letter said. Because the marshal failed to do so, her actions should lead to a reprimand or other disciplinary action, according to the letter.
A spokeswoman for the Supreme Court said it is up to Scalia and his staff to set guidelines for coverage of his events. A spokesman for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to calls seeking comment Thursday.
At a reception following Scalia's speech at William Carey College, the justice told WDAM-TV reporters to leave. A member of his entourage also told newspaper photographers they could not take pictures, but a college official reversed the order after non-media guests started snapping photos.
William Carey spokeswoman Jeanna Graves later apologized to the media, saying she was "embarrassed and angry" over the incident.
posted on April 9, 2004 03:50:19 PM new
2 scumbnags are told no recording and then proceed to do so...
At least they didn't get their "devices" broken...
Good for Justice Scalia...
No different then when someone gets caught recording a concert...
posted on April 9, 2004 05:16:55 PM new
taken from MSNBC today
More politics of information
Some news organizations cover the Wednesday incident in which a US deputy marshal erased two reporters' recordings of SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia's remarks at a Mississippi high school. The Los Angeles Times says the marshal was "apparently acting on the orders of... Scalia." But the Washington Post quotes a US Marshals Service spokesperson saying, 'The deputy's actions were based on Justice Scalia's long-standing policy prohibiting such recordings of his remarks,' but that 'Justice Scalia did not instruct the deputy to take that action.'"
posted on April 9, 2004 05:30:17 PM new
According to the LA Times article, today there was a mix up:
Earlier Wednesday, Scalia prompted a minor flap at nearby William Carey College, a private Baptist school.
Reporters and TV crews were told that they could not record Scalia's speech, but that they could photograph him afterward at a social reception. But when the justice entered the reception area, he told the reporters and TV crews that they would have to leave.
"That was my fault. I did not realize it was longstanding policy not to give interviews to the press," said college President Larry Kennedy.
A press aide at the college sent a note of apology to reporters afterward. "They had been invited by me, based on what turned out to be wrong information," said Jeanna Graves, the spokeswoman.
posted on April 9, 2004 07:52:31 PM new
The Society of Professional Journalists, in a statement Friday, called on Scalia "to respect the First Amendment rights of journalists to gather news when he speaks at public events."
"In what can be only described as an ultimate constitutional irony, Scalia was praising the Constitution and its First Amendment while a federal marshal harassed reporters and curtailed their right to gather news at a public appearance," said Joel Campbell, SPJ's Freedom of Information Committee co-chair, in the statement.
What an unbelievable embarrassment. And Justice Scalia chose to speak only on the grounds of two schools which are both small, private and religiously affiliated in the state of Mississippi. Isn't that interesting.
posted on April 9, 2004 08:04:30 PM new
LOL.....reporters have no 'right' to be where they are not invited. There was a mix up at the one school.
I sure can understand why Scalia would choose NOT to have reporters around. Can't trust them to be unbiased anymore. He just realized that a long time ago.
It's called setting boundries and expecting them to be honored and respected.
Not much different than when I went to see Pat Collins a number of years ago. Before the show the audience was told no filming, no tapes etc. It's not unusual for this to be a requirement.
The Marshall will most likely get a slap on the wrist and this ...like all the other issues will fade away. And Scalia will continue with his set of requirements as HE has the right to do.
posted on April 9, 2004 08:27:00 PM new
Linda - Do you honestly think that anyone is going to buy into this comparrison between anti bootlegging measures at a concert and telling reporters that his speech is not to be taped?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 9, 2004 09:29:52 PM new
fenix - What I honestly believe is that anyone in this country has a right to set whatever standards *they* wish to when choosing to give a speech. If those who wish to hear that person speak don't want to abide by/respect those boundries they are free not to attend.
If he doesn't want reporters or photographers around....he has the right to ask them to leave. If in a PUBLIC place and they don't honor his wishes, HE can just leave. But this wasn't a PUBLIC place.....and his wishes were already known.
posted on April 9, 2004 09:38:30 PM new
Group Fights for Student Caught Taping Tipper Gore Speech
Tuesday, July 23, 2002
By Jonathan Polland
WASHINGTON An organization that defends individual rights of students on college campuses across the country is waiting to hear from American University about rescinding penalties it imposed on student Ben Wetmore, who was arrested in April for taping a speech given by Tipper Gore.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education said the action taken against Wetmore, who was arrested on April 8, 2002, and charged with possession of stolen property, was overly harsh.
****Wetmore was grabbed by police during the arrest, convicted in a trial by the university's Office of Judicial Affairs, and removed from his position as president of his residence hall.
University officials placed Wetmore on disciplinary probation for a year and warned that another offense could lead to his expulsion.****
FIRE said that the university has violated journalistic freedom, fairness, and due process. It said Wetmore was denied an impartial hearing and an appeal, and it wants the school to overturn Wetmore's conviction on the grounds the ruling violates his free speech rights.
"No university that cares about student rights would allow a student who wished simply to videotape a public figure at a public event on its campus to be manhandled by authorities, to be found guilty of theft of images and sounds (among other charges), to be denied an impartial panel, and to be placed on probation without any chance to appeal," Greg C. Lukianoff, Director of Legal and Public Advocacy, wrote in a letter to American University President Ben Ladner last month.
According to Gore's contract, the speech, which was paid for by the university and open to the public, was not to be taped because the wife of former Vice President Al Gore was showing copyrighted photos.
However, students were only given notice that no flash photography was allowed, FIRE argued. Students were not told they could not videotape.
Wetmore has been known on the American University campus for his Web site, which criticizes the university for some of its actions and the way money is spent.
University Vice President and Counsel Mary Kenard has complained that Wetmore ignores the university's admonitions and puts derogatory comments about university staff on his site. She has warned that future activities will result in further disciplinary action.
Ladner has not yet responded to FIRE's request.
posted on April 9, 2004 09:40:10 PM new
Scalia is a public official, and his opinions carry more weight than a Senator or president.
It is not just the principle of freedom of the press, it is also extremely important to keep accurate records of what this slimeball Scalia says and when he says it.
Remember, he had to remove himself from the pledge case because of a speech he gave. He has so far refused to remove himself from the Cheney case after vacationing with Cheney.
He is also invited to give these speeches by trading on his unelected and non-political public office.
If he wants to hit the lecture circuit, let him retire and do it. If not, the press should be allowed to accurately record what he says.
Appellate court justices have always led a somewhat cloistered life when it comes to issues that may end up on their political doorstep.
If Scalia wants to be a social and political force for his provincial views, he should retire and do so.
posted on April 9, 2004 10:10:59 PM new
reamond - Show me a law that requires *anyone* who signs a contract to give a speech where they can't set their own limits.
Maybe Scalia might retire....in President Bush's second term.
-----------
fenix - I watched a young journalism student be interviewed on Fox News who stated what this article below reflects. And that was that Professor Al Gore put a "gag order" on the journalism students in his class.
Gore Imposes Gag Rule On Campus
Al Gore began his new professorial duties by giving a lecture to a select group of students at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism.
Disregarding the first amendment, Gore imposed a "gag" rule on students, barring them from discussing his lecture, and banned outside journalists from attending. However, following criticism of these draconian measures in academia, where free expressions and inquiry are supposedly supreme, the dean of the journalism school has claimed to have lifted these restrictions. No word yet on whether Gore's "gag" rule will be applied during his upcoming lectures at UCLA, Fisk University and Middle Tennessee State University.
posted on April 9, 2004 10:31:55 PM new
LOL ... there was a whole list referring to Gore's gag order on his class.
But this was the first one that came up and will serve as proof that Gore took this action.
-----------------
What's the Gag?
Prof. Gore insisted on silencing his students. Why did Columbia go along?
BY TUNKU VARADARAJAN
Thursday, February 8, 2001 12:01 a.m. EST
Albert Gore Jr.--remember him?--has blundered into our midst again, and the first indications are that he hasn't changed one whit. He's still too cautious, and he's still too careworn. And he's still his own worst enemy.
Mr. Gore, who has fallen on professorial times, taught the first of a series of classes at Columbia University's Journalism School on Tuesday. Intended as the start of a sabbatical from politics--right down to the discarding of his dark D.C. suit and its replacement with a woolen jacket of aptly pedagogic brown--the occasion was a public-relations disaster. It provided a lesson not so much in journalism as in the dark arts of paranoia and presumption.
As the entire planet probably knows by now, Columbia muzzled the students attending the class. Mr. Gore's tutelage is, by university fiat, strictly off the record.
This imposition has been touted as the brainchild of the associate dean of the Journalism School, who was appalled, apparently, at the prospect of Mr. Gore's students dashing off after each class to file their copy to newspapers. (And this is supposed to be a journalism school?)
But I have learned (on deepest background) that this is a decanal smokescreen, and that the demand for a gag came as a precondition--i.e., no gag, no Gore--laid down by the former vice president himself.
Ever the fumbling strategist, Mr. Gore has ensured that every one of his students is now talking unstoppably about how he won't let them talk to anyone. And the press, never entirely kind to him in even the best of times, has unleashed its own displeasure.
"Hypocrites Triumph at Free Speech Temple" was the headline on a frothing piece by the New York Post's Steve Dunleavy, who described Mr. Gore as a "rat fink." The New York Observer's Gabriel Snyder was equally dismissive, though in more conventional idiom. He called the Gore lectures "a classic ivory-tower boondoggle," and remarked that the gag was "sure to make Joseph Pulitzer and Edward R. Murrow roll simultaneously in their graves."
Columbia, an inherently liberal institution, snapped to attention when Mr. Gore first approached it in January with his offer to teach there. Judging by the alacrity with which the J-school has gagged its students, it is clear that Columbia believes that the allure of Mr. Gore's presence outweighs the cost--in terms of free speech now curtailed--to the institution's reputation.
It's also clear, from an off-the-cuff remark made by Mr. Gore after his lecture, that he has a scant understanding of the working of modern universities. According to the New York Times, he said: "I think normal classes are off the record. . . . I think the students will get a better experience if it's as much as possible a normal classroom experience."
Now I was once a university professor, and I gave lectures, and Mr. Gore's remark struck me as distinctly bizarre. Students were always free to do whatever they wanted with my pearls of wisdom, though I suspect no one ever prized them highly enough to make them part of any "record." But I taught at a funny old university in England where a number of odd practices flourish.
So I called a few friends yesterday--professors all, at American universities--and they guffawed. Clearly, said one, "the poor dude can't tell the difference between a class at Columbia and a West Wing briefing."
posted on April 9, 2004 10:41:51 PM newScalia is a public official, and his opinions carry more weight than a Senator or president.
Agreed on his opinions....and I just know that's what bothers you the most. It's good he's there to balance out the liberals.
but being a public official doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to set whatever limits he wants to in a CONTRACT with any organization he speaks before. They agree to his terms or he doesn't speak there. Not a thing wrong with that.
posted on April 9, 2004 11:07:33 PM new
Linda cut and paste the portions of the original article dealing with Scalia where it states that anyone, nuch less the reports were told that recording was not allowed or that the reportes were not invited. What I found on these topics were......
Scalia spoke Wednesday at Presbyterian Christian High School and at William Carey College. He did not warn the high school audience that recording devices would be forbidden
I LSI also found nothing about these people not being allowed on the campus. I see where Scalia and the Marshalls asigned to him were upset however it seems that the school officials issues appologies to the press members and expressed embarassment and agner over the issue. Since the school and not Scalia is the governing body I don't see where you have come up with statements such as....
LOL.....reporters have no 'right' to be where they are not invited.
Where everyone but apparently you find s the irony is that this person has a long history of denying the press access to speeches he gives dealing with the importance of the first ammendment and freedom of the press.
Once again instead of looking at the situation and seeing something amiss, instead try to play the "Clinton Card" but since we can't find an actual Clinton in a similiar situation you pick the nutcae of the group in Tipper. (BTW - While I disagree with her action, she did have a contract dictating the terms which Scalia did not).
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 9, 2004 11:19:24 PM new
::Agreed on his opinions....and I just know that's what bothers you the most. It's good he's there to balance out the liberals.::
I think what bothers many the most is that this guy is off the deep end in view of personal importance. Every reputable judge in this country knows that they cannot ethically stand in judgement of an individual they have a personal relationship with. Hell, isn't that the first question the ask even of jurors? Not Scalia though. He's so bloated with self importance that he has refused to recuse himself from hearing the case dealing with Cheney his recent hunting partner. He is either incapable of seeing the air of inpropriety and negative light that it casts over the court in the public eye or he simple does not give a damn.
I don't despise the man for his opinions. Differing viewpoints and opinions are crucial to workings of the court. I despise the man for showing so little respect or regard for the long term image of the highest court in this land.
It's time for him to step down, write his book and then refuse to do a publicity tour and deny sales of it to the press
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 9, 2004 11:58:24 PM new
As an American citizen he can set whatever limitations he wants to when he agrees to give speeches. period. Just as anyone else can.
But NOW I see the issue more clearly....it's you two are upset because he went hunting with Chaney. LOL
Pissed you can't control who does what with whom?
Lawyers and our representatives do that sort of thing all the time. But....since it's with Chaney on another unrelated issue....now it's time to make a big deal out of him setting his own limits on what he wants and doesn't want when he give speeches.
posted on April 10, 2004 12:22:08 AM new
Linda - I really thought by now that you understood that I am capable of complex and multiple thought processes. I did not use my opinion on one subject to justify my opinion on another. I used two completely seperate and unrelated incidents to explain my distaste since you incorrectly attempted to wrap them up in the pat little package of "you hate him because he is a conservative" I actually look a little deeper than political affiliation when I judge the integrity of an individual.
I despise Scalia for his lack of respect for the propriety of our courts. It has nothing to do with the fact that Cheney is the individual involved. I would feel the same if his hunting partner was Joe Schmoe. As a judge you remove yourself from any case in which you have a personal relationship with a principle in the case. It's basic legal ethics
As a seperate incident. I find it ridiculous that someone that has built notariaty on supporting the first ammendment goes out of his way to hide his words from the press.
Now that you have attempted to spin away from your original statements once again I ask that you back up your assertations that the press was not invited and had been told that the speech was not to be recorded.
Don't try to spin my opinions - it's petty and considering the fact that I stated that I also disagreed with Tipper trying to do the same thing, comes across as grasping
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 10, 2004 02:27:35 AM new
It's called conflict of interest, Linda.
As a longtime friend of Cheney Scalia should not be a judge on the energy task force. The fact that they went duck hunting together in January, a couple of weeks after the court agreed to hear the case, makes Scalia's judgement highly questionable.
Supporters keep saying that justices have socialized & mingled with administration figures many times over the years. They neglect to state, however, that there is a vast difference between socializing with friends and socializing with friends whose case you're judging...
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on April 10, 2004 04:54:36 AM new
Justice Scalia has every right totell people not to tape his speeches... being a public official does not make him "free" game... they are allowed to set thier standrds of giving statments...
Reporters got nabbed.... no one said they couldn't of written down what he was saying.. I haven't seen that anywhere...
and yes fenix this can and should be compared to taping a concert... after all entertainers are "public" figures.
I would like to see a justice or 2 retire... just not Scalia...
Tipper Gore is receiveing Secret Security protection... she is not a "private" citizen...
posted on April 10, 2004 09:06:58 AM new
::and yes fenix this can and should be compared to taping a concert... after all entertainers are "public" figures. ::
You are joking right? You somehow believe that forbidding recording devices at a concert in order to eliminate bootleg sales of recordings is the same as forbidding a reporter from from recording a speech they are covering?
You are not really comparing recording for profit with the intention to commit a crime to a recording with the intention of retaining quote integrity for a story are you?
You are just feeling funny this morning right?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 10, 2004 11:18:16 AM newAs an American citizen he can set whatever limitations he wants to when he agrees to give speeches. period. Just as anyone else can.
But he is not trading on his "American citizenship". He is trading on his public office. It is also extremely important that the opinions expressed by public officials make it accurately to the press.
If Scalia was just an American citizen, he couln't draw a crowd anywhere.
If he wants to hit the lecture circuit and keep secret what he says, then he must step down from the court.
Private citizens can insist that their lectures not be recorded. You also have to ask permission of college profs before you can record them too.
But Scalia is neither a private citizen giving a lecture, nor a college prof giving a lecture. He is a Supreme Court justice giving lectures.
posted on April 10, 2004 12:37:50 PM new
reamond - No matter how what his position in life is...nor how much this appears to upset you..... he's not breaking any laws...he's free to set his own limits - whatever they are....he's free to refuse to speak to or with anyone he wishes, etc.
These issues are almost entirely politically based.
posted on April 10, 2004 12:50:22 PM new
Actually Linda, you would prefer them to be political because it is so much easier to agree with his actions... but the truth is it has absolutely nothing to do with politics. If you look thru this thread - you are the one that has continued to apply poltical affiliatios to this.
The truth is these issues are about ethics
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 10, 2004 12:56:58 PM new"reamond - No matter how what his position in life is...nor how much this appears to upset you..... he's not breaking any laws...he's free to set his own limits - whatever they are....he's free to refuse to speak to or with anyone he wishes, etc"
It's not a question of legality, linda. He can give interviews to Southern Partisan if he want's to. But as a public figure and as a representative of the Supreme Court of the United States, it would be offensive and highly irregular to say the least...just as most people consider this case.
posted on April 10, 2004 01:15:59 PM newreamond - No matter how what his position in life is...nor how much this appears to upset you..... he's not breaking any laws...he's free to set his own limits - whatever they are....he's free to refuse to speak to or with anyone he wishes, etc
No he is not "free" to speak to whoever he wants. He can't privateley speak to litigants or possible litigants before the court. He can not speak extra-judiciously about issues before the court, or issues likely to come before the court. There are judicial cannons that he must follow, just as all judges must.
That is why it is imperative that a free press has an accurate public record of what he says to who, where it is said, and when it is said.
When you hold high public office there are limits of what you can and can not say on issues applicable to your public office.
But this seems to be a theme of continuing confusion with you Linda K. There is a difference between being a public office holder and doing something and doing something under color of being public office holder.
There is a huge difference between a Supreme Court Justice going fishing and a Supreme Court Justice going fishing with a litigant before the court.
This refusal to see the obvious problem here is the only issue of political blindness evidenced.
Scalia knew the rules going in. If he doesn't like it he can step down.
posted on April 10, 2004 03:01:27 PM new
A question of ethics??? I would NEVER listen to anyone who talks about ethics when they defended the actions of clinton lying under oath? how funny.....
--------------
Scalia won't sit out case against Cheney
Says trip together didn't pose conflict of interest
By Lyle Denniston, Globe Correspondent, 3/19/2004
WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia decided yesterday to join his eight colleagues when they rule on a major case involving his friend Vice President Dick Cheney, rejecting a formal request that he disqualify himself.
Noting that he was asked to step aside because he went duck hunting with Cheney and accepted a ride on Cheney's government airplane to make the trip, Scalia wryly remarked in an official memorandum:
"If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined."
There is no appeal from his decision to reject a motion by the Sierra Club to recuse himself from any role in the court's review of Cheney's legal right to keep secret many of the background documents on the work of a task force, headed by the vice president, that drafted the Bush administration's energy policy. The Sierra Club is involved in that dispute, scheduled for a hearing next month.
David Bookbinder, Washington legal director of the Sierra Club, commented: "Scalia still doesn't get it. His trip with the vice president created an appearance of impropriety. He doesn't discuss that; he doesn't seem to understand that." The club, he added, only asked the justice to disqualify himself "after the public demand had run for weeks and weeks and weeks; we were acting on their behalf."
In his 21-page response to the motion, Scalia canvassed the widespread public demands -- often in newspaper editorials -- for his disqualification. Noting that the Sierra Club had contended that the editorials spoke for "the American public" in demanding his recusal, the justice said:
"The implications of this argument are staggering. I must recuse because a significant portion of the press, which is deemed to be the American public, demands it." He dismissed the editorials as "a blast of largely inaccurate and uniformed opinion."
Giving in to the demands of those editorials, he said, "would give elements of the press a veto over" similar situations in the future, which he called "intolerable."
The court, he said, could not survive "constant baseless allegations of impropriety that have become the staple of Washington reportage. . . . The people must have confidence in the integrity of the justices, and that cannot exist in a system that assumes them to be corruptible by the slightest friendship or favor."
He concluded that he had no legal basis for refusing to take part in the decision.
"Established principles and practices do not require [and thus do not permit] recusal in the present case," he wrote. He said he would do so if he had "said or done something which requires that course." He noted that he has taken himself out of the court's coming review of the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance "for such a reason" -- that is, his out-of-court comments about that case.
He said he could not "in good conscience" get off the energy case, even if that would "demonstrate my integrity" and "immediately silence the criticism. . . . Since I believe there is no basis for recusal, I cannot" take that step.
Conceding that he and Cheney are friends, he insisted that their duck-hunting trip to Louisiana in January "was not an intimate setting." He said he was alone with Cheney for only the briefest intervals and never in a duck blind, adding that "of course, we said not a word about the present case."
He also contended that he did not "save a cent" by accepting a ride on the government-owned plane that ferried Cheney, Scalia, and other hunters to Louisiana. He, his son, and son-in-law actually bought round-trip tickets, and used only the return portion, because that was the least expensive way to make the trip.
"Social contacts that do no more than evidence friendship suggest no impropriety whatever," Scalia said.
He added: "A rule that required members of this court to remove themselves from cases in which the official actions of friends were at issue would be utterly disabling." He noted that the court as a whole has a policy against "unnecessary recusal," because even one such disqualification "impairs the functioning of the court."
A justice recused from a case cannot be replaced, raising the prospect of a 4-to-4 split that results in no decision on the legal issues, he said.
Discussing the energy task force case, Scalia stressed that Cheney was involved only in his official role as head of that group. Nothing the court says on the legal issues "will have any bearing upon the reputation and integrity of Richard Cheney," he said.
--------------
