Stephen Maturin

It looks like Americans United for Separation of Church and State agrees with you, Gilly. In fact, Barry Lynn believes that Scalia's public comments warrant his steering clear of all church-state separation cases. This statement of Rev. Lynn's is particularly on-target:

As for recusal, federal law provides that "[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. sec. 455(a). Seems to me that announcing publicly how you'll vote in a case still pending in a lower court gives rise to reasonable questions about your impartiality.

Will Justice Scalia disqualify himself if Newdow ends up in the Supreme Court? Not a chance. He's aching to take the views he expressed at that Religious Freedom Day event and make them the law of the land. Besides, he's already displayed his devil-may-care attitude toward appearances of impropriety by not disqualifying himself in Bush v. Gore.

Dr Rick

Scalia is expressing his opinion a priori; that is not how the judicial branch is supposed to balance against the Congress and the President. As far as Justice Scalia is concerned, there will be no judicial review because he already knows "that references to "under God" are [not] a violation of the Establishment Clause".

Aren't judges supposed to hear the evidence and try to be objective before they weigh-in with their opinions?

Quote:

As far as I can see, the problem is your and others obvious mischaracterizations of Scalia's statements. He believes in and has exercised the Doctrine of Judicial Review on many occassions. Most notably when he voted to strike down the very religion-friendly RIFRA law.

So?

Rick