I don’t have a big problem with Scalia and the OP mentioned incident.
I know this is outside of the OP, but what is your take on Thomas and appearance of impropriety if he rules on the Affordable Health Care Act?
So without explicitly conceding that Scalia’s participation in the thread’s subject event was, in fact, proper, you’d like to stop talking about it and start talking about something else?
I’ll be happy to answer that, but I’d like to get a clear consensus on the original subject first, because I think there’s sort of an effort to switch gears without clearly and forthrightly acknowledging a concession (not you; and not that you need to concede anything, but you’ve made your position clear).
Well, since the first batch of shit didn’t stick, might as well sling another.
Regards,
Shodan
It has to do with the big picture and the hope that the Supreme Court rises above the political fray. We all know that Justices are human and have their own personal political beliefs, and that comes out in rulings. We don’t want Supreme Court Justices to get a bag of cash (either literally or by extension including rewarding close family members) in return for ruling a certain way.
Specifically, as an independant voter that thinks Affordable Health Care is a less than perfect but necessary first step in fixing the US health care mess. I would be happy to have the debate that Thomas’ wife’s proactive lobbying and the source of her funding and his own expense paid trips calls into question his impartiality. It’s certainly *convenient *that Justice Thomas is getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar before the big vote. But he’s the one with his hand in cookie jar when the spotlight is turned on, and that is not the same as a witchhunt. He’s a Supreme Court Justice for chrissakes, and this harks back to avoiding the appearnance of impropriety.
Scalia meeting with congress - I don’t have an issue.
A judge must avoid doing things which create the appearance of an impropriety. Meeting with partisan groups is just that. Judges subject to review by judicial commissions and other judges do not do that sort of thing. The problem with USSC justices is that there is no check on their power short of impeachment.
Michigan was the first to come up on Google, http://coa.courts.mi.gov/rules/documents/8michigancodeofjudicialconduct.pdf but all judicial codes in the US probably have this.
I am a partisan on the subject of the supreme court and the political matters (and many legal matters) that come before it. I do not pretend to be a neutral. I want Scalia and Thomas off the court, by retirement or impeachment. I favor one side over the other very predictably. However, I am not a judge, except when I act as a judge pro tem (small claims court about once a year as a pro bono thing). When I act as a small claims court judge I would recuse myself if any political party’s central committee had a collections case because I am a partisan Democrat and it would appear improper. Mostly it is about fence disputes and small contract dispute.
It is easy to self recuse in small claims. Real judges also regularly self recuse if a friend or former partner is a litigant. Rarely do I see judges recuse themselves in political cases where they care deeply about the outcome.
You said it met muster under perceived impropriety essentially because everyone does it (“Since the same sorts of things are done, and historically have been done, by Supreme Court justices many times before, I believe that addresses the issue of the appearance of impropriety.”.
Fine, show me everyone (or most or a lot) does it. Should be a simple task.
Otherwise you have not, in fact, addressed the appearance of impropriety which is an ABA standard.
If you are correct then I have to acknowledge it is “ok” and just mutter I don’t like it much (whichever justice does it). If you are not correct then there is a legitimate issue here.
No, as I mentioned, it is just scandal-mongering by the left.
It’s pretty much the same thing as the stuff about “election fraud” in Ohio in 2004. Noe of those complaining about it on the SDMB gave a tinker’s damn about fraud in any state that Bush lost. Same here - no one hereabouts is combing thru the minutia of any Justice they think will vote the way they want trying to manufacture outrage.
“Look! Look! Isn’t this just awful?”
“No, it’s trivial or non-existent.”
“How about this?”
“Nope, just as dumb.”
“How about this? Or This? Or this?”
All the while claiming they have a deep commitment to good government.
Did you know the word “gullible” doesn’t appear in any dictionary?
Regards,
Shodan
Isn’t that on your family crest?
That said, the subject of the OP isn’t that upsetting. The Koch bros. thing is. Maybe someone should start a new thread since that’s where the meat is?
OK, Whack, try this one on for size. Justice Ginsburg used to be the General Counsel for the ACLU. Now she hears cases in which that organization participates or takes great interest in the outcome. Should she recuse herself in those cases? If not, what is your definition of impropriety (which, as everyone in this thread has already surmised, is “has different ideas about what the Constitution means than I have”)?
All the justices have done work for someone before reaching the bench. Generally lots and lots of work over the years.
Is it usual for them to recuse themselves because of the prior work (didn’t Sotomayor recuse herself shortly after reaching the bench due to some prior work?)?
If so then Ginsburg should too but I suspect having done work for those people is not an issue. She no longer is beholden to that group in any way.
Currently taking money from people with issues that may come before you is a different matter as Thomas is. Currently advising lawmakers on issues that may come before you is a different matter.
What is your definition of impropriety (which, as everyone in this thread has already surmised, is “I like the conservative crowd redefining the constitutionas they see fit…leave them alone”)?
I believe I referred to Polycarp’s excellent post (#40) in support of this proposition.
I also provided several examples in post #47.
How on earth is currently advising lawmakers on matters that may come before you (by which you mean, “may touch and concern the Consitution,” no binding advisory opinion as to the constitutionality of specific legislation is rendered) impropriety but Justice Ginsburg’s active involvement in litigation that is still being hammered out today (reproductive rights, sex discrimination) not? Because we have the assurance of Whack-a-Mole that it is in the one instance, and is not in the other (“She is not beholden to them.” The end! Case dismissed!)? Is that how this works?
(These questions are rhetorical. I’m well aware that you like to punch above your weight when it comes to legal and judicial ethics, and I will not indulge an internet war of attrition.)
So should a prosecutor who has represented “The People of the State of California” recuse herself in all criminal cases after being appointed to the bench of the Superior Court?
of course not.
And neither should Ginsburg.
Which is kinda the point.
I responded to you pointing to #40 and I noted his post was thin on detail and spoke in vague terms (however well written the notions were).
Your two examples, while nice, hardly imply an everyone does it kind of thing.
Look, I am not trying to be a pain but your defense of Scalia essentially amount to “everyone does it, nothing to see here”.
Given the right’s willingness to jump on ACORN, call into question the president’s birth, claim Obama wants death panels and so on I find it hard to think they’d be silent if Ginsburg was addressing a closed meeting of the LGBT Marriage Task Force (made the name/group up).
As such I am not accepting that the others do it too. Not in an equivalent manner.
You can prove me wrong though.
No, absolutely not. I don’t think either Scalia or Ginsburg should recuse themselves with respect to anything brought up above. But then, unlike so many Tea Partiers and Whack-a-Mole, I don’t think the Constitution, separation of powers, and judicial codes of ethics work to make my political beliefs and policy decisions the only ones that can be permissibly held and acted upon.
Scalia talked about the Constitution to members of Congress, in much the same way that the justices often talk about the Constitution to lawyers and law students at various lectures around the country. Indeed, the justices talk to us, the citizens of the United States, about the Constitution many times a year in the form of written opinions and dissents. Dissents, notably, aren’t binding, but they give you (and future litigants and future legislators) a great idea about what a particular justice thinks.
Now, I think it is unwise for members of a Court that has neither the power of the sword nor the purse to allow themselves too close an association with a political movement. On the other hand, we’ve known for generations who the liberal justices are and who the conservative justices are, and open insurrection against the Supreme Court hasn’t materialized in a long time. So maybe the conventional wisdom about the unwisdom of politicking is just so much needless handwringing. At any rate, protecting the Court’s public image and institutional authority is a matter I remit to each Justice’s conscience.
So punch and run? An admitted drive-by on the Dope?
Understandable you’d lack faith in your position. Still cheese tactics.
I guess you could say “Not everybody needs 17 posts to make his case!”
Is see.
So what I should be doing is making assertions and ignore responses as you do. That is the form debate should take around here. :rolleyes: