Duck Hunting, the High Court, Corruption and Slam Dunks
Press Action
Thursday, March 18, 2004
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/mclellan03182004/
By Tracy McLellan
Antonin Scalia has announced he will not recuse himself from the Supreme Court case in which it is to be determined whether or not Dick Cheney must make public the notes of his secret energy task force that formulated Bush energy policy in the spring and summer of 2001. Cheney’s task force met on scores of occasions with executives from the fossil fuels and nuclear industries, including former Enron Chairman Ken Lay several times, but with nary an advocate of consumers, the environment, or the solar and alternative energy industries.
Only weeks after the Supreme Court agreed to take the case, which had been making its way through the appellate courts, Cheney and Scalia chummed around on a private duck-hunting trip in Louisiana.
Cheney’s rationale for keeping his notes secret, he says, is that he doesn’t want to jeopardize future officers of the executive branch in their ability to hold similar clandestine proceedings, which would interfere with their ability to formulate policy. Cheney has been silent about bribery and collusion and has not given even a semblance of an argument as to why, in a democracy, secret energy policy deliberations are necessary. Who can blame him? With our media, reasons and arguments are unnecessary.
Don’t you love surprises? When Bush’s energy policy was announced, it was an extended commitment to polluting fossil fuels, including tens of billions of dollars in subsidies and tax credits to the already stinking petroleum industry, resurrection of moribund nuclear power, with a token handful of dollars for solar and alternative energy sources. There was nary a word about conservation, which would, after all, interrupt the massive profits of Bush and Cheney’s friends, nor a peep about the environment.
Being a perjured judge goes hand-in-hand with being a lousy writer and Scalia does not disappoint. His written decision in this case sounds like the ramblings of a skid row drunk. To call him a liar is to pay the scoundrel a compliment. In short, he’s an unhinged lunatic. How his kind has come to positions of power and respect in what is supposed to be the greatest country in the world and the standard bearer for democracy is an issue so far out of the pale, only history knows -and she ain’t speaking just yet. Scalia is a piece of a puzzle of an administration completely out of control, a gang of thugs and neo-conservative extremists who make the time of the robber barons of the late 19th century and the Teapot Dome era seem like the golden age of philanthropy.
I cannot even decipher Scalia’s lie in order to unravel it. Here is part of what he said in his written decision:
"Recusal would in my judgment harm the court. If I were to withdraw from this case, it would be because some of the press has argued that the vice president would suffer political damage if he should lose this appeal. ... But since political damage often comes from the government’s losing official-action suits; and since political damage can readily be characterized as a stain on reputation and integrity; recusing in the face of such charges would give elements of the press a veto over participation of any justices who had social contacts with, or were even known to be friends of, a named official."
According to Scalia, his recusal may, of all things, damage the vice president. Another surprise. Some people might call that justice. And really the law is not at issue here. A democracy is, by definition, of the people, by the people, and for the people; not of the secret energy task force, by the secret energy task force, and for the secret energy task force. The people have a right, not to speak of an obligation, to know what went on in those secret tête-à-têtes.
Worse, Scalia goes on to reproach the mainstream press poodle as if it is a badger in reporting on corruption of unimaginable proportions, rather than extolling it as state-cheerleader and Ministry of Propaganda, which would have been more accurate, let alone honest. Scalia says critical reporting threatens the appearance of judicial integrity on the high court and insists his duck-hunting trip doesn’t.
Scalia went duck hunting and palled around with Dick Cheney. Now he is back at his job on the high court, as is Dick Cheney back at his or at a secret, undisclosed location. Soon Cheney’s case will come before Scalia and the Supreme Court. I haven’t the first idea why anyone would think there would be any bias in his decision.
Tracy McLellan is a writer and activist living in the suburbs south of Chicago, and can be reached at tracymclellan@netzero.net.