Why Justice Scalia Is Wrong To Refuse to Recuse Himself

[benfranklin1776]

"This recusal should have been a no-brainer for Scalia . . . Federal law requires federal judges,
including Supreme Court justices, to recuse themselves "in any proceeding in which his {or
her} impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Under the circumstances surrounding
the Cheney case, this federal law all but compels Scalia to recuse himself.

Granted, there is no remedy when a Justice wrongfully refuses to recuse
himself when it is plainly appropriate. But Scalia's decision is wrong
nonetheless. Indeed, the fact that it involves the abuse of unchecked,
unreviewable discretion only makes it all the more egregious. "


http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20040205.html


This gentleman, who clerked for the Supreme Court and wrote a book on its inner workings, "Closed Chambers" lays out a compelling and easy to understand rationale as to why Scalia absolutely must recuse himself from deciding the would be Elmer Fudd's case. It is not even a close call. Scalia's actions serve as a textbook case of what constitutes "the appearance of bias."

[indepat]

1. Since it could be forcefully argued that most of Scalia's opinion have

been right, far right, rather than based on the law or the constitution, I've no doubt be will again make the right, far right, decision with respect to recusal.

[benfranklin1776]

2. I think you are right.

No pun intended. Yes the "far right" decision which is for the judiciary to act as a meek, obeisant rubber stamp toady of the head of state is one he would be perfectly comfortable with. I would wager he does not recuse as well.