In remarks made by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at Amherst College (Feb. 12) concerning hearing a case involving his good duck-hunting buddy, Vice President Dick Cheney, on closed-door energy policies, Scalia refuses to recuse himself. He goes on to weakly justify his position, ending his remarks by saying: "That's all I'm going to say for now. Quack, quack."
One wonders just who are the two quacks he's referencing. Himself and the ducks? Or, himself and good pal Cheney, to whom he helped hand the vice presidency in 2000 along with his so-called boss, the great exaggerator, George W. Bush? Or, maybe just himself, doubling his quackery in a moment of supreme arrogance, in which he is so skilled? In any of those situations a quack is still a quack, even if he sits on the bench of the Supreme Court.
If I got a parking ticket and decided to challenge it in court and the judge turned out to be a friend of mine with whom I had gone hunting, is there anyone in the world (other than Scalia) who wouldn't believe it was the judge's duty to recuse himself?
Robert A. Fruge