If I could have done so in good conscience, I would have been pleased to demonstrate my integrity, and immediately silence the criticism, by getting off the case. Since I believe there is no basis for recusal, I cannot. The motion is Denied.

Click Image to Enlarge United States Supreme Court / Via Wikipedia 'INTOLERABLE' IMPLICATIONS: "Intolerable" is the word Justice Antonin Scalia used to describe the implications of a justice allowing himself to be run off a case by the press. His point was that in competition with recusal stands an obligation to stick to one's post. The better part of integrity for President Trump would be to refuse to accept Attorney General Sessions' recusal and instruct him to conduct the probe of Russian influence in the election.

* * *

Those are the words with which President Trumps ideal Supreme Court justice  Antonin Scalia  refused to recuse himself from a case involving his duck-hunting pal, Vice President Cheney. He was reacting to a recusal motion from the Sierra Club, and he made short work of it in a magnificent opinion that begs for study in the wake of the recusal today by Attorney General Sessions in the investigation in respect of Russia.

What The Great Scalia suggests is that there is a fine line between recusal and dereliction  that there are times when the better part of integrity is just to man up and do ones duty. Scalia did not feel there were grounds for recusal in the case, in which hed gone on a duck-hunting trip with Mr. Cheney. His bigger point, though, was that sticking to ones post has its own moral imperative in competition with the tug of recusal.

In respect of the famous duck hunting trip with Vice President Cheney, the Sierra Club, which was seeking Scalias recusal, argued that because the American public, as reflected in the nations newspaper editorials, has unanimously concluded that there is an appearance of favoritism, any objective observer would be compelled to conclude that Justice Scalias impartiality has been questioned. And made recusal mandatory.

The implications of this argument are staggering, Scalia retorted in a formal opinion. I must recuse because a significant portion of the press, which is deemed to be the American public, demands it. Recusal, he reckoned, would harm the Court, and he suggested that allowing the press to run a Justice off a case would give elements of the press a veto over participation of any Justices who had social contacts or a friendship with a named official. That, he wrote, is intolerable.

Our own view is that Attorney General Sessions faced a similar burden and that the better part of valor would have been to stand his ground. He drew the assignment as attorney general because President Trump trusted his judgment. The President has made it clear that he retains full confidence in Mr. Sessions. His stepping aside is a kind of dereliction, an over-eagerness to protect his own reputation with the Democratic press at the expense of the voters.

It is particularly disappointing because Mr. Sessions made the decision after talking with what the New York Times called career officials at the Justice Department. Of course career officials of the Justice Department would incline toward recusal. It is important, though, that the decision making in this, as in any case, be made by political appointees, which is what every United States attorney is in every district in America. Both parties long ago learned the dangers of runaway independent counsel.

Before Mr. Sessions announced he would recuse himself, the President spoke to reporters. He was aboard United States Ship Gerald Ford. Asked whether Mr. Sessions should recuse himself in the Russia probe, the New York Times reports, Mr. Trump said: I dont think so. An hour later, Mr. Sessions announced his recusal. If we were Mr. Trump  a stretch to be sure  we wouldnt accept it. Wed order him to stick with his job and pursue an honest investigation. And refer inquiring reporters to The Great Scalia.