Scalia and Recusal

I read this article on FindLaw and thought it was interesting. It's about why Scalia should recuse himself on the In Re Richard Cheney case. I'm a lowly 1L so what do I know, but the description of Stevens' behavior compared to Scalia was compelling. Also, even though I'm only a 1L, I think I'm getting a pretty good grasp of the whole "Reasonable Man Test" and it seems pretty obvious that any reasonable man would question your impartiality when you've been going to dinner and on duck hunting trips with your "buddy" who's case happens to be coming before you.
Another interesting thing about the article, and I trust FindLaw, is that Diamond Services Corp, an oil services company, paid for the trip and ferried Scalia there. Since the whole case revolves around who was on Cheney's energy policy panel, and this company is involved in the energy industry, it could involve Diamond Services Corp. This case could have direct implications for that company. This definitely raises the specter of undue influence.
The whole trip obviously resulted from the influence that Cheney and Scalia have. I could be wrong, no one ever sent their private jet to take me hunting, or anywhere else for that matter. At this point I would probably be lucky to land a job cleaning private jets. Maybe it doesn't influence them at all, but that's hardly a reasonable belief.
Scalia recused himself from the Pledge case. He understands what people consider reasonable or not. It's much more difficult to believe that you wouldn't be able to remain impartial in a case that you've made a few comments about but that you could in a case that involves a friend and free hunting trips. The most compelling reason he should recuse himself is that not only can he comprehend the problem of not recusing himself, but he's made the decision before with less grounds.

BTW I'm naming my first son Reasonable Man. I'd change my own name to Reasonable Man and hire myself out but my old man (He's still pretty good with the belt too.) would probably consider it disrespectful. If I had a daughter I might give her the name but it probably wouldn't be much fun being a teenaged girl named Man, I guess she could go by Reese until she was older. I also don't think it would be quite as successful for her, but maybe society will be more tolerant by then.
Anyway he'll be able to charge expert fees whenever there's a case where there's a disagreement over what a reasonable man would do in certain circumstances. They'll pay him $100 an hour or whatever and he'll solve it for them. It'll be a plush life that provides him the means to support his infirm parents in luxury.