Based on our judicial system, the Supreme Court’s unbiased jurists consider a case on its merits, approach constitutional questions with an open mind, and reserve judgment until after arguments have been made on both sides. On the other hand, there’s Antonin Scalia.
The Supreme Court this week will hear arguments in a big case: whether to allow the Bush administration to try Guantanamo detainees in special military tribunals with limited rights for the accused. But Justice Antonin Scalia has already spoken his mind about some of the issues in the matter. During an unpublicized March 8 talk at the University of Freiberg in Switzerland, Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S. Constitution or international conventions, adding he was “astounded” at the “hypocritical” reaction in Europe to Gitmo.
“War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts,” he says on a tape of the talk reviewed by NEWSWEEK. “Give me a break.”
Challenged by one audience member about whether the Gitmo detainees don’t have protections under the Geneva or human-rights conventions, Scalia shot back: “If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son and I’m not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it’s crazy.”
At this point, Scalia may not have a choice but to recuse himself from the case. He very publicly addressed the legal question at hand, and told a large audience the legal conclusions he’d already drawn. “This is clearly grounds for recusal,” said Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a human-rights group that has filed a brief in behalf of the Gitmo detainees. “I can’t recall an instance where I’ve heard a judge speak so openly about a case that’s in front of him-without hearing the arguments.”
Scalia didn’t specifically say how he’d rule in this specific case (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld), but as Nico noted, the statute governing inappropriate judicial speech doesn’t require a specific reference, just comments that would cast doubt on a jurist’s impartiality. The question then becomes how seriously Scalia takes his judicial responsibilities. I’m not optimistic.
If it’s anything like how he shows respect for those who disagree with him, we’re in trouble.
Minutes after receiving the Eucharist at a special Mass for lawyers and politicians at Cathedral of the Holy Cross, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had a special blessing of his own for those who question his impartiality when it comes to matters of church and state.
“You know what I say to those people?” Scalia, 70, replied, making an obscene gesture under his chin when asked by a Herald reporter if he fends off a lot of flak for publicly celebrating his conservative Roman Catholic beliefs.
“That’s Sicilian,” the Italian jurist said, interpreting for the “Sopranos” challenged.
Classy guy. I wonder what conservatives would say if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had done something similar.