While judges should not be isolated from the society in which they live, they must take special care that their extra-judicial activities do not create a conflict with their judicial duties, give rise to an appearance of impropriety, or create a reason for questioning their impartiality. As you know, the ethical rules apply to both the public and private conduct of a judge. While such rules might be considered burdensome to a private citizen they exist to protect the public and to preserve the integrity and independence of the courts.

From a letter from Sen. Leahy and Lieberman to Chief Justice Rehnquist regarding a trip that Justice Scalia and Vice President Cheney was involved in, weeks after the Supreme Court took a case involving Cheney's energy commission. Efforts were made to keep the trip secret (I think more for Cheney's benefit, he of the undisclosed location) and the "use of private jets and facilities provided by an energy industry insider" was reported. The CJ replied with a brief note saying that individual justices have the final decision in matters of recusal.

Justice Scalia is a long term friend of Cheney's, and has strong/firmly held beliefs, so I do not know how much the visit would really influence his vote. As to keeping things secret, Scalia has been on record basically not giving a damn if he sounds and looks controversial. Still, it is totally possible that the mentality involved that allows him to go on such a trip, one that surely he should know furthers the cynicism many have of the impartiality of their public servants, influences his votes on such matters. Things like that have a tendency to feed off each other. The more important thing is the message this sends to the public. And, yes, if not him, some would be influenced by such interaction and conflict of interest. It is why the rules are in place to begin with.

---

To add to the discussion yesterday, the fact that the information supplied to those (including you and me) deciding whether we should go to war is starting to be questioned has led many to focus on the human rights aspects of the war. It is interesting how some of those who you'd think would be most supportive of such ends were dubious. Maybe, because of the ad hoc, slightly hypocritical nature of the argument. For instance, both Human Rights Watch and Samantha Power (Pulitzer Prize winner for her book on genocide, including in Iraq) opposed the war. Anyway, Condi Rice was out there still firmly demanding that we had to go to war. Sigh.

---

Happy Birthday ... sis