On Feb 18, I posted This with a 'comment'. In my Last sentence of that comment I wrote, "Stay tuned, there's probably More coming down the pike about This one". And sure enough it has arrived. This is the Highest Court in our land, a court that Should be un-biased, un-bought, un-fettered with 'I.O.U's', with out predjudice, open minded, and ruling in line with our Constitution, Not in line with Political cronies, and 'Party' favors that in turn garner 'personal' favors for the Justices'. And yet....it appears that No, Martha, there Is no Santa Claus. If This is 'true' of Scalia, just how true is it of his co-horts, and how Deep does this 'cancer' grow? :/ :/ :/
Politics
SCALIA TOOK DOZENS OF TRIPS FUNDED BY PRIVATE SPONSORS
By ERIC LIPTONFEB. 26, 2016 New York Times
The West Texas ranch where Justice Antonin Scalia was staying when he died. It is owned by a businessman whose company had recently had a matter before the Supreme Court.
WASHINGTON — Antonin Scalia was the longest-tenured justice on the current Supreme Court and the country’s most prominent constitutionalist. But another quality also set him apart: Among the court’s members, he was the most frequent traveler, to spots around the globe, on trips paid for by private sponsors.
When Justice Scalia died two weeks ago, he was staying, again for free, at a West Texas hunting lodge owned by a businessman whose company had recently had a matter before the Supreme Court.
Though that trip has brought new attention to the justice’s penchant for travel, it was in addition to the 258 subsidized trips that he took from 2004 to 2014. Justice Scalia went on at least 23 privately funded trips in 2014 alone to places like Hawaii, Ireland and Switzerland, giving speeches, participating in moot court events or teaching classes. A few weeks before his death, he was in Singapore and Hong Kong.
Many of the justices are frequent expenses-paid travelers, a practice that some court scholars say is a minor matter, given that many of the trips involve public talks that help demystify the court. But others argue that the trips could potentially create the appearance of a conflict of interest, particularly when the organizations are known for their conservative or liberal views. Some groups at times use the presence of a Supreme Court justice as a way to pull in members or other paying guests.
Supreme Court Travel
A look at the numbers of privately paid trips taken by Supreme Court justices from 2004-2014, ranked top to bottom by frequency of travel per year.
Scalia
258 trips in 11 years
23.5 trips per year
Breyer
185 trips in 11 years
16.8 trips per year
Sotomayor
67 trips in 5 years
13.4 trips per year
Kennedy
132 trips in 11 years
12.0 trips per year
Ginsburg
117 trips in 11 years
10.6 trips per year
Alito
83 trips in 9 years
10.1 trips per year
Kagan
33 trips in 4 years
8.3 trips per year
Thomas
86 trips in 11 years
7.8 trips per year
Roberts
48 trips in 10 years
4.8 trips per year
Source: Center for Responsive Politics
“I am worried about the public perception of gratitude, even if there is no effect on your behavior,” said Stephen Gillers, a professor at the New York University School of Law who specializes in legal ethics. “And the greater the luxury, the greater the risk of public suspicion.”
Ethical standards prohibit judges from accepting gifts from anyone with a matter currently before the court. But those guidelines presented no barrier to John Poindexter, who invited Justice Scalia to stay at his West Texas ranch.
Mr. Poindexter is the owner of J. B. Poindexter & Co., a manufacturing firm based in Houston with more than 4,000 employees. One of his companies, the Mic Group, was a defendant in an age discrimination lawsuit filed by a former employee who unsuccessfully petitioned the Supreme Court for a review last year.
Mr. Poindexter, according to a former general manager at the ranch, is also a leader in the International Order of St. Hubertus, a worldwide organization of hunters, as, apparently, were several other guests during Justice Scalia’s visit. The Washington Post first reported the guests’ ties to the hunting group.
Mr. Gillers and other legal experts said they saw nothing wrong with Mr. Scalia’s accepting a free room at Mr. Poindexter’s lodge. While the Ethics in Government Act, adopted after Watergate, requires high-level federal employees, including judges, to fill out disclosure reports for reimbursements worth more than $335, the visit to the ranch might not have required a formal disclosure, because accommodations provided by a private individual are exempt under current rules.
But Gabe Roth, the executive director of an organization called Fix the Court, said that the Supreme Court needed a formal vetting process for privately funded trips, similar to the one used by Congress, where ethics committees sign off on trips before lawmakers take them. “This is just part of the pattern of a lack of transparency from the high court,” he said.
After Justice Scalia, the second most active traveler on the current court is Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who took 185 privately paid trips from 2004 to 2014, according to a database built by the Center for Responsive Politics, based on individual reports filed by the justices. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., based on a yearly average, had the fewest of these privately funded trips — a total of 48 from 2005 to 2014, the last year for which records are available. Over all, Supreme Court members disclosed 1,009 paid trips between 2004 and 2014.
The destinations often are luxurious, including the Casa de Campo Resort in the Dominican Republic, where Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. was listed as a speaker for an event last February, or Zurich, where Justice Scalia traveled at least three times on privately funded trips.
In 2011, a liberal advocacy group, Common Cause, questioned whether Justice Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas should have disqualified themselves from participating in the landmark Citizens United case on campaign finance because they had attended a political retreat in Palm Springs, Calif., sponsored by the conservative financier Charles G. Koch. Mr. Koch funds groups that could benefit from the ruling. The disclosure report filed by Justice Thomas made no mention of the retreat. It said only that he had taken a trip, funded by the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group, to Palm Springs to give a speech.
Over roughly a decade, Justice Scalia took 21 trips sponsored by the Federalist Society, to places like Park City, Utah; Napa, Calif.; and Bozeman, Mont. The Federalist Society also paid for trips by Justice Alito during that period, but not for any liberal justices, the disclosure reports show.
“There are fair questions raised by some of these trips about their commitment to being impartial,” said Stephen Spaulding, the legal director at Common Cause. “They are dancing so close to the line with overtly political events.”
Legislation is pending in the House and the Senate that would require the Supreme Court to create a formal ethics system, beyond the Ethics in Government Act, similar to the one that governs actions of all other federal judges. That system is known as the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.
Chief Justice Roberts has argued that the Supreme Court, even though it generally abides by this judicial ethics code, is not obligated to do so. It restricts how much judges can be paid for private travel, and limits other activities outside the court, such as allowing private organizations to use “the prestige of judicial office” for fund-raising purposes.
“The questionable activities of some of our Supreme Court justices have been well documented,” including “participating in political functions,” Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York, said in a statement explaining why she introduced the legislation last year. She was referring to the trips by Justices Scalia and Thomas to the events sponsored by Mr. Koch. But Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, said that liberal groups’ focus on the trips simply offered them an avenue to criticize conservative justices when they had done nothing wrong. “They are creating an ethics issue to try to put pressure on justices to get them to rule a certain way,” he said.
The disclosure reports show that the majority of the privately funded trips — by far — are sponsored by universities.
Richard L. Hasen, a professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine, said that society could benefit when justices — who are paid about $250,000 a year, far less than they would earn in private practice — leave Washington to speak about how the court works.
In a new study, Dr. Hasen also found justices have increasingly gained a celebrity status, with websites like SCOTUS Map tracking their trips. “Justice Sonia Sotomayor runs into Hillary Clinton at a Costco, and that makes national news,” he said. “Now they are celebrities, so we just hear about them more.”
Manny Fernandez contributed reporting from Houston, and Alain Delaquérière contributed research.
Politics
SCALIA TOOK DOZENS OF TRIPS FUNDED BY PRIVATE SPONSORS
By ERIC LIPTONFEB. 26, 2016 New York Times
The West Texas ranch where Justice Antonin Scalia was staying when he died. It is owned by a businessman whose company had recently had a matter before the Supreme Court.
WASHINGTON — Antonin Scalia was the longest-tenured justice on the current Supreme Court and the country’s most prominent constitutionalist. But another quality also set him apart: Among the court’s members, he was the most frequent traveler, to spots around the globe, on trips paid for by private sponsors.
When Justice Scalia died two weeks ago, he was staying, again for free, at a West Texas hunting lodge owned by a businessman whose company had recently had a matter before the Supreme Court.
Though that trip has brought new attention to the justice’s penchant for travel, it was in addition to the 258 subsidized trips that he took from 2004 to 2014. Justice Scalia went on at least 23 privately funded trips in 2014 alone to places like Hawaii, Ireland and Switzerland, giving speeches, participating in moot court events or teaching classes. A few weeks before his death, he was in Singapore and Hong Kong.
Many of the justices are frequent expenses-paid travelers, a practice that some court scholars say is a minor matter, given that many of the trips involve public talks that help demystify the court. But others argue that the trips could potentially create the appearance of a conflict of interest, particularly when the organizations are known for their conservative or liberal views. Some groups at times use the presence of a Supreme Court justice as a way to pull in members or other paying guests.
Supreme Court Travel
A look at the numbers of privately paid trips taken by Supreme Court justices from 2004-2014, ranked top to bottom by frequency of travel per year.
Scalia
258 trips in 11 years
23.5 trips per year
Breyer
185 trips in 11 years
16.8 trips per year
Sotomayor
67 trips in 5 years
13.4 trips per year
Kennedy
132 trips in 11 years
12.0 trips per year
Ginsburg
117 trips in 11 years
10.6 trips per year
Alito
83 trips in 9 years
10.1 trips per year
Kagan
33 trips in 4 years
8.3 trips per year
Thomas
86 trips in 11 years
7.8 trips per year
Roberts
48 trips in 10 years
4.8 trips per year
Source: Center for Responsive Politics
“I am worried about the public perception of gratitude, even if there is no effect on your behavior,” said Stephen Gillers, a professor at the New York University School of Law who specializes in legal ethics. “And the greater the luxury, the greater the risk of public suspicion.”
Ethical standards prohibit judges from accepting gifts from anyone with a matter currently before the court. But those guidelines presented no barrier to John Poindexter, who invited Justice Scalia to stay at his West Texas ranch.
Mr. Poindexter is the owner of J. B. Poindexter & Co., a manufacturing firm based in Houston with more than 4,000 employees. One of his companies, the Mic Group, was a defendant in an age discrimination lawsuit filed by a former employee who unsuccessfully petitioned the Supreme Court for a review last year.
Mr. Poindexter, according to a former general manager at the ranch, is also a leader in the International Order of St. Hubertus, a worldwide organization of hunters, as, apparently, were several other guests during Justice Scalia’s visit. The Washington Post first reported the guests’ ties to the hunting group.
Mr. Gillers and other legal experts said they saw nothing wrong with Mr. Scalia’s accepting a free room at Mr. Poindexter’s lodge. While the Ethics in Government Act, adopted after Watergate, requires high-level federal employees, including judges, to fill out disclosure reports for reimbursements worth more than $335, the visit to the ranch might not have required a formal disclosure, because accommodations provided by a private individual are exempt under current rules.
But Gabe Roth, the executive director of an organization called Fix the Court, said that the Supreme Court needed a formal vetting process for privately funded trips, similar to the one used by Congress, where ethics committees sign off on trips before lawmakers take them. “This is just part of the pattern of a lack of transparency from the high court,” he said.
After Justice Scalia, the second most active traveler on the current court is Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who took 185 privately paid trips from 2004 to 2014, according to a database built by the Center for Responsive Politics, based on individual reports filed by the justices. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., based on a yearly average, had the fewest of these privately funded trips — a total of 48 from 2005 to 2014, the last year for which records are available. Over all, Supreme Court members disclosed 1,009 paid trips between 2004 and 2014.
The destinations often are luxurious, including the Casa de Campo Resort in the Dominican Republic, where Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. was listed as a speaker for an event last February, or Zurich, where Justice Scalia traveled at least three times on privately funded trips.
In 2011, a liberal advocacy group, Common Cause, questioned whether Justice Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas should have disqualified themselves from participating in the landmark Citizens United case on campaign finance because they had attended a political retreat in Palm Springs, Calif., sponsored by the conservative financier Charles G. Koch. Mr. Koch funds groups that could benefit from the ruling. The disclosure report filed by Justice Thomas made no mention of the retreat. It said only that he had taken a trip, funded by the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group, to Palm Springs to give a speech.
Over roughly a decade, Justice Scalia took 21 trips sponsored by the Federalist Society, to places like Park City, Utah; Napa, Calif.; and Bozeman, Mont. The Federalist Society also paid for trips by Justice Alito during that period, but not for any liberal justices, the disclosure reports show.
“There are fair questions raised by some of these trips about their commitment to being impartial,” said Stephen Spaulding, the legal director at Common Cause. “They are dancing so close to the line with overtly political events.”
Legislation is pending in the House and the Senate that would require the Supreme Court to create a formal ethics system, beyond the Ethics in Government Act, similar to the one that governs actions of all other federal judges. That system is known as the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.
Chief Justice Roberts has argued that the Supreme Court, even though it generally abides by this judicial ethics code, is not obligated to do so. It restricts how much judges can be paid for private travel, and limits other activities outside the court, such as allowing private organizations to use “the prestige of judicial office” for fund-raising purposes.
“The questionable activities of some of our Supreme Court justices have been well documented,” including “participating in political functions,” Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York, said in a statement explaining why she introduced the legislation last year. She was referring to the trips by Justices Scalia and Thomas to the events sponsored by Mr. Koch. But Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, said that liberal groups’ focus on the trips simply offered them an avenue to criticize conservative justices when they had done nothing wrong. “They are creating an ethics issue to try to put pressure on justices to get them to rule a certain way,” he said.
The disclosure reports show that the majority of the privately funded trips — by far — are sponsored by universities.
Richard L. Hasen, a professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine, said that society could benefit when justices — who are paid about $250,000 a year, far less than they would earn in private practice — leave Washington to speak about how the court works.
In a new study, Dr. Hasen also found justices have increasingly gained a celebrity status, with websites like SCOTUS Map tracking their trips. “Justice Sonia Sotomayor runs into Hillary Clinton at a Costco, and that makes national news,” he said. “Now they are celebrities, so we just hear about them more.”
Manny Fernandez contributed reporting from Houston, and Alain Delaquérière contributed research.
If This snappy little 'gift' vacation is True, and time will tell, then This is just another 'Politician (Supreme Court Justice in This case) in my pocket' and the price of doing business at Americas judicial expense, and so much for an unbiased court system.
For a Supreme Court Justice to even Consider taking a 'gift' of Any kind from Anyone connected to a case that is, or, had been heard, by the Court is just plain Conflict of Interest, and possibly even criminal.
No one, in the public at least, would have Ever, even become Aware of this little 'gifting' party for Scalia if he had 'lived'. It took his untimely demise for it to become public. Can we have any Doubt that the Rest of the Justices of this seemingly disfunctional court are not also accepting 'gifts', 'favors', 'under the table tokens', 'special privileages', 'secret gratuities' as 'compensation' or 'thank you very much for your Vote your honor, now how about a little Hunting Trip to help you relax'?
If this is True, then it gives traction to the Question as to Why Scalia's death was pronounced Over The Phone, why No Medical Examiner at the scene, why No Inquest, why No Autopsy, why No Investigation of Any kind, and why so quick to get his body Out of there. Now it appears, again if this 'gift' trip is True, that there were hopes by Someone, and if so it may well be revealed at some point, that no one would know about it as long as not too much fuss was made.
My guess is that More will come out about this little 'gift' trip, and perhaps the black curtains that shield the rest of the Supreme (which may be a misnomer) Court Justices' from the light of day, will be pulled back, and the telling light of 'Sunshine' will be their undoing. It's obvious that more than a Little 'house cleaning' is in order.
This is Another compelling reason why the Supreme Court Justices should be Elected instead of Appointed as they are Now by a sitting President who of course picks a candidate that will most likely vote party line. They should also be subject to Term Limits instead of a Lifetime appointment. The longer they are in 'office', the more apt they are to be subject to this instant case of stupidity. If you sleep with currs, don't be surprised at the fleas that soon bite your butt.
Stay tuned, there's probably More coming down the pike about This one. :/ :/ :/
For a Supreme Court Justice to even Consider taking a 'gift' of Any kind from Anyone connected to a case that is, or, had been heard, by the Court is just plain Conflict of Interest, and possibly even criminal.
No one, in the public at least, would have Ever, even become Aware of this little 'gifting' party for Scalia if he had 'lived'. It took his untimely demise for it to become public. Can we have any Doubt that the Rest of the Justices of this seemingly disfunctional court are not also accepting 'gifts', 'favors', 'under the table tokens', 'special privileages', 'secret gratuities' as 'compensation' or 'thank you very much for your Vote your honor, now how about a little Hunting Trip to help you relax'?
If this is True, then it gives traction to the Question as to Why Scalia's death was pronounced Over The Phone, why No Medical Examiner at the scene, why No Inquest, why No Autopsy, why No Investigation of Any kind, and why so quick to get his body Out of there. Now it appears, again if this 'gift' trip is True, that there were hopes by Someone, and if so it may well be revealed at some point, that no one would know about it as long as not too much fuss was made.
My guess is that More will come out about this little 'gift' trip, and perhaps the black curtains that shield the rest of the Supreme (which may be a misnomer) Court Justices' from the light of day, will be pulled back, and the telling light of 'Sunshine' will be their undoing. It's obvious that more than a Little 'house cleaning' is in order.
This is Another compelling reason why the Supreme Court Justices should be Elected instead of Appointed as they are Now by a sitting President who of course picks a candidate that will most likely vote party line. They should also be subject to Term Limits instead of a Lifetime appointment. The longer they are in 'office', the more apt they are to be subject to this instant case of stupidity. If you sleep with currs, don't be surprised at the fleas that soon bite your butt.
Stay tuned, there's probably More coming down the pike about This one. :/ :/ :/
No comments:
Post a Comment