just read this in the editoral section of my local paper (www.wilmingtonstar.com) and thought i'd toss it out here. interested in others' thoughts in this:
Who are you to question him?
Even for a federal judge, Antonin Scalia's arrogance is breathtaking. Equally breathtaking is the refusal of other justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to ask him to step away from a case that involves a close acquaintance from whom he recently accepted extravagant favors.
Justice Scalia, as everyone must know by now, went duck hunting with Vice President ****** Cheney. They flew to Louisiana on a government Gulfstream and spent several days as guests of – you guessed it – one of Mr. Cheney's buddies in the oil industry.
They did all this just three weeks after the Supreme Court agreed to rule on whether Mr. Cheney must release information about his meetings with oil-industry types who advised him how to write laws affecting the oil industry.
An ethical judge wouldn't have gone on the trip in the first place. And an ethical judge certainly wouldn't go on the trip and then insist on participating in the decision.
Antonin Scalia did both.
Even after his cozy getaway with a high-profile defendant hit the newspapers, Justice Scalia refused to step down – "recuse" himself, as lawyers say.
Asked about his position at a public appearance Tuesday, he argued that because his hunting buddy isn't being sued as a person, but as vice president, it will be perfectly fine to rule on the case. "That's all I'm going to say for now. Quack, quack," he explained.
Professors of legal ethics, as well as other critics, argue that for Justice Scalia to take part in this case would, at best, present the appearance of wrongdoing. After all, the court's decision not only will settle an important legal question – must vice presidents to reveal such information? – but also could affect the personal and political future of Mr. Cheney.
But Chief Justice William Rehnquist, another conservative Republican, says it'll be just dandy for Justice Scalia to help decide the fate of his hunting buddy. Whether they agree with that or not, other justices are keeping mum.
The law says federal judges must recuse themselves if they have a conflict of interest or if their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
Pressed about his intentions by the Los Angeles Times, Justice Scalia wrote, "I do not think my impartiality could reasonably be questioned."
In other words, if you question his impartiality, you're unreasonable.
After all, he is a federal judge.
