Supreme Court Justices are just as corrupt as the rest of the government. Whats the suprise? Let us remember too, that right wingers are more corrupt. That is the definition of right wing, ethically corrupt philosophy!

Oh please, political association has nothing to do with corruption, ethics, or morals. It's ego, prestige, and just more white collar crime. Look at the stock market, hedge funds, corrupt Federal Reserve, corrupt government officials,corrupt democrats and republicans. It's the white collar criminal mindset that makes them think they are all above the law by association with all their connections and money to get them out of any situation.

Thank BUSH for these phenomes who run your life. The Supreme Court is a DISASTER, not waiting to happen, but happening now. How more RIGHT WING do you want it, and fries with that?

Give me a break. Has anyone noticed that 4 of the six millionaires are liberal judges (I count Souter as liberal)? Wonder where they like to lecture....would it be o'kay if they spent time with the ACLU or the American Bar Association at one of their outings? ABC you're embarrassingly easy to see through. Even for this Texan.

No where in this story is the assertion made that Scalia did anything in a quid pro quo fashion for these trips. Or even that any of his rulings were effected by any trips that he accepted. As to the Federalist trip, Scalia is a conservative; it’s no surprise that a conservative group would want to have him lecture and interact with their members. I'm sure that Ginsburg (who is also a millionaire) would be sought after by the ACLU for a similar speaking engagement.

And finally, what a piece of investigative journalism this was. The information came from disclosures that Scalia made himself pursuant to the laws regarding such activities. There is nothing corrupt or even wrong in his taking such trips and reporting them as required. To suggest that it is not journalism, but an editorial. Such columns have a place on the editorial page, not elsewhere masquerading as news.

Members of the Supreme Court are no different than their original place of origin--the legal community. Money comes before any "justice" is given in ANY court of law. It has no bearing that Scalia's appointment was one from the conservative side.

ALL appointments to ALL Court's at ALL levels are POLITICAL!

Being a SC justice is a lifetime of "free" lunches, also dinners.

Candidates running for state and federal offices should be ask the following "What are your plans to overhaul the court systems at all levels?"

Judges are selected from lawyers, so how do you describe a lawyer in ONE word?

I think a more liberal supreme court would be better. The republicans are rich and fat and love to indulge in extravgant, seedy behavior when no one is looking. Some republicans have used our tax dollars at strip bars and for drugs to entertain themselves and friends. I watched a republican on TV the other night say that cocaine was the best drug ever. What nerve!

Judges, and most particularly Supreme Court Judges, should avoid any impression of favoritism, undo imfluence, or impropriety. Taking lecture trips seems to most as allowing one to at least appear to be influenced by groups like the Federalist Society or whomever the event particular benefactor is. The practice of trips for gifts is not appropriate for a judge and 24 gift trips seem to me excessive. It gives the appearance of corruption, of getting something over on the public. Were the trips not published by the press, who would know? 66% of the Supreme Court Judges are millionaires, I think it odd old Antonin can't pop for his own airfare and board once in a while. Oh well, he's nearly at the manditory retirement age, isn't he? We won't have him to kick around much longer!!!

I have to laugh at the utterly predicatable responses people have to reports such as these. If you're a Democrat, you'll capitalize BUSH and be once more appalled. If you're a Republican, you'll thank the country for not electing JOHN KERRY!

Can any of you spell IDEALOGUE?

The US is for sale on every level and the human values and morality that made America once so great have Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove working the checkout counters as fast as they can. Your tax system, military, racial and religious polarization, homeland security, foreign policy, supreme court and electoral rules have all been sold in the last 6 years and the American public is like a battered wife that knows it is wrong but makes excuses for brutality instead of facing the facts and making tough changes. Your constitution is next, and they arent scared to show it eaither. Fess up America! You made a mistake and you stand to loose everything you hold dear and everything your forefathers built and sacrificed for. What happened to you? What happened to the America we loved and admired? The land of the free and home of the brave. The standard-bearer for decency and equality for all. You invited thieves and liars into your beautiful homes and then re-elected them because they promised to keep you safe from all those 'scary' Muslims.

Ever hear of the story of the Emperors New Clothes? Well, in short the moral of the story is the liars and thieves ended up with all the gold, the Emperor was left naked in the street and had nothing to show for the gold but an illusion that didnt exist, created by liars and thieves. He was conned of his riches, honor and legacy, and after 500 years since, remains the joke for the ages.

The parallels are sadly, hilarious.

ABC joins the list of news agencies that search real hard to create a controversy that lefties will jump on and moderates will yawn about. Millionaire lawyers? That's really shocking. Let's see, they studied hard and paid those prestigious institutions of higher learning and got a return on their investment. Scandalous.

Ross> is this reportage? Was a law violated? Are the supremes given guidelines? Is there anything that can be done about it? I heard Scalia speak in Fredericksburg, VA outside on a cold January day to recognize Religious Freedom Day a legacy of Thomas Jefferson pro bono. Do you cover events like that?

Can't attack his legal wisdom? Trump up a charge of impropriety...yeah, that's the ticket.

Wanna see some judicial antics, read chap. 2 of Ann Coulter highlighting not specious accusations but real court proceedings.

D.P.> Phenomes? Is that a slur?

Why does ABCNews single out Justice Scalia and the Federalist Society? Also, what "reasons" did Prof. Steven Gillers give for saying that Justice Scalia should not have gone to the legal seminar? Just because they are a "a group with a decided political-slash-judicial profile." I've got news for you Prof. Gillers ... so is the American Bar Association and the American Constitutional Society. Yet I can find no "investigation" of Justice Kennedy to see if the American Bar Association paid for his trip to Hawaii to give the keynote address this past summer, or criticism of Justice Breyer when he gave a keynote address at the ACS in 2004. And what is wrong with private groups or individuals paying for these trips anyway? They serve as excellent opportunities for the justices to meet with lawyers, professors, law students and the general public. I think we'd be worse off if the justices had to pay for these speaking engagements on their own b/c they would be far less likely to want to do it.

If you can't beat the system, join the sysem. Simple as that.

Who Cares?
Really

Yes, it's inappropriate for any judge or politician to accept free junkets from anyone or group. The appearance of cozying up to special interests should act as a moral guide for any public servant. Now it's up to the news media to inform us as to when the judge should recuse himself from a case because of conflict of interest.

How can justice Scalia lecture on subjects such as "Judicial Ethics" when he is one of the largest violaters of the practice. Maybe justice Scalia need some courses on "Ethics" himself.

Please, this has nothing to do with Bush. The government as a whole has been corrupt since its creation, and it's all our fault for voting in these corrupt politicans.

The responses I read above are just irresponsible, political rhetoric. Right wingers are not more corrupt (I offer up Bill, Hillary, Ted, John Kerry, and even Jack Kennedy if you want ethically corrupt), Nor can Bush be blamed for practices that have existed for many years. Be real. I do however feel that accepting these kind of "gifts", if you would, for speaking engagements can be construed as a conflict of interests. These Justices make enough money so that they do not have to "Moonlight" to pick up any spending cash. Espescially it is wrong if these trips take them away from their duties as justices. They are supreme court justices and should be held to an even higher standard. No, they should not accept free gifts.

Why is this news? I don't understand what the problem is.

If I want to have a seminar and would like to hear a Justice's thoughts on constitutional law, I would invite him or her to speak. If they agree to appear, I would offer to pay airfare and boarding expenses. This occurs everyday in many sectors of society. Why should a Judge be criticized for it?

Wow, I'm surprised: I've read two very well-written responses (of course, many of the others are drivel), something that hardly ever occurs here.

gus > Great comment. It seems any comment I read here automatically goes to one of about five subjects: BUSH is awful; the DEMS love terrorists; REPUBLICANS are corrupt; JOHN KERRY is the antichrist; they're all corrupt and need to be thrown out (despite evidence supporting that a small minority of the people are corrupt). IDEALOGUE is exactly the description of the posters here.

craig > Right on! Supreme Court Justices ought to make a great deal of money. They are some of the most forward-thinking people in our society. They work exhaustively hard. Imagine having to review 8000 case petitions for only 100 case slots. This is exactly what the SCOTUS does.

As to conflicts of interest, I believe that justices must simply reveal the costs of various gifts. There hasn't been any announcement about them accepting the terms yet, so it's a moot point.

Instead of complaining about the government, posters here should read Federalist No. 10 by James Madison (about "factions and factionalism") and Federalist No. 78 by Patrick Henry (about judicial independence). We should all have some knowledge of these, if we claim to be proud Americans. I know I am a better and more astute American citizen after reading those.

While I wouldn't personally take trips sponsored by organizations with a political slant if I were a judge, the biggest reason people rant about this is that they don't agree with Scalia's politics.

As to prohibiting the taking of all trips paid for by others, some of you need to get a grip. Most of these trips are paid for by law schools or bar associations. Having a SCOTUS Justice speak at your law school or bar association meeting is one of the highlights of a lawyer's career. Anything that gets the justices out of their chambers and interacting with the legal profession is in the public interest. And some of you think that justices should pay their own travel so they can make these appearances? I'm sure that the late Justice Rehnquist, who spoke at our federal bar assocation annual dinner a few years ago, was thinking -- "I could sit at home resting this weekend from my nerve disorder, but I think I'll hop on a plane, fly down to Tampa, eat rubber chicken and then give a speech to a bunch of lawyers. And while I'm at it, I'll pay for my travel!"

Right, I think I'll invite President Bush to visit me next week, just so long as he pays his own way.