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."
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
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.
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.
Good manners make good neighbors, after all.
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?
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.
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.
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
Your ridiculous comment that "hundreds of thousands" of people play tennis there is more than misguided, it is laughable.
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?
"Frankly, I disagree with Scalia's rules for media coverage"
Don't tell me he doesn't have any privacy rights, he is an American just like you or me.
Enjoy a variety of unique shops and galleries in Beaver Creek Village all conveniently linked by heated walkways and escalators.
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.
If that was an attempt to summarize my argument, its wrong.
you apparently have no qualms about an "irrsponsible" press
[you] 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.
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 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.
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.
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
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
The only way to get there is to believe that the press have some sort Constitutional license to pry everywhere but in government building.
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."
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.
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.)
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?
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.