Justice Scalia, Tuesday August 5, 1986, responding to a confirmation hearing question from Sen. Kennedy about whether he'd overturn Roe v. Wade:
"I mean, if I can say why. Let us assume that I have people arguing before me to do it or not to do it. I think it is quite a thing to be arguing to somebody who you know has made a representation in the course of his confirmation hearings, and that is, by way of condition to his being confirmed, that he will do this or do that. I think I would be in a very bad position to adjudicate the case without being accused of having a less than impartial view of the matter."
Yes, it's quite a thing to argue before a U.S. Supreme Court Justice who admitted at his confirmation hearing that he has no intention of being impartial in your case. Apparantly, though, it's quite another thing to argue before a U.S. Supreme Court Justice who admitted to an overseas audience, just weeks earlier, that he has no intention of being impartial in your case.
The AP reports on a NewsWeek story:
"Justice Antonin Scalia reportedly told an overseas audience this month that the U.S. Constitution does not protect foreigners held at America's military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."
"...The comments came just weeks before Justices were to take up an appeal from a detainee at Guantanamo Bay."
Ok, I give up. Why, exactly, is one of our Supreme Court Justices speaking to and taking questions from a Swiss (or any foreign) audience about ANYthing?