Political Science

The judicial system has always been expected to be the check and balance of any democratic system. It seeks to interpret questionable facets in the practice of both the executive and legislative branch in their decision making practices. However, ethical issues continue to arise concerning the questions surrounding impartiality and establishment of relationships especially among concerned groups and individuals and power.

Analyzing the political cartoon, it can be seen that Judge Scalias stance concerning his impartiality in the investigation of Dick Cheneys case proves to be questionable. In essence, it can be argued that the duck hunt incident was indeed a deviation from its original purpose. Indeed, it puts into question having to balance personal life with that of Judge Scalias public role as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice (Andrews, 2004). These dynamics in turn reflect the capacity of using technicalities with a fair mix of tracing democratic rights and interpretation of law.

Seeing this, it can be argued that Judge Scalia should have abstained from this hearing because of the question of impartiality. The act of engagement with the accused seems to create a challenge to the existing trend and patterns that the U.S. Supreme Court stands for. Though Judge Scalia may have a point in arguing in his defense, it is through such interaction and participation with Cheney in the duck hunt may illustrate a picture of bias and increasing questions surrounding his allegiances (Andrews, 2004).

In the end, this case clearly provides an illustration of how the personal and public life of a government figure becomes. It becomes entangled with corresponding expectations and situates itself in every decision or choice made whether for the good or worse. Given these, such realizations brings forth the question of advocating the role and imbibing it into ones personal actions in which case should not deviate or hinder the judicial process, even for Judge Scalia.