onetime2

He had me convinced fully by the 5th page. As stated earlier, I have full faith that Supreme Court Justices are capable of separating personal feelings from the interpretation of the law. I suggested that recusal was proper for fear of the impression of impropriety but, gaining an understanding from Justice Scalia's memo, I've reconsidered.

Since there is a standing agreement among Justices that even in the case of family members being involved in the case recusal is not mandated, and that each recusal puts additional burdens on other Justices I see no problem with him hearing the case.

Further, he absolutely drives the point home in two other contentions. The first being that his recusal would immediately hurt the case of the petitioner and help the Sierra Club by eliminating a potential vote.

Secondly, and the most important of all IMO, setting the precedent of recusal in cases where their is a personal relationship among those appearing before the Court would hamstring the Court's ability to function in its role of checks and balances within the three arms of government. Since, almost without fail, sitting Supreme Court Justices have attained their positions at least in part through personal relationships with those appointing them, it would greatly limit the Court's ability to conduct business.

There is no doubt in my mind that Scalia should NOT recuse himself.

[edit] How long before someone complains about Scalia's use of a round trip ticket for one way use? Most airlines have policies against it. [/edit]

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.