I agree that Scalia should recuse himself. However, I also claim that Ruth Bader Ginsberg should have recused herself from a case earlier this year when NOW had a case before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has lent her name and presence to a lecture series co-sponsored by the liberal NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, an advocacy group that often argues before the court in support of women's rights that the justice embraces.

In January, Ginsburg gave opening remarks for the fourth installment in the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Distinguished Lecture Series on Women and the Law.

Two weeks earlier, she had voted in a medical screening case and taken the side promoted by the legal defense fund in its friend-of-the-court brief.

The liberal Ginsburg's involvement with the legal activist group, and recent outside activities by a conservative colleague, Justice Antonin Scalia, have touched off a debate over what kinds of extra-judicial appearances and contacts are appropriate for Supreme Court justices.

The code of conduct for the federal courts does not set clear rules for judges' involvement with advocacy groups. But it warns jurists to steer clear of outside legal activities that would "cast reasonable doubt on the capacity to decide impartially any issue that may come before" them.

Federal law says a judge or justice "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

Several legal experts said Ginsburg's ongoing affiliation with the legal activist group undercuts her appearance of impartiality. Ginsburg declined to comment.

Let's not let selective reporting lead to selective indignation. We must hold all judges to very high standards, and we must be consistent about it. Just because reporters are more likely to report against a conservative than a liberal, it doesn't mean they should be held to different standards of behavior.