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
Many foreigners, particularly Germans, are struck by the efficiency of Taiwan’s administration in routine matters. Driver’s licenses, household registrations and similar procedures are handled swiftly, often decided on the spot, and occasionally even accompanied by preferential treatment. However, this efficiency does not extend to all areas of government. Any foreigner with long-term residency in Taiwan — just like any Taiwanese — would have encountered the opposite: agencies, most notably the police, refusing to accept complaints and sending applicants away at the counter without consideration. This kind of behavior, although less common in other agencies, still occurs far too often. Two cases
In a summer of intense political maneuvering, Taiwanese, whose democratic vibrancy is a constant rebuke to Beijing’s authoritarianism, delivered a powerful verdict not on China, but on their own political leaders. Two high-profile recall campaigns, driven by the ruling party against its opposition, collapsed in failure. It was a clear signal that after months of bitter confrontation, the Taiwanese public is demanding a shift from perpetual campaign mode to the hard work of governing. For Washington and other world capitals, this is more than a distant political drama. The stability of Taiwan is vital, as it serves as a key player
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Most countries are commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II with condemnations of militarism and imperialism, and commemoration of the global catastrophe wrought by the war. On the other hand, China is to hold a military parade. According to China’s state-run Xinhua news agency, Beijing is conducting the military parade in Tiananmen Square on Sept. 3 to “mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II and the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression.” However, during World War II, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had not yet been established. It
RSS