Kevin Drum thinks Scalia will be forced to recuse himself from Gitmo case

[BurtWorm]

Just the way he recused himself from Bush v. Gore and Everyone v. Cheney. He's just a self-recusing fool, isn't he, Kevin? :eyes:


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_03/008503.php


SCALIA'S MOUTH....The Supreme Court is about to hear a case that will test whether the government is required to provide detainees at Guantánamo Bay with special military tribunals. At a talk a couple of weeks ago, Antonin Scalia made it clear that he's already made up his mind on this case:

"War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts," he says on a tape of the talk reviewed by Newsweek. "Give me a break."

Challenged by one audience member about whether the Gitmo detainees don't have protections under the Geneva or human-rights conventions, Scalia shot back: "If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son and I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy."

Will Scalia recuse himself following this blunder? I'm going to take the underdog bet on this one and say that he does. Even Supreme Court justices are susceptible to peer pressure, and I have to figure that he's going to feel some heat from his fellow Supremes in this case.

Which could be a real problem for the government. As the Newsweek piece notes, John Roberts has already recused himself because he heard the case as an appellate judge, and if Scalia does the same it means the court will have lost two of its most conservative, pro-administration judges. In other words, the government will probably lose. And all because Scalia couldn't keep his mouth shut.

[cali]

1. He has recused himself

in the past.... over a pledge case, I think. I don't believe he'll recuse himself on this, but we should keep the drumbeat up and urge the press to keep on it- or at least folks like Olberman.

[BurtWorm]

2. He doesn't recuse himself when a political battle is at stake.

With Roberts out, I don't think Scalia will want to miss having his say on this (beyond what he said in Europe).

[Warpy]

3. He and Thomas should have recused themselves

from the 2000 election case, but they didn't. If you recall, Scalia's son was one of the Stupid attorneys arguing the case and Thomas's wife was vetting candidates for Stupid's cabinet. Most justices have been allergic to a vague appearance of conflict of interest. These two flaunted it.

Personally, I think that case should provide justification to impeach both of them, but that's just me.

My guess is that Scalia's getting senile, he's been getting more and more erratic and intemperate in his comments for a very long time. I don't think he's going to last a whole lot longer.

The only question will be what kind of horror Supid will propose and the Dems will rubberstamp. Again.