Scalia may be biased; bear may shit in woods

The BBQ Pit
21

I think lending her name to a series of lectures is a little different than lecturing herself, assuming that she has no control over the content of the lectures. I am more troubled that she gave opening remarks and I think this raises similar questions to those raised by the Scalia appearance that led to this thread.

She does not, however, appear to have the same sort of pattern of this behaviour that Scalia exhibits. She also declines to comment publicly, as opposed to Scalia who does comment publicly and comes off like an ass while doing it. “Quack quack.”

Sorry to disappoint you by at least partially agreeing.

22

Izzy, do you know of any actual cases upcoming that are relevant to your example? What should Ginsburg recuse herself from? With what interest is she in conflict?

If you can’t produce an actual argument, then you had better keep thrashing around trying to find another tu quoque, if you want to convince anyone but yourself, that is.

23

Yeah, everything is different than everything else. Round noodles are different than spaghetti. And let’s not forget the seashell shape. But if you are to demand that everyone on the SC avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest to the point that people on this thread are demanding, I would think having a group sponsor a lecture series in your name shortly after arguing a case in your court (in which you ruled in their favor) just might qualify.

Hey, Elvis, didn’t have time to read the link, eh? Hard at work, I imagine. When you do get a chance, give it a shot. Slowly, I would suggest.

24

Wow, Izzy, did you get as far the the first period and just stop? Did you miss the part about how I said I actually agree with you to a point?

Let’s review, shall we? I think that lending her name to a series of lectures over which she has no editorial control is not the same as directly delivering a series of lectures. I think that Ginsburg’s delivering an opening address to the series raises questions similar to those that Scalia’s speech raises. I do not think Ginsburg has engaged in the same pattern of questionable behaviour that Scalia has, nor has she made a laughingstock of herself by speaking publicly on the matter the way Scalia has.

See how that’s partial agreement with you, asshole? Or are you so locked into the whole partisan battle that you must manufacture a fight where none exists?

While we’re on the topic, however, “Yeah, well, she does it too” is not, I think you’ll find, a very strong defense to charges of misconduct.

25

Unlike certain other people, like - apparently - you, I don’t view issues as being part of a larger personal battle, and try to view each issue on its own merits. As such, it is of no concern to me if you agree or disagree with me on any number of other issues, or aspects of this one. In this case, I am discussing the relevance of your purported “difference”, which I believe is non-existent. I could care less if you agree with me to a point.

Actually the reason for my post was that I think you guys are all being very silly, and figured I’d illustrate that by showing you an example involving one of your heroes and watch you dance around trying to contrive artificial differences. But, having said that, I think “she does it too” is actually something of a defense. Because “appearance of a conflict” is not a hard and fixed standard, and you could draw the line in any number of places as to what constitutes a legitimate appearance of a conflict. (e.g. how about if a judge is a member of the same ethnic group as one of the defendants? Comes from the same hometown? Or any number of other “connections”). So I think in looking at where to draw the line you have to consider what is and has been common practice for members of these courts. And to the extent that you can point to other judges who engage in the same type of activity you strengthen the case for such activity as being within acceptable limits.

26

How much less could you care? I think you mean you “couldn’t” care less, which I find to be less than truthful on your part because if you couldn’t care less you wouldn’t have responded at all.

Ah, so you posted in the hopes of accomplishing nothing but stirring up a reaction. What a lovely bridge you have…

And now you didn’t get the reaction you wanted because the OP actually conditionally agreed with you, so you pretend like none of it ever happened. I would accuse you of intellectual dishonesty but I have no reason to believe you’re at all intellectual.

27

Sorry, bro. “I could care less” is a widely used expression meaning the same thing as “I couldn’t care less”. (Language doesn’t work like math). I rather suspect that you know this already, but are merely trying to come up with some sort of attack to save face.

What I could (or couldn’t) care less about is the fact that you partially agree with me. I said so in that very sentence. You could look it up, as Yogi said. There are other matters being discussed that I do care about to some degree, hence my response. I only addressed the matter of your partial agreement after you tried to argue that it had a bearing on those other matters.

Ah, the old troll accusation, but cleverly worded so as to avoid using the word “troll” and escape the administration’s injunction against such accusations. Nice work there - hey, why don’t you report the post, if you haven’t done so already?

Possibly you are unfamiliar with the basics of debating - quite likely in fact, based on your efforts to date - but trying to maneuver one’s opponent into having to defend an indefensible position is an old and respectable technique. You can call it “stirring up a reaction” if you like.

No idea what you mean with this. Neither your assertion that I did not get the reaction that I wanted, nor what it is that I’m pretending never happened.

28

I think Elvis helped flesh that out.

My intended response is not allowed by the board.

29

Yes, I understand that many ignorant people use language incorrectly.

Ah, that explains it! You’re trying to get me to defend the indefensible (which is not what you originally said you were doing, but well let that little lie go for now) and rather than doing that I’m agreeing with you! I’m not playing your stupid little game and you’re not dealing with it well! Poor confused child, no wonder you’re cranky!

30

Oh, a language snob too? Actually, language means what people understand it to mean, and the way it is commonly used is automatically “correct”. But that is another debate, and one that may well be over your head.

No actually it is quite precisely what I originally said I was doing. The indefensible would be the simultaneous defense of Ginsburg and attack on Scalia, with “contrive[d] artificial differences”.

In part, as you say. You also contrived an artificial difference between one appearance of conflict and another (and declined to address it when I pointed out that both share that characteristic). Nice dance.

Yeah, I guess that’s it.

erislover, I don’t understand your post at all. Too clever for me.

31

There is a difference, and it is one of degree. Ginsburg, as the “lender of name and presence” to a lecture series, is a step removed from the content of the lectures. Scalia, the deliverer of the speech, has no removal. And again, there is a concrete difference between one incident and a pattern of incidents. Let me try to put this in a way you can understand. Say your playmate eats your cookie once but says it was a mistake. You believe him, right? But if he eats your cookie three or four times and says it’s a mistake, you might start to doubt him. Same with Ginsburg and Scalia. Ginsburg’s action was questionable, although less so because she has more distance, but Ginsburg’s action is so far singular, unlike Scalia who does this stuff over and over and over again.

You ought to be used to that by now.

32

You completely missed the point. The issue with Ginsburg is not that she will be biased to support the position taken in any particular lecture. The issue is that by virtue of her affiliation with that particular organization she will be biased to support positions argued by that organization. These are two different forms of bias (Ginsburg is more similar to the Cheney case than to the speeches) and to loudly proclaim that one form does not exist while ignoring the other form is disingenuous.

I wonder if you can understand this: I’ve not addressed this particular argument, so there’s no need for you to explain it again and again. But FWIW, I would say that it is unknown how widespread these practices are, by Ginsburg or the other justices. The issue is only beginning to become prominent, and further revelations may well be in the offing. For now, I would concentrate on individual instances rather than try to pretend that you know the full story.

33

Are we going off half cocked here? I did a google on “Ruth Bader Distinguished Lecture Series” and came up with zip on point. There are all sorts of links to Justice Ginsberg and her being distinguished and to lectures on, by and about her, but nothing about the lecture series that IzzyR is being so triumphant about. I note that the link (and my morning paper) both say that the lecture is co-sponsored by the NOW Legal Defense Fund but gives us no idea of who else sponsors, how the NOW people sponsor, where and when the lectures are given.

Are they given at some law school to which the Justice has a connection and the NOW people are providing donuts? Does Justice Ginsberg give the lecture (apparently not) or does she have some role in selecting the lecturers and their topics? Has the Justice in some way endorsed the contents of the lecture or the political and legal theories of the co-sponsor, or of any sponsor? Does the Justice in some way schmooz with the co-sponsor in something other than a routine manner, as in attending a Georgetown cocktail party with the co-sponsor? Does the Justice have private conversations with the co-sponsor such as might take place in a duck blind in the predawn twilight?

We really need to fill in some facts before we conclude that Justice Ginsberg’s lecture series is the equivalent of Justice Scallia’s behavior, or not.

34

Doesn’t sound any less stupid for being common.

35

Any suggestions on how I can convey to someone that I do care some, but I could care less?

Until you provide one, I’m going to continue using “I could care less,” with or without your permission.

36

There is another step, and that is the one between an actual litigant in a case (i.e. Cheney) and a mere filer of amicus curiae briefs (i.e. NOW). Damn big step, too, and easily tripped over by those who already know what conclusion they want to reach.

**SG, ** this may be what you’re looking for.

But Scalia has done that, too.

37

No, not really, Elvis. Your link is to the same story that IzzyR linked. It doesn’t tell us where the lecture took place, the extent of NOW’s sponsorship, or the Justice’s involvement with the lecture series or the sponsors.

As I think about it, the American Bar Association has been known to file friend of the court briefs. Our friend’s argument would have us think that it would be improper for a Supreme Court justice to speak at one of the ABA’s functions.

Right now I do not have anything that persuades me, or tends to persuade me, that there is an impropriety or the appearance of it in Justice Ginsberg’s participation in the lecture series. There is nothing in the story that lets me say that Justice G.'s behavior is anything close to the obvious appearance of impropriety we see in the case of Justice Scalia.

I don’t think any one can reasonably expect justices of the Supreme Court to live lives of monastic insolation. By necessity they are part of the political world of Washington DC. By necessity they are part of the world of lawyers and legal education. However, we can expect justices to avoid behavior that waives a red flag about their impartiality toward persons or causes. Justice Scalia appears to be pretty contemptuous of those conventions. Perhaps because he is convinced of his ability to find the right is all cases because his heart is pure and because he is impervious to all the banishments that personal acquaintance with the parties to the dispute imposes on us ordinary people.

38

Spavined Gelding,

Here’s a link to the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, which features the lecture series prominently, including a picture of their president as she “shares the spotlight” with Ginsburg, and a link to an AP article about the event.

According to the article, it was held at the “Association of the Bar of the City of New York” - I don’t know what this does for your question.

According to the AP article, the event was “held in her honor”, and of course, was obviously named for her. Also, the NOW group was quoted and named as co-sponsors, which seems to suggest that they had a prominent role, as opposed to being one of a zillion sponsors, or donut-servers.

(Also, according to the UPI, Ginsburg was briefly a member of the board of this group in the 70s, which also suggests a stronger connection).

Elvis’ point about the difference between a litigant and lawyer is a valid one.

Overall, I think there is a much greater chance of bias in favor of a group with which you have a long relationship, including them recently sponsoring a lecture series named for you and in your honor then in favor of a guy with which you went on a duck hunt. Not even close.

Brave words. You are one tough guy, aren’t you?

Anyway, for those still hung up about this phrase, I direct you to a previous discussion of this topic. You can resuscitate that thread and valiantly do battle over there. For myself, I could care less.

39

Yeah, but it would prevent me from making bad puns about Duns Scotus with reference to Scalia, who should IMO wear the appropriate cap! :smiley:

40

I’m not sure how there is enough range of possibility left there to matter, for purposes of this discussion. Certainly not when the argument being raised is “Yeah, well, one of your people does exactly the same thing too!”.

She could stand to keep a little lower profile, but I agree, and that is why Izzy’s attempt at a tu quoque, the only remaining approach by partisan Republicans to claim their own public morality, is so lame.

Further parsing of that approach:

No, it’s that she has affiliated herself with that organization *because * she supports the positions they argue. The attempted reverse argument is only possible with a preassumption that someone who doesn’t share your views must not actually have any real morality of their own at all.