Scalia says Cheney can run a secret governement.

But these two guys are drinking, hunting buddies. So much for justice in Amerca
under the neocons.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
But these two guys are drinking, hunting buddies. So much for justice in
Amerca
under the neocons.

I guess the fact that Scalia was not the only one who sided with Cheney
escaped your eagle-eyed perception, eh? And what pray tell exactly is a
"neocon"?

BTW, were you not the same Art Kramer who not too long ago was whining and
decrying the existance of off-topic posts in this NG? And here you go again,
starting *another* off-topic thread yourself...

Brooks


Arthur Kramer

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
But these two guys are drinking, hunting buddies. So much for justice in
Amerca
under the neocons.

Art, if Scalia recused himself from the case, you still get a 6-2 vote.
Your bias is showing.

But these two guys are drinking, hunting buddies. So much for justice in
Amerca
under the neocons.

Art, if Scalia recused himself from the case, you still get a 6-2 vote.
Your bias is showing.

It doesn't make Art wrong - in any other case, an officer of the court who
personally knows a principal in the case would/should stand aside and let other
members of the court hear it.

A fishing trip is nothing close to incidental contact between jurist and
witness - Scalia should have been sensative to the perception of impropriety
over his refusal to recuse himself.

v/r
Gordon

Subject: Scalia says Cheney can run a secret governement.
From: nt (Krztalizer)
Date: 6/25/2004 2:20 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


But these two guys are drinking, hunting buddies. So much for justice in
Amerca
under the neocons.

Art, if Scalia recused himself from the case, you still get a 6-2 vote.
Your bias is showing.

It doesn't make Art wrong - in any other case, an officer of the court who
personally knows a principal in the case would/should stand aside and let
other
members of the court hear it.

A fishing trip is nothing close to incidental contact between jurist and
witness - Scalia should have been sensative to the perception of impropriety
over his refusal to recuse himself.

v/r
Gordon



Scalia woild never recuse himself. He wnats to be there to control and infuence
all he can. Remember that this is the guy who led the charge to "appoint" Bush
president.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"Krztalizer" wrote in message
...

But these two guys are drinking, hunting buddies. So much for justice
in
Amerca
under the neocons.

Art, if Scalia recused himself from the case, you still get a 6-2 vote.
Your bias is showing.

It doesn't make Art wrong - in any other case, an officer of the court who
personally knows a principal in the case would/should stand aside and let
other
members of the court hear it.

A fishing trip is nothing close to incidental contact between jurist and
witness - Scalia should have been sensative to the perception of
impropriety
over his refusal to recuse himself.
\

And? His recusal would _sitill_ have resulted in a majority decision.

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Scalia says Cheney can run a secret governement.
From: nt (Krztalizer)
Date: 6/25/2004 2:20 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


But these two guys are drinking, hunting buddies. So much for justice
in
Amerca
under the neocons.

Art, if Scalia recused himself from the case, you still get a 6-2 vote.
Your bias is showing.

It doesn't make Art wrong - in any other case, an officer of the court
who
personally knows a principal in the case would/should stand aside and let
other
members of the court hear it.

A fishing trip is nothing close to incidental contact between jurist and
witness - Scalia should have been sensative to the perception of
impropriety
over his refusal to recuse himself.

You need to review the actual case.

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:59:59 +0000, ArtKramr wrote:

But these two guys are drinking, hunting buddies. So much for justice in Amerca
under the neocons.

Now, now!
How can it be secret if everybody knows about it.
Why next thing you know everyone in town will
know the details of Projects X, Y, and L.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"Krztalizer" wrote in message
...

It doesn't make Art wrong - in any other case, an officer of the court who
personally knows a principal in the case would/should stand aside and let
other
members of the court hear it.

A fishing trip is nothing close to incidental contact between jurist and
witness - Scalia should have been sensative to the perception of
impropriety
over his refusal to recuse himself.
\

And? His recusal would _sitill_ have resulted in a majority decision.

That doesn't matter. The public ought to have justices on the Supreme Court who
can recognize their own involvement with participants taking part in hearings
before them. Any justice who thinks that going on a fishing trip, or dining
regularly with one another, or exchanging family visits with litigants before
their bench is demonstrating a deplorable lack of judgement if he can categorize
that kind of behavior as incidental. Incidental contact to most of the public
is restricted to stuff like holding a door open for someone, or passing the salt
at a diner counter, or picking up and returning an envelope that the other
person has dropped. Going on fishing trips or dinner engagements or vacations
to the Caribbean together is a lot more than a casual contact. We expect our
Supreme Court justices to know the difference. If figuring it out is too
complicated for them, then it's time for them to resign from the bench or
retire.

George Z.