The appearance of impropriety? This Vice-President Cheney is a pair of lead boots and it will not be missed by media come this fall if he isn't gone (I've said I think he will be gone by election).
ARTICLE BEGINS
Scalia-Cheney Trip Raises Eyebrows
WASHINGTON, Jan. 17, 2003

Vice President Dick Cheney and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
spent part of last week duck hunting together at a private camp in
southern Louisiana, just three weeks after the court agreed to take up
the vice president's appeal in lawsuits over his handling of the
administration's energy task force, the Los Angeles Times says in its
Saturday editions.

While Scalia and Cheney are avid hunters and longtime friends, several
experts in legal ethics questioned the timing of their trip and said it
raised doubts about Scalia's ability to judge the case impartially, the
newspaper pointed out.

But Scalia rejected that concern Friday, telling the Times, "I do not
think my impartiality could reasonably be questioned."

Federal law says "any justice or judge shall disqualify himself in any
proceeding in which his impartiality might be questioned," the Times notes.

For nearly three years, Cheney has been fighting demands that he reveal
whether he met with energy industry officials, including Kenneth Lay
when Lay was chairman of Enron, while Cheney was formulating the
president's energy policy, the Times explains.

A lower court ruled that Cheney must turn over documents detailing who
met with his task force, but on Dec. 15, the high court announced it
would hear his appeal. The justices are due to hear arguments in April
in the case of "in re Richard B. Cheney."

In a written response to an inquiry from the Times about the hunting
trip, Scalia said: "Cheney was indeed among the party of about nine who
hunted from the camp. Social contacts with high-level executive
officials (including cabinet officers) have never been thought improper
for judges who may have before them cases in which those people are
involved in their official capacity, as opposed to their personal
capacity. For example, Supreme Court Justices are regularly invited to
dine at the White House, whether or not a suit seeking to compel or
prevent certain presidential action is pending."

Cheney does not face a personal penalty in the pending lawsuits. He
could not be forced to pay damages, for example.

But the suits "are not routine disputes about the powers of Cheney's
office," the Times says. "Rather, the plaintiffs - the Sierra Club and
Judicial Watch - contend that Cheney and his staff violated an
open-government measure known as the Federal Advisory Committee Act by
meeting behind closed doors with outside lobbyists for the oil, gas,
coal and nuclear industries."

Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor, told the Times
Scalia should have skipped going hunting with Cheney this year.

"A judge may have a friendship with a lawyer, and that's fine. But if
the lawyer has a case before the judge, they don't socialize until it's
over. That shows a proper respect for maintaining the public's
confidence in the integrity of the process," said Gillers, who is an
expert on legal ethics. "I think Justice Scalia should have been
cognizant of that and avoided contact with the vice president until this
was over. And this is not like a dinner with 25 or 30 people. This is a
hunting trip where you are together for a few days."

The Times notes that pair arrived Jan. 5 on Gulfstream jets and were
guests of Wallace Carline, the owner of Diamond Services Corp., an oil
services company in Amelia, La. The Associated Press in Morgan City,
La., reported the trip on the day the vice president and his entourage
departed.

"They asked us not to bring cameras out there," said Sheriff David
Naquin, who serves St. Mary Parish, about 90 miles southwest of New
Orleans, referring to the group's request for privacy. "The vice
president and the justice were there for a relaxing trip, so we backed off."

While the local police were told about Cheney's trip shortly before his
arrival, they were told to keep it a secret, Naquin said to the Times.

"The justice had been here several times before. I'm kind of sorry
Cheney picked that week because it was a poor shooting week," Naquin
said. "There weren't many ducks here, which is unusual for this time of
the year."

Scalia agreed with the sheriff's assessment.

"The duck hunting was lousy. Our host said that in 35 years of duck
hunting on this lease, he had never seen so few ducks," the justice said
in his written response to the Times. "I did come back with a few ducks,
which tasted swell."

Steven Lubet, who teaches judicial ethics at Northwestern University Law
School, said he was not convinced that Scalia must withdraw from the
Cheney case but said the trip raised a number of questions.

"At the very least, you have to start thinking about whether
disqualification is necessary," Steven Lubet, who teaches judicial
ethics at Northwestern University Law School told CBS News, Radio.

"It's not clear this requires disqualification, but there are not
separate rules for longtime friends," Lubet said to the Times. "This is
not like a lawyer going on a fishing trip with a judge. A lawyer is one
step removed. Cheney is the litigant in this case. The question is
whether the justice's hunting partner did something wrong. And the whole
purpose of these rules is to ensure the appearance of impartiality in
regard to the litigants before the court."

According to the newspaper, the code of conduct for federal judges sets
guidelines for members of the judiciary, but it does not set clear-cut
rules. A judge should "act at all times in a manner that promotes public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary," it says.
"A judge should not allow family, social or other relationships to
influence judicial conduct or judgments," it says. Nor should a judge
"permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special
position to influence the judge."

In the lower courts, litigants may ask a judge to step aside. And if the
request is refused, they may appeal to a higher court.

At the Supreme Court, the justices decide for themselves whether to step
aside, the Times adds.
EXCERPT ENDS click link for copy verify. Feel free to comment or e-mail: wahkonta@graffiti.net