dy156

Ding-Ding-Ding

Alright, having read the case, and being an attorney, I'll submit to this challenge!

The facts of Litecky were an appeal following a motion to recuse a judge that had presided over the earlier trial of a criminal defendant, and had ruled against the defendant several times in the earlier trial. As I stated before, that case really has little to do with the Duck Hunting incident, because no one has suggested that Scalia has exhibited a prejudice in his rulings or opinions, or on the issues presented on this granting of cert.
Nevertheless, you are correct in quoting the statute. Subsection (a) is a "catch-all" designed to encompass any relationship, situation, or prejudice not specifically enumerated in subsection(b). Subsection (b) reads:

"(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
"(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
"(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
"(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
"(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
"(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
"(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
"(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
"(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
"(iv) Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding."

You could make the argument that (b)(1) applies, but as the Court noted, rules of statutory construction favor an interpretation of the relationships noted in (b) being limits to (a). Apparently the Seirra Club focused on subsection (a). It was the plain meaning of the language of the statute, coupled with the number of newspaper editorials, that initially made me think he should recuse himself. However, I thought Scalia did an admirable job of explaining why it was not reasonable to question his impartiality. One of the reasons given was that those editorials were based on inaccurate facts. When there is no real legal authority, for either side, you can use real arguments to make your point. That's why the facts of the case are so important.