A Thousand Words From Mr. Kerry

[Theophylact]

(as relayed by Jeff Danziger).

[Mr. Goodbytes]

Another Scalia would be just fine. Thanks for the pretty picture.

[Fingers]

Not sure who that cartoon is targeted at, it's certainly not going to discourage Republican voters who would most certainly prefer Scalia over one of Kerry's more "balanced" (read liberal) nominees.

[MTAtech]

I think the voters want a Justice that is impartial. Scalia is questionable.

[Pexster]

At the very least, he has the appearance of being questionable!

[Harold7]

Just which court decision from Scalia would you consider to have the appearance of being questionable (un-impartial)?

I guess you''re using Scalia's refusal to recuse himself from the VP's case before the court... when he hasn't made an opinion on that case, how is it possible to claim he's biased or going to be biased?

Does that mean that the Liberal justices must recuse themselves from environmentalists cases to avoid giving the appearance of bias or does the bias charge only apply to Conservative justices?

[Pexster]

Right you are, Harold. I think Scalia's recent public letter is hogwash. And if a "liberal" justice were to go on an environmentally-sensitive "leave no trace behind" backpacking trip with the head of the Sierra Club, you're damn right I'd expect him to recuse himself from a case where the Sierra Club was involved. And all "reasonable people" would feel the same.

[MTAtech]

Let's not forget Gore v Bush. By Scalia's new standard of recusal, he and Thomas should have abstained from voting.

In Gore v. Bush, Scalia's son, Eugene Scalia, was a partner in the law firm representing Bush. Justice Thomas's wife, worked for Bush's transition team and would be out of work if he lost. Therefore, the financial interests of the relatives were at stake - Scalia's stated standard for recusal.

Obviously, his real standard is 'recuse only when that vote won't make a difference to the outcome.'