Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1006247
 


 



Ducks in a Row


Steven Lubet


Northwestern University - School of Law



Abstract:     
This short essay revisits Justice Antonin Scalia's nonrecusal opinion in the famous Duck Hunt case, Cheney v. District Court.

It is customary for Supreme Court justices to make recusal, or nonrecusal, decisions without comment. To his credit, Scalia departed from that practice, denying the Sierra Club's disqualification motion in a lengthy opinion. In his characteristically mordant style, Scalia skewered the request as ill-founded, unsupported, and totally without merit. If your only information about the issue came from Scalia's opinion, you might well wonder why he spent so much effort refuting such glaringly baseless arguments. But of course, that is the trouble. Scalia's tour de force (as some of called it) displays not a moment's recognition that he was judging himself, much less that he might not be the most objective judge of his own impartiality, and least of all that his unconcealed umbrage actually makes him appear more partisan rather than less.

Despite its forceful certainty, Scalia's opinion is deficient in almost every conceivable way. It is wrong on the facts, wrong on the law, and wrong on procedure.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 6

working papers series


Download This Paper

Date posted: August 12, 2007  

Suggested Citation

Lubet, Steven, Ducks in a Row. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1006247 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1006247

Contact Information

Steven Lubet (Contact Author)
Northwestern University - School of Law ( email )
375 E. Chicago Ave
Unit 1505
Chicago, IL 60611
United States
312-503-6605 (Phone)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 289
Downloads: 56
Download Rank: 212,061

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.359 seconds