pageok
pageok
pageok
Eyewitness to the Scalia Snub:

Sean Sirrine was at the scene of the snub as it was occurring and reports Justice Scalia's words--"My new Chief Justice has just been sworn in."

As Sean observes, "Sounds like he really has it in for that guy."

number 4:
Clearly he used "my" to imply that, through his ethics code-violating junket to Colorado and like trips, he has convinced the Federalist Society -- which owns the Court (no, really, check the land records) -- to gift him the institution.

So if you were planning to get that abortion or same-sex marriage in the Supreme Court building, sorry, you waited too long.
1.24.2006 11:51pm
KMAJ (mail):
It appears that ABC was engaging in Rathergate type journalism. The Federalist Society had talked to the producer and reporter [rior to the story airing and pointed out the fallacies in their story and ABC did not change them, as well as ABC possibly violating the law to get this story. They did not have permission from the hotel or the Federalist Society to shoot this story.

The conservative site, Human Events Online has a story, Federalist Society Slams ABC's Scalia Story: Repeat of Rather-Mapes. At the bottom of the story they presented the Federalist Society release below:

Federalist Society Executive Vice President Leonard Leo released the following information Tuesday in response to the ABC News report about Justice Antonin Scalia's attendance at a Federalist Society-sponsored legal seminar last September.


Justice Scalia....Teaches A Course
The Facts


1. Justice Scalia taught a comprehensive course about the separation of powers under our Constitution. Reminiscent of Dan Rather's and Mary Mapes's false National Guard story, ABC Nightline knew in advance of airing its program that he did not simply "attend" a "judicial education seminar, " and it grossly misled viewers by suggesting that the event was a "junket" rather than a serious scholarly program that required much work and advance preparation.

• Justice Scalia taught a 10-hour course while in Colorado, lecturing the more than 100 lawyers in attendance as well as answering numerous questions they presented.

• Prior to the course, Justice Scalia produced a 481-page course book containing edited cases on separation of powers issues. All attendees received the book in advance and were expected to review the material and prepare in advance of the course.

• Justice Scalia arrived and left Colorado without spending any extra days to engage in recreational activity. He arrived at the hotel the night before the course at 11 p.m., having traveled by car for three hours the night before. He departed at around 6:30 a.m. the morning after the course ended in order to fly back home. The event started at 8 a.m. each of the mornings, and, despite ABC Nightline's emphasis on Justice Scalia participating in tennis at the hotel, he spent less than two hours playing the game over the course of those two days.

• Justice Scalia presented the course with LSU Law Professor John Baker. Both were present together on the rostrum for the ten hour course, and both received reimbursement for travel and lodging.

• John Baker received an honorarium. Justice Scalia did not.

2. Justice Scalia did not attend Chief Justice Roberts's swearing-in ceremony at the White House on September 29 because he chose to respect a longstanding commitment to teach a course to over 100 lawyers who had traveled from at least 38 states. This was not, as Nightline suggested, missing an important Washington function so as not to miss a tennis outing.

• There was virtually no advance notice that John Roberts would be confirmed and sworn-in on September 29. It was not absolutely clear until the day before.

• Justice Scalia had accepted the invitation to teach on October 10, 2004—nearly a year before the course dates. Almost all participants had registered and paid for the course by August 2005, nearly two months in advance.

• To have cancelled just a couple of days before the start of the course would have caused many attendees to lose the money the spent on plane tickets and hotel deposits, and, as the sponsor, the Federalist Society would have faced tens of thousands of dollars in damages that would have to be paid to the hotel for breaking a contract.

3. Justice Scalia was teaching a scholarly program that was educationally rigorous and open to anyone who wanted to come.

• The course was approved by at least 30 state bars for continuing legal education credit. Most of the lawyers in attendance have to take such accredited continuing legal education programs in order to remain licensed to practice law.

• The Federalist Society welcomed anyone who wished to come to the event. Members simply were asked to pay the registration fee, and non-members were welcome to attend if they paid the Society's nominal dues ($5 for students, $25 for lawyers) along with the registration fee. Indeed, at least 10 of those who came to the course were non-members who joined and paid the registration fee in order to attend.

• More than 100 lawyers and law students were in attendance.

4. ABC Nightline was fully aware that its piece was misleading and inaccurate, and the way in which it prepared the story bespeaks hypocrisy.

• Several hours before the program aired, the Federalist Society spoke with Nightline's senior producer, David Scott, as well as the investigative reporter who worked on the story, Rhonda Schwartz. The Federalist Society set forth the above facts and made very clear that tennis occupied a miniscule part of Justice Scalia's time in Colorado. Nightline nevertheless chose to lead with a "tennis outing" theme and grossly failed to present the facts surrounding the course in a way that demonstrated the amount of time and work involved.

• At least a week before this conversation, the Federalist Society had spoken with Rhonda Schwartz and informed her in explicit terms that Justice Scalia taught a 10-hour course attended by lawyers. Nonetheless, ABC's website, on the night of the broadcast, cast the issue as Justice Scalia attending a judicial education seminar. There is a world of difference between teaching a 10-hour course and coming to a resort to hear other speakers between various recreational activities—but Nightline chose to manufacture the false impression that Justice Scalia was at a function that entailed much play and little work.

• It is ironic that, in preparing a story that seeks to make the point that judges should be held to high standards of ethical integrity, ABC itself broke the law by trespassing on private property and invading the privacy of private individuals who did not give permission to be videotaped. Indeed, ABC contacted the hotel for permission to film the Society's activities, and permission was denied by hotel management.
1.25.2006 5:05am
Al Maviva (mail):
Cool. While we're at it, I'd like to turn in Justices Ginsburg and Breyer for their participation in similar unconscionably unethical judicial junkets on behalf of the American Constitution Society. Sauce for the gander, and all...
1.25.2006 8:25am
Juan Notwithstanding the Volokh:
>ABC possibly violating the law to get this story. They did not have permission from the hotel or the Federalist Society to shoot this story.

Let's all agree the story was ridiculous, but if there is a law that purports to prevent a journalist from shooting a story about an event without the permission of the event planner or the owner of the site of the event, it would likely violate the First Amendment.
1.25.2006 8:28am
ytterbium (mail):
"would likely violate the first amendment"

"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW" is not permission to trespass.
1.25.2006 10:05am
Stan Morris (mail):
I went to a similar lecture at Tamarron Resort, just north of Durango, CO in 2001. I got to ask several direct questions during the two days of the session. The questions flew hot and heavy while the Justice was "on." I also got to spend a whole 15 minutes talking with Justice Scalia - about Colorado's Westslope fly fishing. I was enlightened and stimuled by my contact with both the Justice and Professor Baker. This after, at that time, 30 years a lawyer. It took me about a half a minute to realize that Prof. Kerr's posting was what it is. Then I laughed uproariously BTW, my Federalist Society dues are $50 per year.
1.25.2006 11:58am
Sisyphus:
One thing that also seems to be missing from this ABC report is any reporting on whether it was in fact a snub of CJ Roberts. If Justice Scalia had simply told Chief Justice Roberts of his reason for missing the ceremony, and Roberts had both excused and forgiven him in light of the circumstances, then I expect even Emily Post would have said it was acceptable for Scalia to teach his seminar for Federalist Society members, and Roberts would have no reason to take offense.

While it's true the etiquette of the situation is not relevant to the ethics of the situation, it is in my view more important. The ceremony, while serving the important legal function of swearing in Chief Justice Roberts, was essentially irrelevant for the legal functions and duties which Scalia has undertaken as a Justice. However, it may be quite important for Scalia's role on the Court for him to maintain polite relations with Roberts. Good manners make good neighbors, after all.

Sadly, this is a point that ABC seemed to miss. Which is not at all surprising, since they had the gall not only to trespass, but to crash an event they had not been invited to. Their behavior was possibly illegal, but it was certainly rude.
1.25.2006 12:11pm
Neal Lang (mail):
Let's all agree the story was ridiculous, but if there is a law that purports to prevent a journalist from shooting a story about an event without the permission of the event planner or the owner of the site of the event, it would likely violate the First Amendment.

The last time I checked - only the Congress (now all State and Local governments, as well, by Supreme Court diktat) can violate the 1st Amendment. Of course, I might not be fully appraised of the Supreme's latest "penumbra".
1.25.2006 12:46pm
Neal Lang (mail):
Good manners make good neighbors, after all.

As do guns!
1.25.2006 12:48pm
T E (mail):
""CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW" is not permission to trespass."

So are you saying that the Ritz Carlton rented each of its 237 rooms to members of the Federalist Society and put up a big sign saying that only Federalist Society guests could be on the property?

Otherwise why do you think it was trespassing?
1.25.2006 1:05pm
KMAJ (mail):
So are you saying that the Ritz Carlton rented each of its 237 rooms to members of the Federalist Society and put up a big sign saying that only Federalist Society guests could be on the property?

Otherwise why do you think it was trespassing?


Come on, you are not seriously presenting this as an argument ? The business has the right to protect the privacy of their customers on their property. That would not prevent them from entering the hotel lobby and getting, or trying to get (if the hotel is fully booked), a room. But they certainly have the right to prevent you from wandering their hallways and their property if you are not a customer, it is NOT public property. And, having been turned down a request for permission to bring cameras on to the property, the media has no right to violate private property laws, or the privacy of customers, and use hidden cameras. That would be domestic spying, without a court order, by a non-governmental organization. Those who are against the NSA surveillance should be up in arms about this unprovoked intrusion by a private sector organization.
1.25.2006 1:33pm
T E (mail):
Sorry, KMAJ, you're wrong.

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy on the tennis court of a resort frequented by hundreds or thousands of people a day.

And, no offense intended, but your comments about "domestic spying" sound a little wing-nutty.
1.25.2006 1:53pm
KMAJ (mail):
Let's see, T.E. So if you use a cell phone over public airwaves, you would also have no reasonable expectation of privacy. This is private property, not public property, you are talking about. If an organization has been refused permission to tape on said private property, it would not only be reasonable to expect such privacy, to willfully violate that explicit prohibition would certainly raise criminal intent issues.

No offense taken, as well as, no offense intended, but your defense sounds like a little ideological demogoguery and hypocrisy.
1.25.2006 3:30pm
T E (mail):

Let's see, T.E. So if you use a cell phone over public airwaves, you would also have no reasonable expectation of privacy. This is private property, not public property, you are talking about.

I think the better analogy here would be a megaphone, not a cell phone.
1.25.2006 3:52pm
JPF (mail):
T.E.--

The distinguishing characteristic is in your statement above: "...on the tennis court of a resort frequented..."

The fact that it is frequented by hundreds or even thousands per day does not matter if those hundreds or thousands have a license to be there (i.e., paid guests or invitees of the conference). A resort is such an animal--exclusive to invitees.

Secondly, a trespass law applies generally--there is no First Amendment journalistic protection for trespass (see the case of KDKA/PIttsburgh news investigator Marty Grifin who was cited for trespassing after hours at a Port Authority bus garage...doing a story showing exactly how easy it was to gain access to said bus garage). If one criminally trespasses, and it is a generally-applicable trespass law, pursuit of a First Amendment- protected journalistic activity isn't really a defense.
1.25.2006 4:04pm
T E (mail):
But, so as to stop boring others with this, I think you and I will agree KMAJ that the only way to really solve this is for someone to atttempt to prosecute the claims you assert and that ain't gonna happen.

But a broader question: First I doubt that Scalia gives a hoot about any of this, but why are people who have allied themselves with him so irate.

I mean Scalia has questioned whether there is even a right of privacy at all, even in the context of marriage, contraception, and sexual relations. If so, why are his bumblings around a tennis court so sacrosanct?

I can understand that he (or his self-appointed guardians) might be embarassed by the fact that he doesn't seem to know what to do with a tennis racket - but so what?
1.25.2006 4:04pm
T E (mail):

The fact that it is frequented by hundreds or even thousands per day does not matter if those hundreds or thousands have a license to be there (i.e., paid guests or invitees of the conference). A resort is such an animal--exclusive to invitees.

Really? There are 6 or 7 restaurants there, a bar, etc. What about the following:

1) Can a person go there for drinks at the restaurant and then walk out onto the terrace overlooking the tennis courts?

2) If you are sitting on the terrace enjoying a drink and you look down and see Scalia bumbling around with a racket in plain view of everyone, can you take a picture of him?

3) If you are a reporter, can you hang around in the hallway hoping to run into Scalia? If not, what if you buy a drink in the bar first?
1.25.2006 4:12pm
T E (mail):

The fact that it is frequented by hundreds or even thousands per day does not matter if those hundreds or thousands have a license to be there (i.e., paid guests or invitees of the conference). A resort is such an animal--exclusive to invitees.

Really? There are 6 or 7 restaurants there, a bar, etc. What about the following:

1) Can a person go there for drinks at the restaurant and then walk out onto the terrace overlooking the tennis courts?

2) If you are sitting on the terrace enjoying a drink and you look down and see Scalia bumbling around with a racket in plain view of everyone, can you take a picture of him?

3) If you are a reporter, can you hang around in the hallway hoping to run into Scalia? If not, what if you buy a drink in the bar first?
1.25.2006 4:12pm
Sean Sirrine (mail) (www):
Ok people, I feel that I have to jump in here about the legality of the cameras at the Ritz.

First of all, the Ritz in Avon is a highly private resort that is only reached by a private road. You have to have permission from the hotel to even get close enough to see the damn thing.

Your ridiculous comment that "hundreds of thousands" of people play tennis there is more than misguided, it is laughable.

The policy at the Ritz was that cameras that were authorized by Justice Scalia were welcome to take pictures, (in fact I have a picture of him and I speaking outside), but any unauthorized photography would get you ejected.

So, lets see, private property that can't be viewed without permission of the owners, and rules that must be obeyed in order to stay on the private property.

I think if you watch the video of Scalia playing tennis you get a good idea of whether or not the cameraman thought he was doing something he should have been. The rest of us were on thew court watching or playing tennis with Scalia during our lunch break for the day. We didn't have to hide behind the bushes to take a picture.

Do you have a 1st Amendment Right to come into my house and take pictures of my guests if I tell you not to? i don't think so. If you flagrently broke the rules I laid down for entering my house, (thats a contract right?), I'd sue the pants off of you. Not because I'm sue happy, but to make a statement that my establishment will have none of those shenanigans.

You know what? I'd win too.
1.25.2006 4:25pm
KMAJ (mail):
T.E.

I will agree that no prosecution is likely to happen, Scalia or the hotel would have to file suit. Scalia could probably care less, as he did nothing wrong, and the hotel would not want the negative publicity that they cannot protect their customers privacy nor would they want the press camped out on their doorstep for coverage. In all likelihood, the hotel will enact more stringent security procedures to prevent it from occurring again.

My concern is not how Scalia handles a tennis racket, but the facetious creation of a news story and the appearance of an agenda driven reason for said creation. When a leading media organization stoops to the level of the papparazzi for the National Enquirer, it certainly goes to the heart of the integrity and credibility, or lack thereof, of said media organization. As such, those that defend or support such tactics cast a light on their own credibility and integrity.

The fact that this non-story is being discussed at all belies your 'give a hoot' rationale. People should be concerned when news organizations engage in what can only be described as an attempt to smear and cast aspersions by innuendo, distortion and lies. This type of character assassination is propaganda, and has no redeeming value in a free society. It is something one would expect in a personal blog or exploitation rag, not from a serious news organization.
1.25.2006 4:28pm
T E (mail):

If you flagrently broke the rules I laid down for entering my house, (thats a contract right?), I'd sue the pants off of you. Not because I'm sue happy, but to make a statement that my establishment will have none of those shenanigans.

You know what? I'd win too

Gee, I had planned on entering your house to take pictures of you while you were watering your orchids, but now that you have made such a scary and intimidating threat, I guess I will cancel my flight.
1.25.2006 4:34pm
T E (mail):

Your ridiculous comment that "hundreds of thousands" of people play tennis there is more than misguided, it is laughable.



I said that the resort is frequented by hundreds or even thousands of people every day. Given that it has over 200 rooms, a golf course, a spa, 6 restaurants and also hosts events like the Federalist one at issue - I think that hundreds or thousands of people probably do go there every day.

Before calling somebody's comments ridiculous, misguided and laughable, perhaps you should read the comment first.
1.25.2006 4:38pm
Sean Sirrine (mail) (www):
I'm sorry you're right. It is laughable that you think that hundreds OR thousands of people are on that tennis court every day. Like I said it is a highly private hotel in a very out-of-the-way part of the country. I was there for two days and saw maybe 40 people that weren't there for the Federalist event while I ate at the restaurants and spent the evenings by the bonfire.I would be surprised if the hotel saw 200 people anywhere on their property in a day, let alone on the tennis court.

This, however, is besides the point. You were trying to say that this so-called reporter has some sort of right to take pictures of people by trespassing or violating a contract that he/she has made. Do you still stand by that assessment? Do you have the legal right to trespass and break contracts?

I don't particualarly care that they got this video, it just makes them look like children that weren't allowed to the adult table. Frankly, I disagree with Scalia's rules for media coverage, but "thems the rules" as they say, and acting in an illegal manner to create a story that they could have written much better by just paying the fees to enter the class strikes me as, well, dumb.

ABC has now entered into the arena of trash-mags like the Enquirer and Star. If you can't come up with a good story, get some secret photos and make ridiculous comments about them. Most of us know those people as paparazzi filth. Would you be making the same comments if the pictures were of Scalia naked? Or would that cross the line? Don't tell me he doesn't have any privacy rights, he is an American just like you or me.
1.25.2006 4:58pm
T E (mail):

You were trying to say that this so-called reporter has some sort of right to take pictures of people by trespassing or violating a contract that he/she has made. Do you still stand by that assessment? Do you have the legal right to trespass and break contracts?


No, I certainly was not saying that someone has the right to take pictures of people by trespassing. My argument that it is by no means clear that there was trespass in the first place. I mean on one hand, you (at least I believe it was you) has said that this resort is miles up a private road and you can't get near it unless you invited. If so, I wonder how the reporter/photographer got in? Did the sneak through the woods? By parachute?

I won't get into the supposed "break contracts" argument because it is just silly. Unless of course you can show me some contract signed by the photographer or give us a tape recording of the terms of their oral agreement.



"Frankly, I disagree with Scalia's rules for media coverage"


Nino may be able to enforce "Scalia's Rules" while in the Supreme Court building, but when he ventures out into the real world, he ain't go not more rights than anybody.

"Would you be making the same comments if the pictures were of Scalia naked? Or would that cross the line?"

Well, if Scalia was out schlubbing around on a tennis court at the Ritz Carleton in plain view at a resort which is visited by hundreds or thousands of people a day - his tubby butt is fair game for anyone with a Nikon.


Don't tell me he doesn't have any privacy rights, he is an American just like you or me.

Precisely, no more and no less.
1.25.2006 5:15pm
T E (mail):
From the Ritz' website:


Shopping
Enjoy a variety of unique shops and galleries in Beaver Creek Village all conveniently linked by heated walkways and escalators.

Somebody best get down to there to warn any hapless tourist who happens to wander onto one of those escalators that they are entereing a NO PHOTOGRAPHY ZONE.
1.25.2006 5:28pm
AF:
Let me interrupt this discussion about whether reporters should be thrown in jail with some breaking news:

Michael Jackson Spotted in Robe and Veil

Now, in world where things like this are news, is it really fair to say that the Scalia story was beyond the pale?
1.25.2006 5:50pm
WB:
Yes.

I already knew about the Scalia thing and didn't care so much to hear it twisted into character assassination so that it would look like "news."

This MJ story, however, is fascinating. Not a bad idea for a disguise, especially since MJ doesn't have the sort of things one would think of first as likely to betray a man trying to pass himself off as a woman by dressing in muslim women's clothes.
1.25.2006 6:25pm
WB:
Though what I'd really like to know is where MJ was during Chief Justice Roberts' swearing-in. The media completely ignored that snub, which lends further credence to the idea that they're out to tar Scalia.
1.25.2006 6:27pm
Hugh59 (mail) (www):
There was a discussion of a hypothetical junket by Associate Justice Ginsburg and whether liberals would feel offended if she took advantage of a similar perk.

Well, I have photographic proof that she DID take such junkets. In 1996, back when I was a prosecutor on St. Thomas, Associate Justice Ginsburg was a speaker at a legal conference sponsored by the Virgin Islands Bar Association. As best I recall, she was on St. Thomas for several days and did not stay at a hotel; rather she was a guest in a luxury home in a exclusive part of the island (Peterborg peninsula...where President Clinton and Hillary stayed).

I have photographic proof of this junket...a photo of the coffee mug I received stating the date and the presence of Associate Justice Ginsburg as a speaker. A photo of this mug is posted at...shameless plug...my blog: The Sulla Conspiracy: http://sullainstitute.blogspot.com/

As for whether or not Associate Justice Scalia is subject to lobbying at Federalist Society events, I am also posting a photo of what happens when a Federalist Society member attempts to influence Scalia...it was not pretty!

Actually, I am just kidding...Scalia looked over the young lady's shoulder, and walked right by without exchanging a word.
1.25.2006 7:59pm
ron (mail):
no cj for Scalia=pay back for the hamdi dissent?
1.25.2006 9:03pm
Hugh59 (mail) (www):
The Sulla Institute...what is wrong with me?

I was so awe inspired by the Volokh Conspiracy that I got the name of my own blog wrong! That's what I get for blogging at the end of a long day in the office.
1.25.2006 9:29pm
Neal Lang (mail):
Nino may be able to enforce "Scalia's Rules" while in the Supreme Court building, but when he ventures out into the real world, he ain't go not more rights than anybody.

Ah! The contention that the 1st Amendment's "freedom of the press" is not a "right", to be exercised with "responsibility", but instead a "license", where everything and everybody is "fair game" and anything goes.
1.26.2006 10:43am
T E (mail):

Ah! The contention that the 1st Amendment's "freedom of the press" is not a "right", to be exercised with "responsibility", but instead a "license", where everything and everybody is "fair game" and anything goes.

If that was an attempt to summarize my argument, its wrong.
1.26.2006 1:46pm
Neal Lang (mail):
If that was an attempt to summarize my argument, its wrong.

Actually, it was my attempt to make the point that you apparently have no qualms about an "irrsponsible" press, seeing how you readily excuse their actions, and make light of the fact that a business may initiate a contract by posting a "fair warning" of the consequences of "trespass".

The fact is that seeing how the Constitutional "freedom of the press" is a prohibition requiring that Congress "no make laws", and not a ban on the private person seeking privacy, the fact is that "Nino" has more "right" to his personal "privacy" from an intruding "media" than outside the "Supreme Court building" than in.
1.26.2006 2:48pm
T E (mail):

you apparently have no qualms about an "irrsponsible" press



If you think that taking pictures of Justice Scalia playing tennis is irresponsible, I guess we have different views of what the word "responsible" means.


[you] make light of the fact that a business may initiate a contract by posting a "fair warning" of the consequences of "trespass".

I don't want to speak for other posters, but it seems that some in this thread seem to believe that the huge Ritz resort (over 230 rooms, meeting space thousands, 6 bars and restaurants, all connected to nearby shopping by heated walkways and escalators) is some citadel of privacy where "licensees" meekly enter the premises solely to scurry up to their rooms and not dare wander the grounds. I beg to differ. I believe that, for the purposes of analysis of whether it is acceptable to take photographs there, that it is a public place. Yes, I know it is a "resort" and it is privately owned - but that is the starting point, not the ending point about whether someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy.


The fact is that seeing how the Constitutional "freedom of the press" is a prohibition requiring that Congress "no make laws", and not a ban on the private person seeking privacy, the fact is that "Nino" has more "right" to his personal "privacy" from an intruding "media" than outside the "Supreme Court building" than in.

I was with you up until the first comma, then you lost me. Are you saying that Nino has more rights to privacy outside of the Supreme court than inside?

I don't know how you get to that comparison, but in any event it is beside the point I am making that Scalia's privacy rights aren't any different than anyone elses. Anyone who picks up a racket at the Ritz tennis court - in view of hundreds of strangers - cannot reasonably expect that they are engaging in private conduct. (Due to the power that the Justices have over their own court building, they can control photography in there. But I don't think that is really a privacy question.) I mean if you walk down the street, anyone can take your picture (yes there are limits for false light, harassment, etc..) The basic rule is that if you can see it, you can photograph it. (Stress "basic" there. No you cannot park outside someone's house and train your 600MM lens on their bedroom window.)

I must say that all of this debate mystifies me. I can see that some people think that ABC took a cheap shot by the slant of their story. Fine - everybody has a right to be upset about whatever they want. But to go the extra step and somehow construct an argument that his right to privacy has been violated is just silly.
1.26.2006 3:40pm
Aaron:
Two words; "public accomodation".
1.26.2006 4:40pm
Neal Lang (mail):
If you think that taking pictures of Justice Scalia playing tennis is irresponsible, I guess we have different views of what the word "responsible" means.

I believe your content was that:
Nino may be able to enforce "Scalia's Rules" while in the Supreme Court building, but when he ventures out into the real world, he ain't go not more rights than anybody.

My contention was that only someone who believed that the 1st Amendment issued a "license" to the press, instead of recognizing a limitation on Congress to interfer with the media could believe that Justice Scalia was more secure from the "prying" press on Federal property, arguably the province of Congress to regulate, as oppose to say in Mr. Scalia's bathroom at home, a place where his privacy is regulated by himself.
I don't know how you get to that comparison, but in any event it is beside the point I am making that Scalia's privacy rights aren't any different than anyone elses.

Actually you do. Seeing how you opined that only on the scared grounds of the "Supreme Court building" could they be secure, when, in fact, Associate Justice Antinon Scalia has less expectation there as an officer of the court, then he would as Mr. Nino Scalia, citizen of the republic, taking a dump in his privy. The only way to get there is to believe that the press have some sort Constitutional license to pry everywhere but in government building.
Yes, I know it is a "resort" and it is privately owned - but that is the starting point, not the ending point about whether someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

As a "privately owned" resort, the ownership can limit anyone's use of the facilities. You can more disturb the "privacy" of other guests without being ejected, then you could piss in their pool and not be asked to leave. From your posts, it would appear that the "press" has license to do just that, apparently base on the 1st Amendment.
1.26.2006 5:07pm
T E (mail):

My contention was that only someone who believed that the 1st Amendment issued a "license" to the press, instead of recognizing a limitation on Congress to interfer with the media could believe that Justice Scalia was more secure from the "prying" press on Federal property

You misunderstand. Scalia is more secure in the US Sup Ct. building because he, along with the other justices, controls the rules of the court and bars cameras there. Whether or not that is appropriate is a separate debate. The facts merely distinguish between the only time that Scalia's "rights" (not the right word, probably) are greater than your, mine or Paris Hilton's.

Seeing how you opined that only on the scared grounds of the "Supreme Court building" could they be secure, when, in fact, Associate Justice Antinon Scalia has less expectation there as an officer of the court, then he would as Mr. Nino Scalia, citizen of the republic

Exactly wrong. See above.

The only way to get there is to believe that the press have some sort Constitutional license to pry everywhere but in government building.

Wrong approach and conclusions. The tool to use is analysis privacy rights, not freedom of the press.

As a "privately owned" resort, the ownership can limit anyone's use of the facilities.

You mean like exclude women or jews from the Ritz? Okay,that was a cheap shot, but making such blanket, unnuanced statements don't really advance your point.

"You can more disturb the "privacy" of other guests without being ejected, then you could piss in their pool and not be asked to leave."

Perhaps the worst analogy I have ever read. You believe that it is generally accepted in society that taking a picture of someone on a tennis court where there are dozens/hundreds of strangers milling around is no different than pissing on someone? (Oh, I'm sorry, pissing in a pool where people may be.)

But, again, the problem is the sledgehammer nature of your argument and that it assumes the definition of the terms that are in dispute. First, it is just silly from both a legal and real world perspective to argue that taking photos of someone on a tennis court where many strangers are milling around invades someone's privacy. A loser argument any way you cut it.

Can you construct an argument that a resort could limit photography by explict rules and communication of those rules. Yes, probably. I haven't seen those facts, though, in coverage of this story. Yes, I know that a request by someone at ABC was supposedly denied. But does that mean that the resort told everone entering the premises that photography was absolutely barred? I don't think so.

But here is the more interesting question: Suppose you are the Ritz and you have a gold-plated bar on photography on the premises. (You know, big signs, everybody signs an agreement that they will abide by the no pics rule before they are allowed to enter past the razor wire. What happens if somone then takes a picture? Yes, you could probably eject them, but can you use force to take their film - or memory card or whatever?
1.26.2006 6:02pm
JPF (mail):
You like the term "strangers". But these people are strangers in the sense that they don't know each other personally. But vis-a-vis a covert "bushman" photographer, who appears not to have permission to be on the secluded grounds of this resort, these "strangers" have one thing in common with Scalia--they all have a license to be on the grounds. The photographer did not.

You like to mention the number of rooms, the type of sidewalks, the number of restaurants, etc. That adds nothing to your argument, and in fact adds to everyone else's: those amenities are for the convenience of those who are granted permission to be there, either as a registered guest of the resort, as a guest of the conference, as a diner at the restaurant/bar. Once you cross those gates into the resort, it is no longer "public" but is private. The lack of opaque walls around the tennis courts do not make it less so; a shrubbery arrangement performs the same function.
1.26.2006 9:26pm
Neal Lang (mail):
You misunderstand. Scalia is more secure in the US Sup Ct. building because he, along with the other justices, controls the rules of the court and bars cameras there. Whether or not that is appropriate is a separate debate. The facts merely distinguish between the only time that Scalia's "rights" (not the right word, probably) are greater than your, mine or Paris Hilton's.

Of course, you confuse "rights" with "authority" or "power" - dare I say - "license".

If the Supremes are permitted to regulate the goings on in the Supreme Court Building, I suggest that Justice Scalia actually enjoys much less "rights" there than he, you, me or Paris Hilton enjoys in our own "castle". Obviously, it does not require the concurrence of 4 other Justices to set the rules in my own house - perhaps 1, my spouse, however, she does her best to allow me the illusion that I am "king of my castle".
Exactly wrong. See above.

Exactly wrong. See above.
Perhaps the worst analogy I have ever read. You believe that it is generally accepted in society that taking a picture of someone on a tennis court where there are dozens/hundreds of strangers milling around is no different than pissing on someone? (Oh, I'm sorry, pissing in a pool where people may be.)

Actually, I thought it was quite accurate. For some guest to abuse his host by abusing the privacy of another guest is exactly like "pissing in the pool". Only an uncouth bore would do such a thing. Of course, if you believe that "freedom of the press" is truly "license" to be an uncouth bore - well I suppose you might not see the analogy. Or maybe your childhood was devoid in the instructions of social graces. If that might be the, might I suggest picking up and reading Emily Post's the Guide to Good Manners for Kids by Peggy Post. Perhaps then the analogy would be a clearer.
But, again, the problem is the sledgehammer nature of your argument and that it assumes the definition of the terms that are in dispute. First, it is just silly from both a legal and real world perspective to argue that taking photos of someone on a tennis court where many strangers are milling around invades someone's privacy. A loser argument any way you cut it.

And the other party's wishes be damned, is it. I believe you just made my lack of good manners case.
Can you construct an argument that a resort could limit photography by explict rules and communication of those rules. Yes, probably. I haven't seen those facts, though, in coverage of this story. Yes, I know that a request by someone at ABC was supposedly denied. But does that mean that the resort told everone entering the premises that photography was absolutely barred? I don't think so.

I hardly would expect that author of the "Expose" would admit in the story that they had violated the rules of premises in order to violate the Justice's privacy and get their "exclusive". Besides lacking good manner, it would appear as though you may also lack good sense. Of course, it may also just be that you are very naive in your expection that the media tells the "whole story" in their efforts.
But here is the more interesting question: Suppose you are the Ritz and you have a gold-plated bar on photography on the premises. (You know, big signs, everybody signs an agreement that they will abide by the no pics rule before they are allowed to enter past the razor wire. What happens if somone then takes a picture? Yes, you could probably eject them, but can you use force to take their film - or memory card or whatever?

I suppose that depends on the size and conditioning of your bouncer.
1.27.2006 10:22am
Neal Lang (mail):
Once you cross those gates into the resort, it is no longer "public" but is private. The lack of opaque walls around the tennis courts do not make it less so; a shrubbery arrangement performs the same function.

Ah! But you ignore the Constitutional "license" of the press to lack manners, to act boorishly and to trespass anywhere, in order to inform the public and promote your Elitist ideology.
1.27.2006 10:27am