Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Ambassador Antonin Scalia

The Huffington Post published an article by Josh Sugarmann in which he describes Justice Scalia as an "Ambassador" of the gun industry.

Tomorrow "Sport Shooting Ambassador Award" winner Antonin Scalia will hear oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago, a case that will decide whether the opinion penned by the gun industry "Ambassador" in District of Columbia v. Heller will be applied across the nation.

Tuesday's oral arguments will be a homecoming of sorts for Scalia and Alan Gottlieb, whose Second Amendment Foundation is one of the driving forces behind the McDonald case (Gottlieb himself is an object lesson in the gun lobby's immunity to irony.

The SAF head is a convicted felon -- he was caught cheating on his taxes -- who at one time lost the ability to possess guns. He later regained the ability to own guns through the now-defunct federal "relief from disability" program, a multi-million dollar program that re-armed convicted, often violent, felons, at taxpayer expense. The program was defunded after being exposed by my organization, the Violence Policy Center.

Do you think cheating on your taxes should disqualify a person for owning guns? Isn't the intent of that "felony" law to keep violent people from having guns? What do you think?

When last seen together (at least by me), the two graced the cover of The New Gun Week in an article celebrating the ambassadorship bestowed on Scalia by the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities (WFSA), an international organization comprised primarily of gunmakers and pro-gun organizations (including the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation) from around the world. The award given to Scalia by the WFSA's "Image Sub-Committee" offers "public recognition of the social contribution made by some of the many public figures who have a longstanding interest in the shooting sports." Scalia was awarded the honor and gave the keynote address during the WFSA's 2007 annual meeting in Nuremberg, Germany. The previous year's winner was Ugo Gussalli Beretta, president of the Italian gun manufacturer Beretta. The award consists of a silver reproduction of a 16th century pistol with powder flask.

So while we in the United States accept that a Supreme Court Justice who's an "Ambassador" for the gun industry can ethically rule on cases that impact the very industry he represents, maybe in Old Europe, where the WFSA is located, they can still feel the sting of a little thing called shame.


Don't you think it's a bit odd that Justice Scalia is presiding over a case in which he himself has a personal interest? Isn't that a conflict of interest or something?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

11 comments:

  1. So let me get this straight. An international shooting sports organization recognizes Scalia for social contributions by ruling in favor of gun rights in the past. From WFSA website:

    "The WFSA Image Sub-Committee believes that the public at large in most countries is denied the opportunity to understand the value of sport shooting in the wider community.

    The Ambassador Award aims to redress this by making public recognition of the social contribution made by some of the many public figures who have a longstanding interest in the shooting sports."

    Does Scalia stand to gain financially if McDonald wins? Or is his only conflict of interest that he is likely to rule in conflict of Josh Sugarmann’s interests?

    -TS

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Don't you think it's a bit odd that Justice Scalia is presiding over a case in which he himself has a personal interest? Isn't that a conflict of interest or something?"

    As an American citizen, Justice Scalia has a 'personal interest' in any case brought before the court as do we all.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Should Ginsburg and Sotomayor recuse themselves from cases dealing with abortion?

    How about all Justices over age 65 recuse themselves from cases involving medicare?

    I love how the antis are so focused on Scalia. It's almost as if they believe the other eight Justices don't even exist.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Do you think cheating on your taxes should disqualify a person for owning guns? Isn't the intent of that "felony" law to keep violent people from having guns? What do you think?

    Do you think cheating on your taxes is a violent offense?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Don't you think it's a bit odd that Justice Scalia is presiding over a case in which he himself has a personal interest?

    Every person in America, and every Supreme Court Justice has a personal interest in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mikeb says:

    Do you think cheating on your taxes should disqualify a person for owning guns?

    I think it makes sense that he was not able to take them to prison with him, if that's what you mean. Actually, he was barred from firearms possession even after his release (so much for the idea of redemption, and "paying your debt to society"), but successfully applied for relief from the disability of mandated disarmament--a mechanism that Sugarmann boasts of having helped take away from current ex-cons.

    As for Sugarmann's ridiculous "point" about Scalia's award somehow making his involvement in a gun rights case a conflict of interest, I think Josh is looking sillier and more desperate every damned day.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think Josh is looking sillier and more desperate every damned day.

    He should be desperate. The Joyce Foundation severely cut his funding. The money train is leaving the station and he'll have to find something else to do besides creating Google-researched "studies".

    ReplyDelete
  8. Watch Sotomayor vote for incorporation. Then everyone can say the NRA and conservatives all cried wolf about her and Obama. Then it will be harder for them to complain about the next, really liberal appointment.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "I love how the antis are so focused on Scalia. It's almost as if they believe the other eight Justices don't even exist."

    It's an extension of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mike W. is doing that exaggeration thing again with this one:

    "Every person in America, and every Supreme Court Justice has a personal interest in this case."

    I say that's nonsense. Most non gun owners couldn't care less. And many gun owners too.

    Mike's remark is typical pro-gun egocentrism.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Tony Ducks is just pissed that all he gets to shoot is ducks while Cheney got to gun down a lawyer.

    ReplyDelete