This month may have been duck hunting season in Louisiana, but it was still a bad time for Justice Antonin Scalia to hunt ducks with Vice President Dick Cheney. Their trip came shortly after the Supreme Court agreed to hear Mr. Cheney's appeal of an order requiring him to disclose members of his secret energy task force. By going, Justice Scalia raised serious questions about his ability to judge the case impartially, and needlessly sullied his court's reputation.
(snip)
Justice Scalia told The Los Angeles Times that social contacts between judges and officials with cases pending are permissible when officials are sued in the course of their public duties. He compared his situation to justices' dining at the White House when a suit involving a president is pending. But vacationing with a litigant in a small group, outside the public eye, raises a far greater appearance of impropriety than attending a White House dinner. And Mr. Cheney's case involves not just any action, but one calling his integrity into question.
This is the second time in recent months Justice Scalia has cast doubt on his impartiality. Last year, he told a civic gathering that the decision about whether the Pledge of Allegiance should contain the words "under God" should be left to legislators, not courts, when that issue was headed to the court. After a litigant protested, Justice Scalia recused himself.
more…
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/opinion/25SUN3.html?ex=1075611600&en=f94286c9098e56b5&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE