Scalia's scalding refusal to recusal

From The NYTimes this critique of Justice Scalia's refusal to withdraw from hearing a cas involving Cheney's review of energy policy:

The Times invited six law professors specializing in legal ethics to evaluate Justice Scalia's legal arguments: Stephen Gillers of New York University, Monroe H. Freedman of Hofstra, Steven Lubet of Northwestern, James E. Moliterno of William & Mary, Ronald D. Rotunda of George Mason and G. Edward White of the University of Virginia.

I'm sure that that group is as even handed and impartial as any SCOTUS justice. Of course, they ignored the point that Scalia's duck hunt with Cheney doesn't make him any more likely to be impartial than say Justice Bader-Ginsburg ruling on a NOW suit. You can talk all you want about the appearance of impropriety, but it's hardly a secret where Scalia is likely to come down on this suit, and being at a duck hunt with the VP would hardly change that. I think he has made a decision that the issue here is more about using lawsuits to interfere with the Executive Branch's policy making to make it more like a judicial or legislative hearing, and that this is a transparent attempt to shape the outcome more than any actual concern about favoritism. If they're going to play hardball politcs with him, he's going to do the same. This isn't how it should be, but the suit is pretty silly, and dangerous as well.