Scalia has a point, though. The paragraph in which that sentence appears reads:

There are, I am sure, those who believe that my friendship with persons in the current administraiton might cause me to favor the Government in cases brought against it. That is not the issue here. Nor is the issue whether personal friendship with the Vice President might cause me to favor the Government in cases in which
he is named. None of these suspicions regarding my impartiality (erroneous suspiciouns, I hasten to protest) bears upon recusal here. The question, simply put, is whether someone who thought I could decide this case impartially despite my friendshop with the Vice President would reasonably believe that I cannot decide it impartially because I went hunting with that friend and accepted an invitation to fly there with him on a Government plane. If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court Justice can be bought so cheap, the Nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined.

So he may have already been bought (though he denies it), but it's crazy to think that the hunting trip per se is enough to buy him.