Justice Scalia has two sons that are lawyers, one of their law firms is representing Bush in the election case.

[ride525]

Not a lot of election threads going.....I don't know about rules of conflict of interest, but TWO sons of US Supreme Court justices work with firms involved (or maybe in one case, just requested about being involved) regarding the election legal case.

From CNN:

<< Some Democrats raised alarms Monday because two sons of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia work for law firms connected to the case. John Scalia accepted a position with the Miami-based firm Greenberg Traurig on November 7. The next day, Barry Richard, a partner in the firm, said he was called about representing Bush in Florida. A second son, Eugene Scalia, is a partner in the Washington office of Gibson, Dunn &amp; Crutcher -- the firm representing Bush in the Supreme Court arguments. He is not involved in the case. >>


It just gets more and more interesting...

 

[konichiwa]

Although I hate to stand up for a Republican (), just because his sons are a part of the Bush team doesn't necessarily mean that he is influenced by that as well...but then again, you never know.

 

[SuperTool]

Uhh. Even if his sons were Gore lawyers, Scalia would still vote the party line. So I don't think he is influenced by that one bit.

 

[Total Refected Power]

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

 

[ride525]

I was involved in a legal case once, where the judge's brother just worked for one of the law firms involved, and the judge excused himself from the case.....

 

[konichiwa]

Well I don't think a supreme court justice has the option to excuse himself from the case...where else is it gonna go?

 

[bcterps]

The Justices on the Supreme Court are some of the brightest and most upstanding legal authorities in the country (ok ok, except Clarence Thomas hehe). I doubt something like having a son that works for the law firm of one of the plaintiffs, in a case which would likely decide the president of the United States would influence a judge at all.

--Ben

 

[Spoooon]

I agree with Benchiu. I doubt that anyone who has devoted a lifetime to law will throw it all away in one instance of patronism.

 

[squirrel dog]

The will of the people.The intent of the voter.Every vote must be counted,over and over,and over.Ha.This farce is just about over.

 

[DefRef]

Scalia's got kids who are lawyers and that's BAD!

Partisan Democratics on the SCOFLA throw away the Constitution and make up laws again and again to help Gore steal the election and that's GOOD!

Anyone else have trouble with this?

 

[searcher]

I've got a feelin that someone on the Bush team thought it might make a difference.

Michael

 

[ride525]

<< I've got a feelin that someone on the Bush team thought it might make a difference. >>



I've got the same feeling too....interesting that both firms were contacted by the Bush campaign.....

I don't know the rules about judges reclusing themselves.....or even if it happens at the Supreme Court level.....

 

[Frenchie]

For those that are familiar with Scalia's Opinions, it is not surprising that the firms sought his sons. I would not be surprised one bit if it had an effect (although small) on his decision. Nice enough guy (taught a course for my law school), just don't agree with his decisions.

 

[searcher]

<< Scalia's got kids who are lawyers and that's BAD!

Partisan Democratics on the SCOFLA throw away the Constitution and make up laws again and again to help Gore steal the election and that's GOOD!

Anyone else have trouble with this? >>



I do. I don't see a speck of truth in your post, just a regurgitation of Republican spin.

Ride, I have the utmost respect for you after reading these threads for the past six weeks. I don't know how you do it.

Michael

 

[SJ]

Justices have recused themselves before. However only when their kids were directly involved with the case. In this case neither of his sons are involved with the case. He will vote down party lines anyways. Dems just want a 4-4 ruling, even though it looks like it will be a 6-3 or 7-2.

 

[ride525]

<< Ride, I have the utmost respect for you after reading these threads for the past six weeks. I don't know how you do it. >>



WOW !! Thanks Michael !! You are one of the few who takes a middle ground on these issues.....the respect goes both ways !!

 

[Russ]

You liberals are astonishing. When it was the Florida Supreme Court, ALL of whom were appointed by democrats, it was, &quot;How dare you attack these fine principled jurists on that court. They are above partisanship!&quot; All the while, they were making up new law as they went along, and completely shredding the Constitution.

Now, the US Supreme Court smacks them for their foolishness, and that MUST be a partisan decision. Do you people even read what you write?

Russ, NCNE

 

[chess9]

Ride:

I'll pass along an Amen to Searcher's views. You've done a good job of responding to the right wing whacko techno-flunkies on this board without engaging in any colorful repartee. Frankly, colorful repartee makes better reading, but it is so difficult for them to attack you on those grounds when you seem so placid.

On the other hand, they are really brain dead, so why bother? Social morons are a dime a dozen and America is full of them. They were born and bred on stupid shibboleths and never learned to think for themselves. They love metal more than humans. Most moderates and liberals are too nice to these jerks.

Quite a few lawyers are commenting about Scalia's &quot;appearance of impropriety.&quot; The idea is that although it may not be unethical to rule on a case in which your son's firm is a participant, it gives the appearance of being improper. Thus most judges recuse themselves in such situations. Scalia will take some heavy flack from academics if he doesn't recuse himself. If he does, it's 4-4 and let the recounts begin! But don't hold your breath waiting for a Republican to do the right thing.

 

[Russ]

<< right wing whacko techno-flunkies...they are really brain dead, so why bother? Social morons are a dime a dozen and America is full of them. They were born and bred on stupid shibboleths and never learned to think for themselves. >>



Chess9,

Thank you for providing an illuminating example of liberal hypocrisy in action. Are you really so devoid of valid argument that you must resort to slurring the opposition?

Just as Gore has done, you lose.

Russ, NCNE

 

[JellyBaby]

This seems to be one of those R-bashing threads.

Doesn't seem to be any conflict of interest here but I would imagine D operatives are looking into the Scalias phone records, monitoring their movements, etc. in order to find evidence of impropriety or, lacking that, to find some mud to sling around.

I would imagine this election will provide some interesting talk at the Scalia's family Xmas dinner engagement, assuming this is all finalized by then (it must be under law, I believe, although some say it may go into January).

 

[konichiwa]

I don't think that ANY judges are above party lines. Well, at least not any when they're either in a high court (IE a supreme court) or dealing with an extremely important case (IE this one). It's rediculous to say that they don't go just on party lines...after all, they are appointed by the president. Wouldn't you think that he'd appoint those who would go strictly along party lines? So I guess the fact that his son is a Bush lawyer is a moot point considering that he'll vote (R) anyway.

<< Doesn't seem to be any conflict of interest here but I would imagine D operatives are looking into the Scalias phone records, monitoring their movements, etc. in order to find evidence of impropriety or, lacking that, to find some mud to sling around. >>

<< Thank you for providing an illuminating example of liberal hypocrisy in action. Are you really so devoid of valid argument that you must resort to slurring the opposition? >>

Russ, it seems that your &quot;liberal hypocrisy&quot; theory isn't reserved for liberals.

<< Just as Gore has done, you lose. >>

Arrogance doesn't go up there in the &quot;slurring-the-opposition-in-the-abscence-of-a-valid-argument&quot;?

 

[ride525]

<< Now, the US Supreme Court smacks them for their foolishness, and that MUST be a partisan decision. Do you people even read what you write? >>



Russ, I only see one possible Democrat suggestion in this thread that the US Supreme Court might be somewhat Conservative/partisan. I do see a stonger Republican attacks on the Florida Supreme court. And I've heard CONSTANT strong attacks against the Florida from all levels of the Republican party, to the point where, in the last appearance in front of the US Supreme Court, one of the US Justices spoke out against the attacks.

EDIT....oops...read chess9's post.....above and beyond.....

 

[JellyBaby]

ride,

The reason people (and not just Rs) are attacking the FL SC is simply because they strayed from sense and logic and I daresay law by possibly violating the constitution not once but twice! You can't and shouldn't ignore that.

Rs call the FL SC liberal, Ds call the US SC convervative. It's a biased, partisan world we live in and until the Aliens return to rescue us, we must live in it. But apart from the FL SC's blantant bias, I'm not seeing wholesale illogic coming from the Big Supremes, are you?

 

[WyattBurp]

What a heavy discussion.

I am not sure how to weigh in on this issue. So I am just going to jump around topic-wise...

Imagine you're Bush and you want to appeal to the Supreme Court. So you ask the question, &quot;Do any of the Judges have kids that are also Lawyers? Can we hire the firm they work for? Is that legal?&quot;

Side Bar:
All of the Judges have been very fair, except for the Florida Supreme Court. NOW THE U.S. SUPREME COURT appears to be trying to counter partism rulings with some of their own! How about that! Judicial(sp) activism with a CONSERVATIVE TWIST! I hope liberals finally can understand and appreciate why I dislike judicial activism.

Solution 1:
We put boxing gloves on Bush and Gore and put them in the Boxing ring for 3 rounds. Judges can not be members of the Florida Supreme Court nor US Supreme Court. No appealing allowed. No finger jabbing either. Whoever scores the most points in 3 rounds wins.

Solution 2:
We give both Bush and Gore revolvers and let them take 20 paces apart. When the bell rings they can spin around and shoot it out. Whoever is still standing wins.

 

[ride525]

Do what New Mexico offers....

Play a hand of poker...