[Preechr]

Of course not.

Of all people, a SC Justice should have predetermined ideas about what is constitutional and what is not. Why in the world would he recuse himself for having a general opinion on something as inane as a captured terrorist having some sort of right to a trial by jury under the full protection of American laws? It's obvious that's the question he was answering there, isn't it?

Nothing in his quoted comments indicates the issue he was addressing went any further than that, though the context of the larger "story" obviously was attempting to paint his words as saying something altogether different.

"...Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S. Constitution or international conventions..."

Did he now? I'd love to see that Scalia quote, wouldn't you? Too bad they didn't include something that groundbreaking in the actual story... or did you just leave that part out, max?

How bout the quote where Scalia said detainees, "don't have protections under the Geneva or human-rights conventions..." I don't see that quoted, yet the words that indicated it was still appear as if it were.

I wonder why you left those parts of this HUGE, ground-breaking story out of your post, max? I want to see where he said these things.