Scalia Attacks Church-State Court Rulings

[Mark Tushnet]

Rick Duncan writes:  "As for those of you who believe Justices who speak
out on Constitutional issues should recuse themselves from cases which
raise those issues, get ready for a lot of 1-0 and 2-1 decisions when
this rule is followed. Marshall and Brennan and Blackmun would have been
permanently recused if such a rule had been in effect in the past."  I'm
sorry, but recusal is a question of law, and the question is on which
side of the line these particular comments fall, compared with other
comments (Rehnquist's on Laird v. Tatum, speeches on the death penalty
generally).  If this thread is to be pursued, could people focus on that
question?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: tushnet.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 242 bytes
Desc: Card for Mark Tushnet
Url : http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/religionlaw/attachments/20030113/9141e8fa/tushnet.vcf