Supreme Court

From Salon.com

Legal ethics expert Stephen Gillers tells Newsweek that Scalia's latest comments may be part of a problem -- quack, quack! -- that's bigger than the question of recusal. "As these things mount," Gillers says, "a legitimate question could be asked about whether he is compromising the credibility of the court."

So Scalia should recluse himself for repeating his decision from earlier cases because that undermines the cresibility of the court, but Ginsberg is allowed/encouraged to undermine the foreign policy of the United States of America, without underming the court's credibility.

Via Captain's Quarters

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross has an excellent column up at the Weekly Standard on this topic. Titled "Free to Dissent", Daveed argues that Scalia should refrain from recusal in this case, as the circumstances differ from Newdow: At first blush, Justice Scalia's latest remarks seem like an even more compelling cause for recusal. While his remarks about the pledge occurred before the case was on the Supreme Court's docket, here the court was scheduled to hear arguments less than a month after the Freiburg speech. But a closer examination reveals that there is more than meets the eye: Scalia's remarks don't put forward anything different from the views he already articulated in two published opinions, a dissent in Rasul v. Bush and another dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. And that fact makes all the difference. ...

via Michelle Malkin

Must-read: Ruth Bader Ginsburg wakes up from her slumber to deliver a very alarming speech. Reports John Hinderaker:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg gave a speech in South Africa last month, which, for some reason, is just now being publicized. Ginsburg's speech was titled "A Decent Respect for the Opinions of [Human]kind." In it, Ginsburg argued explicitly for the relevance of foreign law and court decisions to interpretation of the American Constitution. Ginsburg did not try to hide the partisan nature of this issue; at one point, she referred to "the perspective I share with four of my current colleagues," and she specifically criticized Justice Antonin Scalia, Judge Richard Posner, and the two bills that were introduced in Congress in 2004 and were broadly supported by Republicans. And she indulged in an outrageous bit of demagoguery, suggesting that those who disagree with her are somehow aligned with Justice Taney's infamous defense of slavery in the Dred Scott case.

So, Sleeping during court business does not undermine the court.
So, Attacking your fellow jurists and the foreign policy of the USA, while in a foreign nation, does not undermine the court.
But, restating your opinions from earlier cases, does undermine the court.
The quacks are the liberals who are determined to turn the USA into a defenseless socialist state.