supreme court justice

[Bubba]

Bubba. Here is the link to the news story and Scalia's use of a corporate jet.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/ ... 8582.shtml

Look in paragraph 12.

The article says "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." It also says "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...". It does not say who owned the jets - Gulfstreams are used by the government as well as private owners. While you may reasonably infer that they were private jets, you could just as easily be mistaken and there is no explicit statement of ownership in that article.

That issue aside, the article also notes that there are two sides to this type of socializing and that Supreme Court justices often socialize with senior government officials even when those officials may have business before the court. Unless you want justices to be cloistered, and are interested in appearances over substance, this type of gathering will have to be allowed to continue.

As for freedom from religion, as an atheist you're surrounded by religious people. As a Jew, I'm surrounded by Christians and others. As a kid, my parents had to explain that Christmas was not my holiday even though it was all over TV and everywhere else, including "holiday" decorations at school and other government facilities. I survived...in fact, it was educational. I may or may not be a "believer" but I am a Jew. I am not offended by Christian symbols, although I do not believe that government facilities should show overt Christian symbols such as a cross or Jewish symbols such as a Star of David. I do not have a problem with the Supreme Court having the Ten Commandments carved on the building but I do have a problem with an Alabama judge wheeling the tablets into his building. One is an historical artifact; the other is an "in your face" statement. I look at the motivation as well as the facts. Hypocritical? Probably. We all have our own little hypocricies.

As an atheist, you are surrounded by a culture of religion. Do you turn off your television at Christmas time? Neither do I. Do I enjoy Christmas decorations even though it is not my holiday? Absolutely. Do you? Probably. Give up the "I'm offended" act and enjoy everything that's around you. Use it educationally. And defend your atheist beliefs religiously!

[DMC]

Give up the "I'm offended" act and enjoy everything that's around you. Use it educationally. And defend your atheist beliefs religiously!

....funny...

I'm Christian... But my Jewish Uncle would invite us over for Hanuka and Passover... It was cool...
We'd have him over for Christmas.. I figured out there was no Santa Claus cause one XMas Eve - he and my Dad were outside making sleighbell sounds and throwing rocks on the roof to sound like Santa.. And I recognized my Uncles Jewish accent - less of a ho ho ho and more of a hoy hoy hoy...

I miss Uncle Al...

[Pedro]

Give up the "I'm offended" act and enjoy everything that's around you. Use it educationally. And defend your atheist beliefs religiously!

....funny...

I'm Christian... But my Jewish Uncle would invite us over for Hanuka and Passover... It was cool...
We'd have him over for Christmas.. I figured out there was no Santa Claus cause one XMas Eve - he and my Dad were outside making sleighbell sounds and throwing rocks on the roof to sound like Santa.. And I recognized my Uncles Jewish accent - less of a ho ho ho and more of a hoy hoy hoy...

I miss Uncle Al...

I am catholic, and i really dug singing the dradel song in elementary school.

[Cityskier]

While you may reasonably infer that they were private jets, you could just as easily be mistaken and there is no explicit statement of ownership in that article.

An excerpt from what I would conside a reputable website.
In this particular case, Vice President Cheney is a named party and a material witness to the events at issue in the lawsuit the Supreme Court has agreed to hear. The type of socializing reported recently between this judicial officer and this litigant is not akin to an open meeting between the local bench and bar or ceremonial public contact in the exercise of official duties. Instead, it appears to have involved contact over several days and nights. Moreover, the report mentions the use of private jets and facilities provided by an energy industry insider, which may raise additional ethical questions and concerns about the case and the acceptance of such gifts or benefits of such value, under the Ethics in Government Act, Pub. L. No. 95-521 as amended, the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, and ethical canons governing judicial conduct.


Whole story here: Cheney is a Lying Creep

[Bubba]

While you may reasonably infer that they were private jets, you could just as easily be mistaken and there is no explicit statement of ownership in that article.

An excerpt from what I would conside a reputable website.
In this particular case, Vice President Cheney is a named party and a material witness to the events at issue in the lawsuit the Supreme Court has agreed to hear. The type of socializing reported recently between this judicial officer and this litigant is not akin to an open meeting between the local bench and bar or ceremonial public contact in the exercise of official duties. Instead, it appears to have involved contact over several days and nights. Moreover, the report mentions the use of private jets and facilities provided by an energy industry insider, which may raise additional ethical questions and concerns about the case and the acceptance of such gifts or benefits of such value, under the Ethics in Government Act, Pub. L. No. 95-521 as amended, the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, and ethical canons governing judicial conduct.


Whole story here: Cheney is a Lying Creep

I haven't read the story you linked to yet but, by the title, I can certainly tell that it's both unbiased and is obviously from a completely reputable website.

[tirolerpeter]

Hey Cityskier...thanks for the back-up. Scalia is a stinker and the deists want to give him every "benefit of the doubt." It is just like the the question that Rhenquist asked Newdow (Sp?)during the SC hearing on the "under God" issue:

"The keenest sparring came after Newdow called the addition of "under God" divisive. The Chief Justice, feigning ignorance of the 1954 vote by Congress, asked Newdow what the vote had been 50 years ago. When Newdow confirmed it apparently was unanimous, Rehnquist replied:

"Well, that doesn't sound divisive."

Said Newdow: "That's only because no atheist can get elected to public office." When the courtroom erupted in applause, Rehnquist threatened to clear the room.

Justice Breyer proposed the idea that the pledge imperfectly unifies the nation "at the price of offending a small number of people like you."

"There is nothing in the Constitution saying what percentage of the population gets excluded," said Newdow. Eloquently, he added that "for 62 years this pledge did serve the purpose of unification, and it did do it perfectly. . . . the Pledge did absolutely fine and got us through two world wars, got us through the Depression, got us through everything without God. . . ."

The deists like Breyer dont't give a sh*t that god is not on everyone's agenda. And Rehnquist wanted to use the old argument that it wasn't divisive because no one IN CONGRESS voted against it. When Newdow stuck it to him, he threatened to clear the court. How's that for "tolerance?

You can read the article yourself at: http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2004/april/?ft=spellbinds

This site is not recommended for theists. It might upset their self-satisfied love affair with the "inspired word of god" that answers all their questions or I should say, all the questions they are allowed to ask themselves.

[Cityskier]

You can draw whatever conclusions you want.

[Cityskier]

Hey Cityskier...thanks for the back-up.

Any time!

I need someone to comiserate with in these dark times.

[Cityskier]

I can certainly tell that it's both unbiased and is obviously from a completely reputable website.

It is, after all, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.

[Bubba]

I can certainly tell that it's both unbiased and is obviously from a completely reputable website.

It is, after all, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.

Aha...you did a bit of editing for the title.

I didn't say, by the way, that the hunting trip shouldn't raise questions. I simply said that justices and government officials have met regularly and socially for years. Still not having read the article, is there any mention of Roosevelt having a weekly card game that included at least one justice along with other elected and appointed officials? And they did this throughout his 4 terms, including at the time he was trying to pack the court? Would a weekly card game be considered a public or ceremonial social function?

Just because people are friends and socialize, even on hunting trips, doesn't mean that they're having ex parte discussions. These guys have apparently been friends for years - do you really think a hunting trip is going to influence Scalia's viewpoint more than his years of friendship?

[Bubba]

I just read the article. Letter was signed Leahy and Lieberman, both Democrats and one of whom was running for President at the time, and the quote you cited came from their letter. (Can you say "politically motivated"?) As I said, I don't question that the event should be questioned. I think one could reasonably conclude, however, that their friendship has existed for years and this trip, while certainly raising the appearance issue, would not impact Scalia's views more so than his years of friendship.

I see that nobody raised the issue of their friendship giving cause for recusal, merely the hunting trip. My guess why? So many people in government are friends of judges, at all levels, that raising that issue as grounds for recusal would strip the court of judges in the majority of cases.

BTW, as this article refers to the use of corporate jets in a way that is clearer than the earlier article, I accept that they were used. Government officials fly on corporate provided jets all the time and are required to pay for their use (the price of an airline ticket - what a joke!) so, again, this is not an unusual occurence even if, in our eyes, it's a practice that should be revised if not eliminated.

[Cityskier]

I know you energy guys have to stick together.

[skitiger]

I'm sorry people are "offended" by deists, but the position espoused by atheists can easily be interpreted to similarly violate the 1st Amendment. If one wants "penumbra" protections, atheism becomes another religion. Denying the existence of a deity or other power, however named or not described at all, presents itself and represents itself as a system of beliefs or disbeliefs - broadly a religion.

Therefore, by demanding that your limited minority position be followed, you are dictating your beliefs. This could easily be said to violate the establishment clause. As a historical note, the clause was meant to keep the newly formed government from "establishing" a state religion, e.g. Episcopal England, Roman Catholic France, Moslem Ottoman Empire.
Please remember that Maryland was Catholic, Pennsylvania had Quakers, Rhode Island was founded by renegade clerics from Massachusetts opposed to Puritanism. Anglicans and Presbyterians were the majority, but to gather the consent of the governed, the pluralistic clause was demanded.

Current SC positions have made the Boy Scouts a religion. In my opinion, atheism is much more a religion than scouting. The SC is a pendulum, it is now swinging back.

[BigKahuna13]

Denying the existence of a deity or other power, however named or not described at all, presents itself and represents itself as a system of beliefs or disbeliefs - broadly a religion.

That's just plain wrong. A religion is not any old system of beliefs. Religions by definition attempt to describe the universe in terms of a divine or supernatural force. (Religions also demand that you accept their premises without proof, but that's another story) Atheism, as the denial of such, is not a religion.

I also don't think that tirolerpete is asking that his minority position be followed, merely respected.

[tirolerpeter]

Skitiger, your said: "Denying the existence of a deity or other power, however named or not described at all, presents itself and represents itself as a system of beliefs or disbeliefs - broadly a religion."

This kind of argument is typical of the logical blinders that deists choose to wear. They are so locked into the concept of "belief" in something, that they cannot understand the concept of "non-belief." Atheists do not see their position as a refutation of the ideas of theists. Rather, they find theism has no logical basis and therefore requires no refutation. Notwithstanding, that billions may "believe in the existence of deities," their "belief" provides no logical proof that deities actually exists. Atheists don't have an interest in spreading "non-belief." We just would like an acknowledgement that we have a constitutional right to eschew "belief" and would like not to be constantly bombarded by the words, symbols, and unfortunately law-making, that "believers" feel so compeled to visit upon everyone else.

While we are definitely NOT a "religion" we do like to get together with like-minded individuals and enjoy the fellowship of those who are intellectually free to consider ideas on their merits rather than on whether or not they conform to some doctrinally established value system.

It have found it ironic that as our national leaders more frequently and loudly proclaim their religiosity, more and more people are willing to stand up and say "enough already." I see anecdotal evidence of this in places like these chat groups. More and more "non-believers" are coming out of the "closet."