Ridiculous. She specifically denounced a currently running candidate. It simply can’t get more partisan than that. From what I see, every single one of the examples in your article showed Scalia attacking a specific policy or law. Take off the blinders.
Honestly? Well, I’ll try. Honestly, don’t much care. If the Notorious RBG thought she was breaking the law, she most likely would not have done it, seeing as she has some expertise in that sort of thing. I will defer to her judgement.
She’s seventeen?
I don’t think she was breaking the law, and so I suppose I’ll defer to her judgment on that question likewise. My question is, should she recuse herself if this election winds up in a Bush-v-Gore-esque brouhaha before the Supreme Court?
Ahh, but a seventeen year old cares about what her friends and peers think of her, though perhaps not her parents. RBG may have no more fucks to give about anyone at all.
The legitimacy of the Supreme Court is both important and fragile. The way we’re going, you can start to imagine a world in which Presidents simply stop listening to it. That would be a disaster for our republic. Ginsburg’s comments usher us further down that road.
I don’t know if they are really different in a meaningful way from the kinds of things Scalia used to say or the other justices have said. I don’t think anyone had any reasonable doubts about who Scalia supported in Bush v. Gore. Indeed, IIRC, some of the justices had told people outside the Court who they wanted to win prior to that case coming to them, just not in an interview with the press. But even if they aren’t different, that doesn’t excuse them.
You’re overstating this by miles.
Is she saying mildly derogatory things about him just because he’s Republican? That would be partisan indeed. Or is Trump a genuinely, disturbingly awful candidate, with a deplorable lack of ethics, decorum, or decency? In that sense, Trump’s own fellow Republican colleagues have said stuff about him that’s far, far worse.
That’s just one set of examples. Scalia made partisan comments for years; this is hardly controversial. Anyway, so what?
Don’t tell me what to do.
translation: Whatever. I do what I want.
Lol. Nothing to see here folks and besides both sides do it.
Why?
She didn’t, of course, actually say she preferred the South African constitution over the U.S. one; she did say the South African one might be a better model for the Egyptians in writing one. “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done.”
Her job is to interpret the U.S. Constitution as it is written; her job is not to be a cheerleader asserting our constitution is the greatest one ever written, for all peoples and all circumstances. For example, the South African document explicitly states that the courts are independent; that idea is NOT explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution. She is recommending a model for a country (Egypt) that doesn’t have a strong history of an independent judiciary, so why would she not suggest a model that more directly addresses their needs?
I don’t know if this an example of how extremely ideologically divided the Supreme Court is or how extremely unfit for office Donald Trump is, but the fact is that both things are true. It may seem fair to ask when the last time was that a Supreme Court justice weighed in on a political candidate, but when was the last time that things were this crazy? Seriously, probably never.
I seem to recall a timewhen things were just a little more crazy:
Chief Justice Taney was afraid Lincoln would arrest him too, after issuing Ex Parte Merryman. And there is some historical evidence that Lincoln planned to, and then backed down!
Yes, Donald Trump could permanently damage our democracy. But it’s also true that the slow slide of the legitimacy of the Supreme Court will also damage our democracy. Since Trump has a 77% chance of losing, I’d say the bigger threat to democracy is justices trying to use their position to affect the outcome of the election.
No kidding. I’m always shocked when people are blasé about the pilllars of their society being eroded because their side is doing the eroding. It’s doubly disgusting when the side that makes gestures towards a less authoritarian philosophy does it.
Nope.
She was appointed by a Constitutional process.
I think we want to believe that justices aren’t political, but Scalia once and for all dispelled everyone of that notion. Would have never had GWB were it not for Scalia. No Citizens United without Scalia. We live in an era of extreme activism, and no branch of the government is immune. There’s no way in hell she’d recuse herself. The only question is, how would republicans react if she cast a deciding vote? Democrats and liberals accepted the outcome – we didn’t want to but we did. But something tells me republicans would riot.
Horse crap.
The only thing that can truly damage our democracy is the uninformed and incompetent voter, which is ultimately responsible for who becomes president, who fills the seats in congress, who fills the cabinet posts, and the judiciary.
The fact is that the Supreme Court has had activist judges, beginning with none other than John James Marshall who asserted for the court the power of judicial review, which is nowhere to be mentioned explicitly in the Constitution itself. He served in both the Executive and the Judicial at the same time and had an axe to grind with Thomas Jefferson.
If you don’t like what that 83-year-old witch is saying, then elect someone who will outlive her and interpret the Constitution literally and become right wing activists on the bench a la Scalia.
I’m not sure I follow you. I mean, even though she was appointed by a Constitutional process, you still think there are some cases she should recuse herself from, right?
This is naive. As John Marshall recognized, the legitimacy of the Supreme Court rests on a castle of sand, which is why he chose Marbury, a case limiting the Court’s power, to establish judicial review. That legitimacy waxes and wanes, and could easily be exhausted. Brown v. Board is meaningless without the 101st Airborne.
Or, I could just offer reasonable criticism of her. I think I’ll choose that route, since she’s a very fine justice.
Partisans gleefully trying to capture and subvert every institution of government, each time claiming they’re only fighting fire with fire, is a much surer road to the crapper than some two-bit reality star winning the Presidency.
Here is the actual quote from the Code of Conduct for United States Judges:
“A judge should not…make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office”
Her interview for the NYT certainly appears to look as if she is publicly opposing a candidate for public office.
If the Supreme Court’s power depended on them being politically neutral, then why has the fact that we generally know their politics not destroyed the institution already?
Hell, this election is basically about who will get to appoint someone to the Court. The assumption is that the Republicans will appoint a conservative and the Democrats some sort of liberal.
If the Court’s power falls, it’s because the Constitution didn’t define it properly, not because of politics. The Court should have a way to enforce its rulings.
Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court with is Indian Removal policy–also known as the Trail of Tears. Yes, it was a disaster.
And, yes Bush v Gore was a black mark on the Supremes. Sandra Day O’Conner had expressed her disappointment that a Democratic President would make it harder for her to retire & spend time with her ailing husband. Clarence Thomas’s wife was working for the Heritage Society, vetting candidates for Bush appointments.
Unofficial comments by a Justice when no case is pending? Small potatoes. If you’re so “concerned” about the Court, why not chastise the Senate Republicans for not even considering President Obama’s latest nominee?
There might be, but those would probably be extremely rare.
Justice Scalia was demonstrably partisan throughout his entire term on the bench, and I don’t recall the same type of outrage, even after he basically asserted judicial authority to claim an election for the party that basically got him appointed to the bench in the first place. People vocally denounced the decision, but there were no suggestions that he should have recused himself.