|A justice of the Supreme Court that appointed George Bush wants to know why his friendship with Dick Cheney should recuse him from judgment on a case before the court that involves the vice president.
Antonin Scalia, who may or may not know a thing or two about the law, obviously has much learn about human nature.
"If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined," Scalia wrote in a defiant 21-page memorandum, according to the New York Times.
Nino, what are you saying here? You can't be bought cheap? Then tell us how much. How many ducks, how many trips, how many male-bonding jokes and claps on the back to make you feel alive again, one of the boys, free for once of your robes and that Ginsberg bitch, finally hanging with the real men, shooting off real guns?
Nino, Nino, Nino. Your judgment is way off. There is never, under any circumstances, cause for a 21-page memorandum on any subject, let alone ducks. All this exercise demonstrates is your emotional attachment to a buddy. Yes, you should be recused. Shame on you, moron. A 21-page rant. This is something I want to read in its entirety: it is sure to provide a fruit basket of delicious quotations.
The case, which is being brought against the vice president by the Sierra Club,* involves the club's unsuccessful attempts to obtain information about what transpired in private meetings of the vice president's energy task force in 2001. You may remember this case. It involved "Kenny Boy" Lay and the Enron gang, among others, before the fall of Enron and the Iraq war. This information, if obtained, could easily contain smoking guns.
Tony, who was one of the five American voters who elected George W. Bush President of the United States said that other justices have partied at Dick's house, in fact, just this last Christmas, a Christian holiday celebrating economic excess. "A rule that required members of this court to remove themselves from cases in which official actions of friends were at issue would be utterly disabling," Scalia wrote.
Meaning you couldn't do your job if you couldn't party with the same people you may have to judge one day? Disabling?
There is a law against this sort of thing, correct?
This justice needs to be disabled permanently. What's the procedure for impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice? I'm going to hunt for that 21-page salute to stupidity. Let's all go duck hunting.
Hey, Nino. Duck.