I heard this on NPR, they played the tape of his rant. And I believe he should recuse himself, I think as a leader in the judicial branch he should have the aptitude to disseminate whether or not he could listen to a case without prejudice. He obviously has strong feelings about this issue and I don't see how he can ethically sit on the panel to hear the case.
Scalia's Recusal Sought in Hamdan/Detainee Case
Oral arguments are being held today:
"On the eve of oral argument in a key Supreme Court case on the rights of alleged terrorists, a group of retired U.S. generals and admirals has asked Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself, arguing that his recent public comments on the subject make it impossible for him to appear impartial.
"In a letter delivered to the court late yesterday, a lawyer for the retired officers cited news reports of Scalia's March 8 remarks to an audience at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland. Scalia reportedly said it was "crazy" to suggest that combatants captured fighting the United States should receive a "full jury trial," and dismissed suggestions that the Geneva Conventions might apply to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"Scalia's remarks "give rise to the unfortunate appearance that, even before briefing was complete, he had already made up his mind" about issues in the case, the lawyer, David H. Remes, wrote. Noting that Scalia reportedly had discussed the rights of accused terrorists in the context of his son Matthew's recent tour as an Army officer in Iraq, Remes wrote that this creates an appearance of "personal bias arising from his son's military service."
More here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...701913_pf.html
Newsweek article that broke the story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12017271/site/newsweek
"On the eve of oral argument in a key Supreme Court case on the rights of alleged terrorists, a group of retired U.S. generals and admirals has asked Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself, arguing that his recent public comments on the subject make it impossible for him to appear impartial.
"In a letter delivered to the court late yesterday, a lawyer for the retired officers cited news reports of Scalia's March 8 remarks to an audience at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland. Scalia reportedly said it was "crazy" to suggest that combatants captured fighting the United States should receive a "full jury trial," and dismissed suggestions that the Geneva Conventions might apply to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"Scalia's remarks "give rise to the unfortunate appearance that, even before briefing was complete, he had already made up his mind" about issues in the case, the lawyer, David H. Remes, wrote. Noting that Scalia reportedly had discussed the rights of accused terrorists in the context of his son Matthew's recent tour as an Army officer in Iraq, Remes wrote that this creates an appearance of "personal bias arising from his son's military service."
More here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...701913_pf.html
Newsweek article that broke the story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12017271/site/newsweek
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Quote:
Indeed
From the Newsweek piece:
"If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son and I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy." Scalia was apparently referring to his son Matthew, who served with the U.S. Army in Iraq."
Note that his son's service was in Iraq but none of the detainees in Gitmo are from Iraq or were captured on the Iraqi battlefield. Makes one wonder just how expansive Scalia views the term 'they'.
Originally Posted by Danelle78 I heard this on NPR, they played the tape of his rant. |
From the Newsweek piece:
"If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son and I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy." Scalia was apparently referring to his son Matthew, who served with the U.S. Army in Iraq."
Note that his son's service was in Iraq but none of the detainees in Gitmo are from Iraq or were captured on the Iraqi battlefield. Makes one wonder just how expansive Scalia views the term 'they'.
The Court's oral arguments can be listened to hear:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...rrer=emaillink
Good discussion on today's hearing with Nina Totenberg on NPR:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5307605
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...rrer=emaillink
Good discussion on today's hearing with Nina Totenberg on NPR:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5307605
Even if you agree with his views, polka, that doesn't change the fact that it seems quite improper for him to hear/decide a case like this. And as per the bold in the OP, there's a bunch of retired military officers (who quite possibly agree with you and with Scalia) who are also seeing the impropriety.
Thanks for the links ...
Thanks for the links ...
Whoa. What ever happened to the presumption of innocence? I thought that was a principle of our judicial system. Or am I totally deluded? If the feds accuse someone of being an enemy combatant, should the courts automatically treat him as a criminal, without a trial or any standard of proof?
It's really scary when a Supreme Court justice won't even pay lip service to the rule of law.
It's really scary when a Supreme Court justice won't even pay lip service to the rule of law.
Fyi...transcript of the hearing:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_a...pts/05-184.pdf
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_a...pts/05-184.pdf
Quote:
Exactly.
Shame on him for sitting. It's not as though there was really any question as to how he would vote, but he certainly did rob the bench of integrity.
If anyone would prefer to listen to the argument, I think that Georgetown still has a link up on its site:
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/ (Click "Audio of Professor Neal Katyal's Hamdan Argument")
Originally Posted by merpk Even if you agree with his views, polka, that doesn't change the fact that it seems quite improper for him to hear/decide a case like this. And as per the bold in the OP, there's a bunch of retired military officers (who quite possibly agree with you and with Scalia) who are also seeing the impropriety. |
Shame on him for sitting. It's not as though there was really any question as to how he would vote, but he certainly did rob the bench of integrity.
If anyone would prefer to listen to the argument, I think that Georgetown still has a link up on its site:
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/ (Click "Audio of Professor Neal Katyal's Hamdan Argument")
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Mothering Forum
A forum community dedicated to all mothers and inclusive family living enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about nurturing, health, behavior, housing, adopting, care, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Lisa44
30 Replies
tarenw
24 Replies
Pregnancyrecipes.com
19 Replies
Recommended Communities
