Disrespectfully dissenting

Scalia won't stand aside in Cheney energy case

There was a time when Supreme Court justices signed their disagreements, "I respectfully dissent." Those days are gone, and now, so are the days when we can trust the Court to police itself.

Justice Scalia claims he needn't recuse himself from the Cheney case because the personal fortunes of his hunting buddy aren't at stake. Unless we consider that to mean money--in which case, it's hard to argue that anything could put a dent in millionaire Cheney--Scalia's argument is hard to swallow. If the documents Cheney is fighting to conceal aren't somehow damning, he wouldn't fight this hard to protect them; we already know this isn't a White House that acts to preserve a principle. If the documents he's hiding were politically advantageous, or even neutral, we'd have seen them by now. By hiding them, Cheney is trying to preserve his "personal fortune"--his chance to remain vice president for another four years.

While I disagree with Scalia about almost everything, at least he's usually been intellectually consistent. But his argument in this matter makes very little sense. How can he argue that his friendship with Cheney would matter if this case involved Cheney personally rather than officially without acknowledging that the case is clearly about Cheney and will impact his public standing? Isn't that part of his personal fortune? If his business is politics, isn't his electability an important part of his worth?

I understand that Scalia is frustrated; he just can't win these days, as his backward jurisprudence is slowly rejected by his colleagues. But he's only making himself look silly now. Quack quack, indeed.

More on the trip to Austin when I get the chance.