Although the official title of a member of the US Supreme Court is "justice," some Supreme Court members have made a mockery of that term by going against basic principles of legal ethics
It is widely believed that Justice Antonin Scalia will be the next chief justice if George Bush wins a second term. But a number of recent incidents call Scalia's ethics into question.
Vice President Dick Cheney had to answer accusations over his involvement in the energy task force in court last year. It was later revealed that Cheney and Scalia had spent a few days duck hunting together at a private camp in southern Louisiana at the same time that Scalia was hearing Cheney's case, which brought Scalia's impartiality into question, leading to calls that he recuse himself from the case.
This was not the first time Scalia had assisted the Bush-Cheney team. It was Scalia's judgment that helped uphold their claims about the Florida polls in the 2000 US presidential elections. Scalia heard the case even though his son was a member of a law firm that was working for Bush.
Such behavior have led some to suggest that Scalia and others should really be called "injustices." Even TV programs have ridiculed Scalia, and thereby brought into public question the impartiality of the Supreme Court.
When Franklin Roosevelt was president, he often negotiated bills with justice Felix Frankfurter. During the Truman administration, chief justice Fred Vinson played the role of political consultant for Harry Truman. But the most scandalous was Abe Fortas.
Fortas was a well-known attorney. He was Lyndon Johnson's long-time friend, and managed his legal affairs. When Johnson became president, he appointed Fortas to the Supreme Court, replacing associate justice Arthur Goldberg in 1965. When chief justice Earl Warren announced his retirement in June 1968, Johnson nominated Fortas to replace Warren.
Despite his position, Fortas did not change his political habits, and often went to the White House to discuss important national issues with Johnson. He offered his opinions on issues ranging from the Vietnam War to elections.
According to Alexander Charns's book Cloak and Gavel: FBI Wiretaps, Bugs, Informers and the Supreme Court, the most unbelievable incident involving Fortas was when he volunteered to be an informer for FBI director J. Edgar Hoover. Subsequently, he often exchanged secrets with the FBI deputy director.
However, Fortas' confirmation as chief justice by the Senate ran into trouble because Fortas exceeded his designated powers under the Constitution. Under intense congressional scrutiny, Fortas resigned, marking one of the darkest periods in the court's history.
So much for US Supreme Court justices. In Taiwan, where justices are more partisan than those in the US, can we boast that our justices never exceed their powers? Are all our justices as pure as the driven snow?
Not if you believe independent legislator Su Ying-kuei (
He has no need to hold back. Instead, he should tell the public everything he knows, and reveal the "black hand" -- if there is such a person -- that caused two grand justices to act in such an unethical fashion.
As for his trivial excuses for not divulging the justices' identities, Su should keep these to himself, lest he make himself a laughingstock.
Wang Chien-chuang is president of The Journalist magazine.
TRANSLATED BY LIN YA-TI
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with