Supreme Court: Ginsburg unethical
Ginsburg and NOW
We of course heard the wailing chorus of liberals declaring that Judge Scalia was unethical for...going fishing.
I of course expect nothing but cricket chips over the outright endorsement and actual advocacy for the NOW legal defense fund.
Fishing = collusion and corruption
Sponsoring and speaking for a group that routinely has business in front of the court = impartiality?
Nick
We of course heard the wailing chorus of liberals declaring that Judge Scalia was unethical for...going fishing.
I of course expect nothing but cricket chips over the outright endorsement and actual advocacy for the NOW legal defense fund.
Fishing = collusion and corruption
Sponsoring and speaking for a group that routinely has business in front of the court = impartiality?
Nick
Comments
Gindsburg should not be holding lectures for NOW and Scallia should not be hunting with Cheney.
If there is a hint of impartiality, the judge should recuse them-self. No excuses. If there is a doubt, the judge doesn't get to hear the case.
A case is coming before the supreme court that actually pertains to a investigation of Cheney's Secret Energy meetings... and whether the members of these meeting and what was said in the meetings should be public record.
The last time I checked NOW wasn't being investigated for anything...
Organizations are different than individuals.
http://www.record-eagle.com/2004/feb/021104.htm
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I know the whole thing with facts tend to trip you up but...
A case is coming before the supreme court that actually pertains to a investigation of Cheney's Secret Energy meetings... and whether the members of these meeting and what was said in the meetings should be public record.
The last time I checked NOW wasn't being investigated for anything...
Organizations are different than individuals.
http://www.record-eagle.com/2004/feb/021104.htm
Now all you have to do is show how knowing Cheney and hunting with him would prejudice Scalia toward energy meetings.
Judges are supposed to remain impartial. Even if NOW has no cases on the dockets for the court at this moment, helping them and sponsoring them is not "impartial."
Seems the trouble isn't in the facts, but in your understanding of word definitions. Impartial isn't somethign you turn on and off.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Ginsburg and NOW
We of course heard the wailing chorus of liberals declaring that Judge Scalia was unethical for...going fishing.
I of course expect nothing but cricket chips over the outright endorsement and actual advocacy for the NOW legal defense fund.
Fishing = collusion and corruption
Sponsoring and speaking for a group that routinely has business in front of the court = impartiality?
Nick
Seems to me that judgement should be withheld until NOW has an actual reason to have Ginzburg in court working on something related to them as a group.
But I guess that compute . . . .
Besides, its about a women's organization and we all know how you feel about women outside of the kitchen
Originally posted by trumptman
Now all you have to do is show how knowing Cheney and hunting with him would prejudice Scalia toward energy meetings.
Judges are supposed to remain impartial. Even if NOW has no cases on the dockets for the court at this moment, helping them and sponsoring them is not "impartial."
Seems the trouble isn't in the facts, but in your understanding of word definitions. Impartial isn't somethign you turn on and off.
Nick
That's wrong . . . you're just looking to find fleas in a pale of ice
Originally posted by trumptman
Now all you have to do is show how knowing Cheney and hunting with him would prejudice Scalia toward energy meetings.
Judges are supposed to remain impartial. Even if NOW has no cases on the dockets for the court at this moment, helping them and sponsoring them is not "impartial."
Seems the trouble isn't in the facts, but in your understanding of word definitions. Impartial isn't somethign you turn on and off.
Nick
One can't recuse oneself from a case if a case is not pending.
Originally posted by trumptman
Judges are supposed to remain impartial. Even if NOW has no cases on the dockets for the court at this moment, helping them and sponsoring them is not "impartial."
Nick
Should federal judges not be allowed to vote? That is by definition an act of partiality. Give political donations in their capacities as citizens? Where is your line between legitimate activity guaranteed to all citizens and "appearance of impartiality"?
Until RBG has a case in front of her involving NOW, I'm not going to worry about her impartiality because there is nothing upon which it may operate.
Thoth
[edit - changed impropriety to impartiality]
Originally posted by pfflam
Seems to me that judgement should be withheld until NOW has an actual reason to have Ginzburg in court working on something related to them as a group.
But I guess that compute . . . .
Besides, its about a women's organization and we all know how you feel about women outside of the kitchen
Nice tactics, accuse others of what you yourself cannot justify or defend.
Ginsburg having an association with NOW makes her biased. Ginsburg declined comment when she simply could have said she would recuse herself from future business with NOW cases. NOW declares her impartiality to be unchanged.
So get back in the kitchen, pfflam.
Nick
Originally posted by Thoth2
One can't recuse oneself from a case if a case is not pending.
One can avoid joining and sponsoring groups who's purpose is legal advocacy within the courts while sitting on the bench of those courts.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
One can avoid joining and sponsoring groups who's purpose is legal advocacy within the courts while sitting on the bench of those courts.
Nick
That is obviously way too wide a net. Every organization potentially (and likely) will have business before the courts, and most large organizations have arms that are specifically tasked with litigation. That would disqualify any membership in any group that is potentially politically active.
Judges are allowed to be political actors in their individual capacities (I don't mean "politicians", of course).
Thoth
Originally posted by Thoth2
That is obviously way too wide a net. Every organization potentially (and likely) will have business before the courts, and most large organizations have arms that are specifically tasked with litigation. That would disqualify any membership in any group that is potentially politically active.
Judges are allowed to be political actors in their individual capacities (I don't mean "politicians", of course).
Thoth
The code of conduct for the federal courts does not set clear rules for judges' involvement with advocacy groups. But it warns jurists to steer clear of outside legal activities that would "cast reasonable doubt on the capacity to decide impartially any issue that may come before" them.
Seems the code of conduct would disagree with you.
Originally posted by BR
You are deluding yourself if you think that anyone is impartial. You are also deluding yourself if you think that endorsing an organization is the same as being close personal friends with someone who is being investigated.
There is a big difference between trying to be impartial and ending up human (we all have some biases) and outright advocacy of a position.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
[I]
Seems the code of conduct would disagree with you.
There is a big difference between trying to be impartial and ending up human (we all have some biases) and outright advocacy of a position.
Nick
I am familliar with the code of conduct as I had to read it before my clership with my judge, but I don't have them in front of me. Your quote says "legal activities." I don't see how a speech and membership in an advocacy group qualifies.
NB that Scalia and other judges have made very public comments about their own political positions on controversial topics such as abortion. These tend to be abstract comments rather than preordained opinions to be issued in some future case. I would imagine that what Ginsberg does with NOW would fall under that umbrella at worst.
Again, I can't make a comment about whether Ginsberg should recuse herself in a future case until the parameters of that case are concrete.
Thoth
Originally posted by BR
So you are saying it is unethical to proclaim yourself Pro-Life or Pro-Choice if you are on the supreme court?
Me? No, I don't think it is unethical unless the judge also indicates that s/he would vote a certain way regardless of the underlying factual circumstances or state of the law.
Thoth
Originally posted by Thoth2
One can't recuse oneself from a case if a case is not pending.
Did yo bother to read the article?
Two weeks earlier, she had voted in a medical screening case and taken the side promoted by the legal defense fund in its friend-of-the-court brief.
Originally posted by Scott
Did yo bother to read the article?
Uh, yeah, but the position taken by the original poster in the portion of the thread to which I was responding seemed to state a much broader proposition - that being a member of an advocacy organization itself impugned impartiality. It seemed to me that he was suggesting either 1) automatic recusal where a member's organization comes before the court regardless of the factual underpinnings of the case or 2) that membership in an advocacy org is a per se ethical violation.
Perhaps I should have been more clear.
Whatever, I'll go back to lurking.
Thoth.
Originally posted by Thoth2
Me? No, I don't think it is unethical unless the judge also indicates that s/he would vote a certain way regardless of the underlying factual circumstances or state of the law.
Thoth
Well stated. BR Thoth2 typed my answer to your question.
Now BR, answer me this. Is having a belief about abortion, say being pro-choice the same thing as actually belong to a group that is a party in lawsuits, lobbies for legislation, files briefs on the side of certain parties in cases, etc.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Well stated. BR Thoth2 typed my answer to your question.
Now BR, answer me this. Is having a belief about abortion, say being pro-choice the same thing as actually belong to a group that is a party in lawsuits, lobbies for legislation, files briefs on the side of certain parties in cases, etc.
Nick
Aren't appointments to the Supreme Court based mainly upon the beliefs of the judge and how closely they match the current administrations ideals?
If that's not right, ignore me, and I'll go and research it.