WTF? Scalia's son is a partner with the firm that represented Wal-Mart before SCOTUS?

[11 Bravo]

Am I the only one who didn't know that Eugene Scalia is a partner at Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher - the firm which represented Wal-Mart in the recent gender-discrimination case? (A case in which Scalia, coincidentally no doubt, cast one of 5 votes which provided the margin of victory for Wal-Mart.)
Nope, no conflict of interest there. Damn! These fuckers don't even bother to pretend anymore, do they?

[EFerrari]

1. It's gross and in our faces already. n/t

[movonne]

13. After Murdoch we will work on the Supreme Court...we have to

get rid of a few of them....

[EFerrari]

16. The DoJ will need to show some spine.

:shrug:

[RedCloud]

88. And become a Spinosaurus. Just invite the SC-5 over

for a quick snack and presto that major problem is over!
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/Spinosaurus.shtml

[Fla Dem]

28. This is a BIG reason the rethugs want Obama to be a one term President

If a Republican is elected in 2012, there is a very good chance there will not be a liberal court again in my lifetime. For no other reason than this, Obama must get a 2nd term.

Four Supreme Court Justices are in their 70's....Ginsburg 78, Scalia 75, Kennedy 74, and Breyer 72. The remaining five are in their 50's and 60's;

Thomas 63
Alito 61
Sotomayor 57
Roberts 56
Kagan 51

If Obama is re-elected he has 5 years and 5 months from now left to serve. Just on age alone, there is a possibility of 4 retirements during that period. I'm betting that Ginsberg and Breyer will retire during an Obama 2nd term. If so, and they are replaced with justices in their 50's or 60's we will at least have 4 moderate/left of center justices for the next 20 years. If even one of the right wing justices leaves in the next 5 years along with Ginsberg and Breyer we could have a liberal court(5-4)for 20 years. On the other hand, if Obama is not re-elected, then over the next 2 presidential terms(if a republican is elected in 2012 and re-elected in 2016) the court could become a 7-2 right wing court. With all relatively young justices(50's & 60's) it could remain that way for the next 20 years.

In 5 years....
Ginsburg will be 83
Scalia 80
Kennedy 79
Breyer 77

Ages Justices have retired since 1980 (except for Renquist who died in 2005 while still serving at age 81)

Stewart retired at age 81 in 1981
Burger 79 1986
Powell 80 1987
Brennan 84 1990
Marshall 83 1991
Blackmun 86 1994
O'Connor 76 2006
Stevens 90 2010
Souter 70 2009

Just saying! :shrug:

[AikidoSoul]

95. You are absolutely right about this. N/T

[woo me with science]

85. There has been so much in our faces lately

my face is sore.

[tekisui]

2. Do you have a link? I would love to share this.

[roxiejules]

46. Alito's son works there, too

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/07/summer-associate-of-the-day-supreme-offspring/


Philip Alito, the eldest child of Justice Samuel A. Alito, is a summer associate at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, working out of the Washington office. Given the political orientation of Gibson’s D.C. office — home to leading legal conservatives like Ted Olson, Miguel Estrada, and Tom Hungar, as well as a slew of rising stars, like Thomas Dupree, Matthew McGill, and more SCOTUS clerks than you can shake a gavel at — Justice Alito’s son should fit right in.


Eugene Scalia: This son of Justice Antonin Scalia is one of the nation’s leading labor and employment lawyers. He previously served as Solicitor of the U.S. Department of Labor and is currently a partner at Gibson Dunn, where he serves on the Executive Committee and chairs the Labor and Employment and the Administrative Law practice groups. Most impressively, he was a finalist in our ERISA hotties contest, where one reader raved: “Even if you loathe Justice Scalia, take Eugene on his own terms: he’s tall, handsome, and always impeccably dressed. Plus, he’s very well-groomed — not a nose or ear hair in sight. A veritable ERISA Adonis!”

[roxiejules]

48. Oh, and Eugene Scalia argued winning side in Walmart v.

v. Maryland in July 2006.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Scalia#cite_note-0

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071901145.html

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/id.239/author.asp

[Land Shark]

63. Which case no longer appears on law firm bio, despite 2 wikipedia links to it

[Land Shark]

64. And Eugene Scalia is not simply "partner" but co-chair of Labor & Employment Practices group

Just see his current bio with the law firm, even after being scrubbed of the Wal-Mart case that used to be featured as significant litigation in his career. That Maryland case was in 2006, and the current bio still features numerous cases older than 2006. See http://www.gibsondunn.com/Lawyers/escalia

[Maine-ah]

65. Scalia's son's firm represents Wal-Mart, but it's OK by the rules

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=86192

the rules suck.

[checks-n-balances]

3. Too bad Scalia can't be impeached just for excessive Chutzpah

He's been testing the limits since even before he was appointed. Of all the rethugs I'd like to see fall someday soon..HARD...it would be this one.

[n2doc]

4. toon on this

[alstephenson]

6. 1+++++

Excellent toon.

[defendandprotect]

5. And where's Congress ... ?

[SDuderstadt]

7. Do you honestly think that...

if this is anywhere near the issue you think it is, counsel for plaintiffs would not have demanded that Scalia refuse himself?

[n2doc]

8. They did

http://www.legalnews.com/washtenaw/897359

Do you honestly think Scalia gives a rats ass about ethics?

[SDuderstadt]

9. I said "counsel for the plaintiffs"

not some advocacy group. I'd love to see Scalia off the court, but there's no evidence of a conflict of interest here.

[PoliticAverse]

10. Counsel didn't: "The group has failed to sway the attorney representing the workers"

"Joseph Sellers, who represents the women suing Wal-Mart, told Bloomberg News that he was not taking up the recusal cause."

[tkmorris]

11. Do you really think this ISN'T an issue?

Furthermore, do you really believe that Scalia would recuse himself just because of a little conflict of interest?

[SDuderstadt]

14. Yeah...

I don't think it's an issue. Neither did counsel for the plaintiffs.

You're assuming it is.

[Chef Eric]

54. You're making an assumption yourself.

You're assuming that the counsel for the plaintiffs didn't demand that Scalia recuse himself because it didn't recognize a problem.

Perhaps it did recognize a problem, but did not demand recusal because doing so would antagonize the court, thereby creating an even bigger problem.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[roxiejules]

47. Gibson Dunn Partner Eugene Scalia Takes a Pay Cut

to Avoid Recusal Issues for His Dad


http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/gibson_dunn_partner_eugene_scalia_takes_a_pay_cut_to_avoid_recusal_issues


Justice Antonin Scalia’s son, Euguene, is a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, the law firm representing Wal-Mart as it opposes a worker class action in a case argued Tuesday before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justice Scalia didn’t recuse because of his son’s financial sacrifice, the New York Lawyer reports. According to a letter released by Gibson Dunn, Eugene Scalia opted to exclude from his partner compensation any money attributed to the firm’s Supreme Court litigation.

The pay cut satisfies U.S. Supreme Court recusal guidelines adopted in 2003.

[PoliticAverse]

12. It's a problem with Supreme Court justices and relatives...

Ruth Bader Ginsberg participated in some decisions involving companies that her
husband owned stock in.

Should Supreme Court justices always follow the rules that lower court justices follow?

Should there be a mechanism to replace justices that recuse themselves in a decision?

[Unvanguard]

15. Scalia's son was not involved in the case. This is a non-issue.

Do you think the relatives of Supreme Court justices should be incapable of being partners in major law firms? Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher is also representing the plaintiffs in the case challenging Prop. 8; do you think Scalia will be swayed to vote in favor of that challenge as a consequence?

[roxiejules]

49. Eugene argued the winning side in Walmart v. Marlyand 2006

It seems like he is more than just casually 'not involved' ... having represented Walmart in the past.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Scalia

[Land Shark]

67. Eugene Scalia's "Labor & Employment" group he co-chairs rep'd Wal-Mart in the US Supreme Court 2011!

See the Gibson Dunn "Client Alert" on the Supreme Court decision, the last sentence of which states:

"Gibson Dunn represented Wal-Mart in this {US Supreme Court Wal-Mart} appeal."

http://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/Pages/Wal-MartvDukes.aspx

[RaleighNCDUer]

82. Yeah - it's not like they're going to talk about the case over Thanksgiving dinner

and lay out the strategies that will work best to get the results they want. That's inconceivable.

[former9thward]

17. I don't know why people keep on posting this was a 5-4 case.

It was 8-0.

[Unvanguard]

19. It was 5-4 on important legal questions, even though unanimous on other questions. n/t.

[former9thward]

21. No it wasn't.

It was 8-0 on the specific Wal-Mart case. All justices said that particular suit could not go forward as a class action. It was 5-4 on tightening up class action requirements for future suits.

[Unvanguard]

24. It wasn't 8-0 on anything, as far as I can tell.

No recusals.

Given that the weight of the criticism of the case was directed at its implications, not at the particular outcome with respect to Wal-Mart, it's perfectly reasonable to note that there was a 5-4 split on issues pertinent to future cases.

[former9thward]

27. The poster I was replying to mentioned Wal-Mart not hypothetical future cases.

"The Supreme Court ruled 8-0 against allowing the lawsuit against Walmart to continue as a class-action suit." http://miami.cbslocal.com/2011/06/20/fla-workers-may-be-impacted-by-walmart-decision/. The decision was unanimous as to parts I and III of the decision. Part II was 5-4. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-277.pdf. This has been reported as 8-0 in many different sources but I am not sure why. I see no recuses.

[Fire1]

18. Why should they hide? They possess "entitlement." n/t

[librechik]

20. Scalia doesn't recuse for any reason, becasue he is a SUPER SUPREME

no close relationship with a plaintiff or defendant will ever make him make the wrong decision. HE NEVER MAKES MISTAKES.

So stop worrying, everything's fine.

[SDuderstadt]

23. There was no reason for him to recuse himself...

in this particular case.

[bluestate10]

40. I disagree. An ethical jurist would have recuse himself or herself.

Two of President Obama's appointees have done that once each in their short time on the bench. Neither had to recuse, but both did to avoid even the hint that their decision was biased.

[SDuderstadt]

43. Even counsel for the plaintiffs...

thought recusal was not an issue.

[druidity33]

57. Scalia

followed a technicality that allowed him to continue with the case. From a post upthread:


"Justice Antonin Scalia’s son, Euguene, is a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, the law firm representing Wal-Mart as it opposes a worker class action in a case argued Tuesday before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justice Scalia didn’t recuse because of his son’s financial sacrifice, the New York Lawyer reports. According to a letter released by Gibson Dunn, Eugene Scalia opted to exclude from his partner compensation any money attributed to the firm’s Supreme Court litigation.

The pay cut satisfies U.S. Supreme Court recusal guidelines adopted in 2003."


I think the Plaintiffs would have asked for recusal if not for this preemptive move by Gibson Dunn. Your allusion that "even the Plaintiffs didn't think it was necessary" is false. They couldn't pursue that avenue without a major fight, so they chose not to... doesn't mean they didn't think it was important.


:shrug:

[indepat]

22. Corruption, mendacity, venality, and malfeasance of office run amok imo

It's let's have a big piss on the Constitution and the government of, by, and for the people. :patriot:

[Uncle Joe]

25. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Bravo.

[Blue Owl]

26. Well of course!

That slimy fuck is in the SC for one purpose only -- and it AIN'T JUSTICE.

[AtomicKitten]

29. Goddamn it. It's conflict-of-interest-palooza and they have no shame. nt

[SDuderstadt]

31. Not even counsel for the...

plaintiffs thought so.

[spanone]

30. corruption is rampant.

i'm cynical. i used to give politicians the benefit of the doubt. no more.

there may be no corruption here, but i suspect it's pretty rampant.

[toddwv]

32. "Good job today handling that case, son!"

"Now give me my check."

[SDuderstadt]

34. The son wasn't even...

involved in the case. Even counsel for the plaintiffs did not see a need for Scalia to recuse himself.

[11 Bravo]

38. Or possibly plaintiff's counsel understood that Scalia has the sole discretion to determine ...

whether or not he need recuse himself from any case, appearance of impropriety be damned; and decided not to bother. But then, you're clearly the mind reader here, so obviously counsel for the plaintiff simply "did not see a need".

[SDuderstadt]

44. Who's "reading minds"...

here?

[Aerows]

68. Attorneys fighting with Supreme Court Justices

rarely turns out well. Whether he wanted him to recuse himself or not, no one that wants to win future cases is going to do so.

[SDuderstadt]

69. Read post #...

65.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Aerows]

74. It isn't relevant to my point

Which was that attorneys don't like to go up against judges because there can be an impact in future cases, particularly if there is a risk that they might lose against the judge.

[SDuderstadt]

75. All of which was made irrelevant...

as pointed out in post # 65.

[Aerows]

76. I made a general statement

I wasn't referring specifically to this case, so no, it wasn't made irrelevant by #65.

[SDuderstadt]

77. Actually, it...

was.

You can continue to belabor this if you'd like. This is my stop.

[Aerows]

78. No it wasn't

That's my opinion. Your opinion, of course, differs.

We can "belabor" our difference of opinion on what you think I said vs. what I actually said all day long, if you like. It will go something like this: Yes it was. No it wasn't.

That's typically what happens when people have differing opinions :D.

[SDuderstadt]

79. Belabor away...

Like I said, this is my stop.

[Aerows]

84. But you haven't stopped yet

That's what's hilarious here.

[Hotler]

33. kicking n/t

[0rganism]

35. if conflicts of interest and corruption were holes...

Scalia and Thomas (and a few other justices) would be swiss cheese.

[Canuckistanian]

36. Didn't make the news, of course

It wasn't even discussed here much. I just found out 2 weeks ago.

[SpiralHawk]

37. Republicon Family Cesspool Ethics

as usual.

[bluestate10]

39. Scalia is corrupt to the core. Nature will correct that soon one must hope. nt

[HowHasItComeToThis]

91. I AM SO TIRED OF CORRUPT REPUBLICANS

CORRUPT INC

[robinlynne]

42. Wasn't his son also representing Bush in Bush vs Gore before the Supremes?

[whyzayker]

58. Yup

At various stages in Eugene Scalia's legal career, Gibson Dunn has stated it was complying with the Court's recusal policy. His employment at Gibson Dunn in 2000 briefly became an issue when firm partner Theodore Olson argued in Bush v. Gore before the Supreme Court.

We also wrote about the potential conflict in 2001 when President George W. Bush appointed Eugene Scalia as solicitor for the Labor Department, just months after Bush v. Gore was decided. Business groups feared the justice would have to recuse in cases in which his son appeared on a government brief for the Labor Department.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleSCI.jsp?id=1202486353287&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1

[glinda]

45. K & R n/t

[butterfly77]

50. I have wonder what is wrong with Dems..

in the past they would have investigated,looked at,turned over every rock to show how republiCONS and other politicians and their family members were connected to big business on so many levels.

Who writes the laws?Enacts the laws? Who makes sure all of the money and jobs are directed to their friends and families in many areas?

They are so damn greedy,they don't care about the majority of the people they cause problems for the majority of us and make money off of those problems.

Then they tell us we aren't good enough so they go overseas to get workers and those workers usually become better off than those who have been here for decades.

They take OUR MONEY and use it to benefit everyone but us then they tell us to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. Nepotism is rampant in all institutions in this country. Why is Tim Russert's son a commentator on msnbc? Is he somehow suppose to be so much better than others because he is Russert's son,and isn't Willie Geist somehow connect to people in so called high places?Does Willie Geist still hang out with Tucker Carlson?

[ddeclue]

51. doesn't necessarily make it a conflict of interest.

Scalia's son wasn't arguing before the supreme court in this case was he?

Should Scalia's son be precluded from arguing before SCOTUS just because his dad is a justice?

I think you'd have to show more than that.

[rpannier]

52. He's representing Boeing right now. nt

[The Wizard]

53. Every time Scalia opens his mouth in court

he's committing malpractice.

[obxhead]

55. Shocked!1!!wons!1!!

No, not even a little bit.

(edit to spell ones correctly) ;)

[TrollBuster9090]

56. After the Cheney DUCK HUNTING trip, this goes down as a MILD example of Scalia corruption. nt

[bulloney]

59. Judges used to recuse themselves if there was even a whiff of a conflict of interest.

But not this SCOTUS. If integrity was cotton, you couldn't get enough from the likes of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito to make a T-shirt for a piss ant.

[Enthusiast]

60. Republican cesspool family values?

Yup

[barbtries]

61. it's probably how the kid got the job

i think they call it quid pro quo, correct me if i'm wrong.

[Orrex]

62. Holy shit! Do you know what this means?!?

Someone was willing to have sex with Antonin Scalia!

:puke:
:puke:
:puke:

[Aerows]

66. Between him and Clarence Thomas

It's one conflict of interest after another.

[radhika]

90. The difference is style....only

The old-school way is to place your legal business with firms that are well connected politically or via bloodlines. It's done low-key, businesslike. It's been going on so long, we don't really even consider this conflict-of-interest. The MSM definitely doesn't jump on it. it looks and is totally legal.

The clarence-and-ginni show was just way too out-there! She was noisily ranting against Obama and ACR in a way intended to attract Bagger cred. So, some folks did some looking and reporting. The disclosure form omission started the snowball growing. Hmm, the snoball seems to have melted already. Around the time of the Anthony Weiner fiasco. Seen any C&G stories lately?

[mojowork_n]

70. Here in WI, the state Supreme Court just voted 'no recusal'

Conflicts of interest are no big deal:

If a justice is accused of bias, only that justice gets to decide whether to stay on a case, the ruling says.

"A majority of this court does not have the power to disqualify a judicial peer from performing the constitutional functions of a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice on a case-by-case basis," the majority decision said.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/125432173.html

They couldn't resist kicking a little sand, on top of the injury, on an earlier dispute:

"...Some, speaking anonymously, have said Bradley came at Prosser with her fists up and he put up his hands to block her or push her back. Prosser has said only that early media accounts of the incident will be proven false."

[Hubert Flottz]

72. Justice is for those who can best afford it.

The Outlaws have taken over the SCOTUS. Makes you feel proud to be an American don't it? A place where a dope snorting drunk driving AWOL playboy can pretend that he grew up and then become pResident, thanks to a four to five vote by the most corrupt court in the land. Stealing the election in 2000 was the tip of the iceberg for the gangsters on the highest court in the land.

[The Backlash Cometh]

73. This shit is more common than you realize.

[harmonicon]

80. old news

One or more of his sons were also involved on the Bush side in Bush v. Gore.

[Jakes Progress]

81. But, but we must look ahead.

Don't concentrate on past actions. Just look the future. Race to the future.

Not one thing will be done. The chickenshit WH and the chickenshit New Democrats will cower and shake. If there is no camera for the kabuki, there will be no reaction. If it won't advance their reelection, they don't give a damn.

[abelenkpe]

83. K & R nt

[Moostache]

86. Its time to replace the entire court.

The fact that the so-called liberal/progressive justices do not even raise this issue calls into question their own legitimacy in my eyes. They should be HOWLING in protest over the Thomas and Scalia scandals and yet they sit by, calm as Hindu cows, passively watching the destruction of the republic and the downfall of this government without so much as a peep.

Fuck them all....its time to clean house....Return the entire sitting Congress and all Supreme Court Justices and the President to civilian life by any means necessary and start the fuck over. I could find better representation by putting 9 average Joes on the Court, finding the first 637 eligible people off the street and picking a President at random from a phone book.

[Vinca]

87. This is the one reason we have to re-elect Obama no matter what.

If another right wing shill gets on the court it's over.

[Beavker]

89. I don't care about the semantics really.

Scalia's kid works for the firm that is defending Wal-Mart, and Justice Scalia also had to rule on the case. 8-0, 5-4, not being paid, blah blah...the dudes kid works for the firm. Even if he wasn't on the case and was litigating squirrel molestations, Justice Scalia still would be too close to it. And a normal level headed human could make the call for or against regardless. Dad's bench their kids all the time when they aren't playing well (sports analogy). But this guy's a damn right wing pig with a precedent of siding with Corporations and Teabaggers.

When the NCAA March Madness Bracket is decided, the Presidents of a particular conference can't decide on a team from the conference they preside over. I'd guess if that President had a kid on a team from another conference, they'd ask him to NOT be involved with that decision either.

That is the issue. These guys are sociapathic, right wingers. They are smart people, that got them where they are. Doesn't mean they have a conscience though.

[kag]

94. Yes.

I once took my landlord to small claims court. The "judge" was just some lawyer from the community that they got to decide the SC cases pro-bono.

Well, the first round, the guy recused himself because his friend's brother was a partner in the property management company that owned my building. His FRIEND'S BROTHER!!! Now, if THAT guy can do it, and it was important enough for him to do it, then it has to be important enough for Scalia when his own son is on one of the teams.

This is not rocket science.

[valerief]

92. The Mafia likes to keep it all in the family, er, Family. nt

[lark]

93. NO, they know they are totally safe from the current doj

After all, Obama/Holder only prosecute Dems. Repugs go scott free for same things they are prosecuting Dems for. Disgusting.