It's fun to watch the bottom scrapers wave the Constitution with one hand when it suits their agenda then watching them wipe their ass with it when someone they don't like exercises their rights...
Or just do the right thing, which is try to fill the vacancy as quickly & as reasonably as possible for the good of the institution of the SCOTUS and the People. Be reasonable in the process in an attempt to insure success. Get all that shoved back in your face by people whose main purpose in life has been to do just that since 2008. Repubs have never questioned Garland's suitability but rather Obama's right to make the pick at all. It's just one more spiteful act in a long string of them.
The best thing Hillary can do about it is to affirm Garland & Obama's right to name him, then watch McConnell eat crow. If Repubs won't do it that way, re-nominate Garland her first day in office.
That would affirm the Constitution
It's fun to watch the bottom scrapers wave the Constitution with one hand when it suits their agenda then watching them wipe their ass with it when someone they don't like exercises their rights...
It's fun to watch the bottom scrapers wave the Constitution with one hand when it suits their agenda then watching them wipe their ass with it when someone they don't like exercises their rights...
She can exercise her rights all she wants. What would be appropriate and yet unlikely to happen is for her to take the consequences of exercising that right and recusing herself from any hypothetical cases where that speech correctly calls her impartiality into question. Even slate.com said she acted "unethically." My problem is that she'll almost certainly act unethically again should circumstances arise where a more honest person would recuse themself.
Like when Scalia recused himself from cases involving Dick Cheney?
There's no need to pretend one side is neutral, they're not.
I thought the GOP plan was to ramrod him through during the lame duck period if Trump loses the election to prevent that?Part of me wants her to nominate someone farther to the left just to spite the GOP for blocking Garland. I know, I'm not being very mature but I feel that bad behavior should have consequences.
I do not understand how liberals can defend Justice Ginsberg's initial remarks, let alone her doubling-down the next day. "She has the 1st amendment right" is a non sequitur because she was not speaking in her private capacity. She can do it with her family, friends, and colleagues, and few will bat an eye even if those conversations leaked out. But she consciously chose to speak out in a setting where she was giving an interview as the SCOTUS justice.
It is also a misguided defense to say that "Everyone already knows what she believes in, so what is the big deal?" Well, for one thing, one's spoken words tend to reinforce one's thoughts, consciously or subconsciously. We all have a sense of honor, and want to avoid being seen as a hypocrite. When justice makes a public comment on a political issue, she may have limited her future opinions on similar issues for fear of being seen inconsistent. That is why we require judges to maintain appearance of neutrality - because the court's legitimacy depends on it, and because languages are not mere expression of thoughts. They also reinforces ones previous thoughts.
I frankly have no idea what her intention was. She is an extremely smart person and by all accounts her remarks were not a momentary slip in the heat of discussion. She must have weighed the cost and risks of her speaking out, and I wonder what convinced her to go on with the plan. What did she deem such an urgent issue that she would go out of the established norm, fully aware that her comments will attract backlash?
The Supreme Court is not bound by the federal code of judicial conduct. That would be unconstitutional.
That being said, I think it was inappropriate of her to say. While it's fairly obvious that the court is pretty politicized there's always that fig leaf of impartiality that I think is actually important to the court's legitimacy. They should keep that if possible.
What I would do if I were Clinton after winning the election in November:
1) Ask Obama/Garland to withdraw Garland from consideration
2) Nominate Obama to fill vacancy
3) Drink republican tears
So talking about both parties right?
no? well then its time to re-up your partisan hack membership.
It was meant to be a shocking statement to draw attention to the danger our governmental institutions are in. This did not begin with Trump, but he has escalated the stakes considerably.
The court has already become politically polarizing by the partisan class.
EG. The philosophy of dismissing even a hearing on Garland, and vowing that the election should decide the next justice is explicitly based on the idea the SC justices are political agents advancing agendas, rather than referees operating in good faith.
The current climate is incredibly outrageous and damaging to the SCOTUS institution, and RGB, as a institutional member, is well justified in speaking out.
Of course it is dangerous and can easily backfire, but the fact that the dire situation has made the risk tolerable speaks volumes in itself.
Thank you. It's not RBG who first crossed the line- it was McConnell & Senate Repubs.
They are not members of the judicial branch and are held to very different standards. Even if we accept that premise it still doesn't mean that judges (especially members of the SCOTUS) should join them. If a judge is unhappy with the expectation and historical practice that they relate appearance of impartiality by not engaging in blatantly political speech they would probably be better suited running for Congress.
Which also highlights the difference between this and the Scalia-Cheney relationship mentioned earlier. It's one thing to have a pre-existing friendship with someone and engage in activities with them which may lead to the appearance of impartiality. It's another thing to confirm your lack of impartiality beyond a reasonable doubt by statements like "he's a danger to the nation."
Your own hand should snap back and hit you in the face every time you call someone else a partisan hack.
Thank you. It's not RBG who first crossed the line- it was McConnell & Senate Repubs.
I sincerely don't think those two things are different at all, if anything Scalia's transgression was far worse. Imagine if you were involved in a court case and you found out that the judge was hanging out with your opponent on the weekends during the case. How would that not be an egregious conflict of interest?
In both cases the judge's actions were inappropriate, but in only one was a justice actively fraternizing with a litigant.
Sure, if that's the case then every SCOTUS justice who is friends with anyone having business in front of the court should recuse themselves.
And RBG should have again recused herself for officiating a same-sex marriage right before ruling on the constitutionality of laws against the same.
Oh and BTW the Cheney v. USDC of DC case that you're so concerned about Scalia being friends with Cheney was a 7-2 decision, with the case being sent back to the District Court who found in Cheney's favor.
ever consider I'm not a hack.
Just a voice calling out the left on its hackery?
Yes, they should recuse themselves if they have friends who are litigants before the court. That's just common sense, no? It's a truly massive conflict of interest and was extremely, extremely unethical. We should all be able to agree that Scalia acted extraordinarily unprofessionally.
Absolutely not, that's silliness. Knowing gay people or choosing to officiate their marriage is irrelevant to her ruling on whether or not same sex marriage bans are unconstitutional. This is similar reasoning to what Trump tried to use when he said a judge should recuse himself because he was a member of a Hispanic law organization.
The standard for recusal isn't if you know someone who could possibly be affected by your ruling as that would basically encompass everyone on the Supreme Court on every occasion. Scalia was hanging out on weekends with someone who was a direct participant in a case before the court. If that's not a conflict of interest, what is?
The outcome of the case is irrelevant as to whether or not Scalia committed an ethical breach, which he pretty obviously did.
Well then censure him. That's what you always say about LBJ when his lying to get us more involved in a war is compared to Dubya.
And I'm perfectly fine with the "if you know someone you must recuse yourself" standard but you might not like the results.
lol.
The left great defenders of the constitution.
Except when it comes to separation of powers, and the 2nd amendment. Obama shits on the constitution and you don't bat an eye