|
The Rush Limbaugh of the U.S. Supreme Court Shows His Fat
By M.P. Prabhakaran
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and talk radio host Rush Limbaugh have a few things in common. Both look strikingly alike. Both have several extra pounds of fat at the wrong places. And both are paleocons, meaning paleolithic conservatives. Progressives find their views too primitive to stomach. Until recently, I had mistakenly thought that the similarity between the two ended there. But the 21-page memorandum that Scalia issued on March 18, justifying his decision not to recuse himself from the soon-to-be-heard Supreme Court case involving his longtime buddy, Vice President Dick Cheney, has persuaded me to conclude that the two are comparable in one more respect. What I have in mind is the colorful phrase Al Franken used to portray Rush Limbaugh: “Big Fat Idiot.” The Supreme Court case arises from an appeal by the Bush administration against a lower court decision in favor of the plaintiffs: the Sierra Club, an environmental group, and Judicial Watch, a public-interest law group. The two groups had initiated the case in the lower court when Vice President Cheney, who headed the Bush administration’s energy task force that formulated its now-controversial energy policy, refused to reveal the members of the task force and disclose details of its meetings. Cheney is the chief defendant in the case. Usually, judges withdraw from cases voluntarily when they suspect that their participation in them would appear improper for any reason whatsoever. They don’t even wait for a request for withdrawal to come. They don’t waste time writing memorandums – of even one page, let alone 21 pages – mocking at the people who ask for their withdrawal. Mere appearance of impropriety has been good enough reason for most judges to step aside. But then, paleocons, whether in politics or judiciary, are of a different breed. Questions that concern ordinary mortals don’t concern them, because they think God is always on their side. They also think that, in doing what they do, they are carrying out the will of God.
Duck-Hunting Trip
The reason for the Sierra Club's petition to Scalia that he recuse himself from the case is that his recent duck-hunting trip to Louisiana with Dick Cheney and acceptance of free rides on Air Force Two for himself, a son and a son-in-law have created an appearance of favoritism undermining “the prestige and credibility” of the Supreme Court. Several newspapers in the country have written editorials stating more or less the same thing. They are all concerned about the appearance of impropriety and about the damage to the integrity of the Supreme Court that Scalia’s participation in the case would cause. It is not out of place to note here that Dick Cheney and George Bush owe their positions as vice president and president mainly to the questionable decision Scalia and four other like-minded justices on the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice William Rehnquist, made in the 2000 Bush v. Gore election case. There are many who still believe that but for the 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision that abruptly stopped the Florida vote recount, Al Gore and Joe Lieberman would be sitting in the White House today as president and vice president. They cannot be blamed if they suspect the possibility of what Maureen Dowd of The New York Times calls a "Quid Pro Quack" in the outcome of the present case. Even a 2,100-page memorandum from Scalia, asserting his capability to be impartial and nonpartisan, wouldn't remove their suspicion. Scalia couldn’t care less what people think, it seems. “The motion is denied” is his contemptuous response to the recusal request. He doesn’t stop at that. He stoops to the level of besmirching the character of the person who sent him the recusal request. It was sent by Alan B. Morrison in his capacity as the lead counsel representing the Sierra Club. Morrison is also a longtime friend of Scalia's. On October 28, 2003, he had written a very warm, personal letter to his “Dear Nino” (Nino is Scalia’s nickname which only his close friends use). The purpose of the letter was to share with his friend what was happening in his life, especially the joy he felt over the prospect of taking up a teaching position at Stanford. Morrison ended the letter thus: “Assuming we [Morrison and his wife] go to Stanford, we will be around until the summer, and perhaps we can get together before then. But if not, perhaps you will come to visit there for a few days and talk with my students: imagine the reaction if they found out we actually agree on some issues! Best to Maureen [Scalia’s wife].” At the height of the controversy over his refusal to recuse, Scalia leaked the letter to The Wall Street Journal which, as was expected, printed it with great relish, on March 19, 2004. To enhance the effect, it was printed beside an editorial that applauded Scalia for “eviscerating their case until there’s nothing left but its naked partisanship.” According to the editorial, Morrison’s asking Scalia to speak to his students was an invitation to “his own version of a ‘hunting trip’” The editorial also gleefully declares that “Scalia’s memo explaining why he won’t recuse himself from [the] case … is a smackdown for the ages.” Maybe so to the Journal and its ilk. But to those who believe that true friendship transcends partisan politics, the leaking of the letter from a trusted friend of 30 years, especially to a paper that specializes in character assassination of people who don’t subscribe to its paleolithic worldview, is the betrayal of the century.
Perception Is Important
None has ever questioned Scalia’s right to be friends with men and women in high places. He didn’t have to dig into history and cite examples – like Justice Harlan F. Stone “toss[ing] around a medicine ball with members of the Hoover administration” and Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson playing poker with President Truman – to justify his friendship and socializing with Cheney. He didn’t have to go into silly details of what he did during the hunting trip – “Sleeping was in rooms of two or three, except for the vice president, who had his own quarters”; “I never hunted in the same blind with the vice president”; “none of us saved a cent by flying on the vice president’s plane”; etc., etc. – to prove his ability to be impartial in the upcoming case. The question here is one of appearance of impropriety, one of perception. As an old adage goes, Caesar’s wife should not only be above suspicion but appear to be so, too. That is, when the conduct of public officials is at issue, how they appear to others and how others perceive them are important. What they profess doesn't matter. Scalia’s adamant refusal to step aside from this case will have the effect of its outcome being viewed with suspicion. It will also tarnish the image of the Supreme Court. As The New York Times says in its editorial of March 20, “Justice Scalia, having lowered the bar for judicial ethics by refusing to acknowledge the reasonableness of questions about his impartiality, has guaranteed that the Supreme Court will end up embarrassed, no matter which way it rules.”
[Originally published on March 27, 2004. It has since been slightly edited.]
[Readers are invited to comment. Send your comments to letters@eastwestinquirer.com]
☺ ☺ ☺
Reader's Response
'A Moral Midget'
I just got through reading the article on Scalia. You are absolutely right in your evaluation of the sordid affair. It just goes to prove that being a judicial stalwart does not protect you from becoming a moral midget. However, I would like to point out one difference between Limbaugh and Scalia. Limbaugh, I think, did not receive any higher education. If one can be extremely kind, he can excuse Limbaugh's lack of intellect, which affects his ability to grasp ideas/ideals at the conceptual level. What is Scalia's excuse?
Suresh Shottam, New York, New York, U.S.A. March 29, 2004
|