Gosh, you’re making it sound like Nino didn’t do anything wrong! Sheesh! You really don’t get what a lynch mob is for, do you?

It was also pointed out at Volokh, IIRC, that in addition to teaching the course, Scalia prepared an exhaustive course notes booklet (anyone got a spare copy they want to sell?), which isn’t the sort of thing you dash off on a lazy sunday afternoon.

You are missing the point. This was not a “pay-to-play vacation junket”. Scalia arrived just in time to teach a 10 hour course and then left early the next morning. Are you insinuating that a Justice can not teach a course to a 100 lawyers? His only compensation was his travel and accomodations. In addition, it says alot about a person who upholds his year long commitment to teach a class, rather than skip it to attend the swearing in of Roberts.

However, on the judicial cannons matter, the congress makes that determination for Supreme Court justices. It nears the immutable, that only historians have the last word when it comes to assessing honoraria, and, travel, blessed travel.

Rather than taking a firm contrarian view, I think congress would have a very interesting journey if it were to visit the area of judicial comportment in the land’s highest court, in a way that extends the usual bounds of the functional equivalent of due diligence to look for conflicts in making a recusal determination, in chambers. We have heard some of that commentary from at least one Supreme Court Justice quite recently. What say, congress? Well, Senator Spector and Senator Leahy right now are the persons to go to about this. Maybe next gen.

“But the notion that [Breyer] is a[] [liberal]jurist who completley agrees with the [Renaissance Institute's] outlandish agenda does not come as a surprise.”

“But the notion that [Ginsburg] is a[] [liberal]jurist who completley agrees with the [National Association of Women Lawyers]‘ outlandish agenda does not come as a surprise.”

Wow. That really is fun and easy to do. Very intellectual.

I do think the appearance issue is a bit more complicated than you suggest.

But the notion that Scalia is an extreme Conservative jurist who completley agrees withthe Federalist Society’s outlandish agenda does not come as a surprise.

I must admit it does come a a surprise to me that a Federalist Society member blogs here.

I was told this is a Center Left site.

Is it really just eclectic?

No judgments. Just wondering.

And then, in true MoveOn.org fashion, the article points out Justice Scalia’s trip “was sponsored in part by the lobbying and law firm that used to employ Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay’s convicted pal…”

Scurrilous, selective, guilt-by-association, partisan, crap.