Well, IzzyR, what your last post tells me is that you saw an incomplete news story, interpreted it in a light most unfavorable to Justice Ginsberg and unlimbered the “they all do it” defense without doing the necessary fact checking.
I for one see a big difference between an association with a recognized organization that may have as members people who appear before the Supreme Court in a representing or advocating capacity and which may on occasion file friend of the court briefs (which, incidentally are filed only on invitation of the Court, albeit often a solicited invitation), and a private, chummy relationship with a party to a matter before the Court when that party has a real interest, although perhaps not a financial, interest in the outcome of the case.
Oh, I get it. So Scalia is to be pilloried if he gives a speech in front of an advocacy group with a possible pending case, or if he expresses an opinion about such a case. But its OK if Ginsburg is honored by an advocacy group because she already supports any and all of their positions and future cases. Remarkable, even for you.
I have no idea what this means. (Do you?)
What in the world does this mean? Which facts have turned out to be wrong, and which interpretation can be said to be unfavorable as a result of any post? You are strangely silent on detail here, and instead fall back on reviving Elvis’ point (a point that I previously conceded had (some) validity).
