Antonin Scalia won't recuse himself when it's obvious he should, but there's one case in which he has recused himself -- and an Orlando Sentinel writer thinks the recusal might help Bush against Kerry ... "by happenstance":

Scalia, perhaps the court's most conservative member, has disqualified himself from hearing the March 24 appeal of the decision from the federal appeals court in California that struck down as unconstitutional the phrase "under God" that is in the [P]ledge [of Allegiance]....

...on the pledge case it is possible that the high court will deadlock when it rules this spring without Scalia. A 4-4 split of the remaining justices, who generally fall along the conservative/liberal divide that way, would mean the appeals court decision would stand....

...a split verdict that upheld the lower-court ruling could potentially create a monster political issue for the fall campaign.

Republicans, and probably some Democrats, would call for a constitutional amendment to overrule the judicial system....

One doesn't have to be a mind reader to see why Bush and the GOP would back such a drive. It would allow the president to paint his opponent into a box strategically on an issue that Bush could be expected to intrinsically embrace and profit from politically....

When I read about this recusal a while back, this is exactly what I thought Scalia was trying to do -- quite deliberately, not "by happenstance."

*****

Note: This link is subscription only. I found it over in Lucianne Goldberg Land, where someone recommended typing in the username piaps and the password isaliar. These are Hillary-hate codewords -- "piaps" = "pig in a pants suit," a favorite righty name for Mrs. Clinton, and "isaliar" is, obviously, "is a liar." Lovely people, these right-wingers. (But the username and password do work.)