Scalia redefines the term "blind justice"

Scalia: Refuse to Recuse!

Scalia, in ruling on his own recusal (how is this impartial justice?), has decided that because he did not sit in the same "blind" as Cheney on his little duck-hunting trip, he doesn't need to recuse himself.

Scalia is the classic narrow constructionist...he claims that recusal would only be requird if it were Cheney's personal conduct in question, not his official conduct.

seriously, this is a fine hair to split. the underlying issue is whether Cheney was rewarding his personal personal friends in deciding the white house's energy policy.

now it doesn't even begin to look appropriate when AFTER the supreme court takes the case, Scalia decides to go duck hunting with Cheney at an oil entrepreneur's ranch in Louisiana. It would be even more inappropriate if it turns out our oil-baron host received some direct (or indirect) benefit of Cheney's energy policy.

Scalia claims there were 13 guys...we know of Carlile, Scalia and his two sons, Cheney...and who were the others? For Cheney to need an entire plane, it would seem that they were part of his camp...perhaps the rest of the energy-policy team?

if that were the case, then Scalia would definitely have to recuse.

But...he is the final, unappealable word on whether he is required to recuse.

It gives a whole new meaning to the term "blind justice."