That's how I'd interpret this:
Conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Wednesday called his 2004 decision not to recuse himself from a case involving his friend Vice President Dick Cheney the "proudest thing" he's done on the court.
Scalia's remarks came as he took questions from students during a lecture at the University of Connecticut's law school....
The administration fought a lawsuit brought by watchdog and environmental groups that contended that industry executives, including former Enron chairman Ken Lay, helped shape that policy. The Supreme Court upheld the administration position on a 7-2 vote.
Scalia refused to step aside from deliberations in the case, rejecting arguments by critics who said his impartiality was brought into question because of a hunting vacation that he took with Cheney while the court was considering the vice president's appeal.
"For Pete's sake, if you can't trust your Supreme Court justice more than that, get a life," he said Wednesday.
He told students he would have recused himself if the case had involved Cheney personally, but that he viewed the situation differently because the vice president was acting in his official capacity.
"I think the proudest thing I have done on the bench is not allow myself to be chased off that case," Scalia said....
He's been on the Supreme Court 20 years, and was on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia for four years before that -- and this is his proudest moment? No decision, no dissent, no mind-changing conversation with a fellow Justice? No principle he's stood up for? Nothing he may have done as a mentor to law clerks? Nothing? This is it? His proudest moment is flipping the bird to his critics?
There have been some giants on the High Court. Scalia, by contrast, is a small, small man.
(Scalia story also here.)
No comments:
Post a Comment