from the houston chronicle-more on Scalia hunting trip, look who else went

Just keeps getting deeper.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2530091

killing birds for the fun of it

cowards

Pickering, Cheny, Scalia.....how many other hunting & fishing trips have there been, and I wonder just who went?????

But that requires honor and he has none.

there are no questions about Scalia's impartiality.

He has none.

Scalia wrote in < LITEKY v. UNITED STATES, ___ U.S. ___ (1994) , 7>

"Any justice or judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any case in which he has a substantial interest, has been of counsel, is or has been a material witness, or is so related to or connected with any party or his attorney as to render it improper, in his opinion, for him to sit on the trial, appeal, or other proceeding therein." 28 U.S.C. 455 (1970 ed.). The 1974 revision made massive changes, so that 455 now reads as follows:

"(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

"(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.

Justice Kennedy wrote in the same case,

The standard that ought to be adopted for all allegations of an apparent fixed predisposition, extrajudicial or otherwise, follows from the statute itself: disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified. Indeed, in such circumstances, I should think that any judge who understands the judicial office and oath would be the first to insist that another judge hear the case.

Scalia is asking why he should recuse himself from cases involving people that he knows on a purely "social basis". He's used the phrase "this is like going to dinner with someone" or "this is like a cocktail party". It's like he's implying that "I was going hunting anyway and I happened to bump into these folks.", which is misrepresenting what really happened. He went on planned hunting trips with people of his own choosing, people he liked and wanted to be around. So, to me anyway, Scalia's attitude twoards his "hunting buddies" makes his recusal manditory.

and imprisoned.