Should a sitting Supreme Court justice comment on a presidental election? (interview, ethics)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am about equally troubled by that. Two wrongs never have made a right, this is no different. What makes this so bad is that it could influence an election, Supreme Court justices should be neutral. Again, I say all this as a person who prays daily that Trump doesn't get elected, it is not about my political leanings.
Maybe not. But wasn't you who said "Interestingly, I don't think she would have dared do this if Scalia were still alive."
Did you object to Scalia's blatant fundraising and promotion of right-wing causes over the decades that he did it? Do you object to Thomas doing it? Don't you think that they do it in hopes of influencing who gets elected?
It's true that two wrongs don't make a right. But it's also true that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
FWIW, I will say that I agree that in an ideal world, SC justices wouldn't do this. But I'm afraid that ship sailed long ago.
Yeah, I am they are the same if you are a typical lib.
First, the article you linked to said "Two days ago, Clarence Thomas was at it again when he appeared at a Federalist Society “fundraiser” as a featured speaker that two other High Court justices, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito also attended."
Notice "fundraiser" is in quotes? Because the author of the article CHOSE to paint it as a fundraiser for his agenda.
Second, when was this? Oh, Nov 14th 2013. Yes. Right smack dab in the middle of a Presidential election. Wait, you mean it wasn't? In fact it took place 9 days AFTER election day. An election in which 2 senate seats, 6 house seats and 2 governorships were up for grabs.
Third, this is a private organization the "Federalist Society".
Are you trying to say that sitting SCOTUS judges should not be allowed to be speakers at any event for any organizations??
I thought the question posed was about openly voicing support for a Presidential candidate?
Somehow in your mind these two stories are comparable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1
I am about equally troubled by that. Two wrongs never have made a right, this is no different. What makes this so bad is that it could influence an election, Supreme Court justices should be neutral. Again, I say all this as a person who prays daily that Trump doesn't get elected, it is not about my political leanings.
Could you elaborate as to which part of this bogus story makes you "troubled"?
Maybe not. But wasn't you who said "Interestingly, I don't think she would have dared do this if Scalia were still alive."
Did you object to Scalia's blatant fundraising and promotion of right-wing causes over the decades that he did it? Do you object to Thomas doing it? Don't you think that they do it in hopes of influencing who gets elected?
It's true that two wrongs don't make a right. But it's also true that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
FWIW, I will say that I agree that in an ideal world, SC justices wouldn't do this. But I'm afraid that ship sailed long ago.
This article is discussing a PRIVATE, PERSONAL letter O'Connor wrote to Goldwater.
In your mind this is the equivalent of publicly backing a candidate?
WOW. You guys are incredibly gifted.
Except that she also did say it in public. It was reported at the time.
As I said, this ship sailed a long time ago. I'm not trying to say that it was started by any one 'side'. I'm just saying that to call out one 'side' while ignoring the other is just sticking your head some place where the sun doesn't shine.
I don't think the Justices should be commenting on any of this stuff honestly. However, this happens all the time. Scalia was constantly giving his opinions on subjects that he might have to rule on.
Last edited by ~HecateWhisperCat~; 07-11-2016 at 08:00 AM..
I don't think the Justices should be commenting on any of this stuff honestly. However, this happens all the time. Scalia was constantly giving his political opinions on subjects.
Except that she also did say it in public. It was reported at the time.
As I said, this ship sailed a long time ago. I'm not trying to say that it was started by any one 'side'. I'm just saying that to call out one 'side' while ignoring the other is just sticking your head some place where the sun doesn't shine.
Sorry, i was just going by the source that YOU linked. That story mentions only a personal letter. If the facts are different than what your source claims, please link another source that backs your claim.
I don't think that worrying aloud about the possibility of a Trump victory is political in the least. On the contrary, it shows a an impartial and functioning mind.
Sorry, i was just going by the source that YOU linked. That story mentions only a personal letter. If the facts are different than what your source claims, please link another source that backs your claim.
I am not calling out one "side" at all.
I am calling out an individual.
And I'm saying that calling out one individual while ignoring all the others doing the same thing is in effect calling out 'one side'.
See page 376 of this pdf - http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra....ty_scholarship (don't worry, you don't have to scroll 375 actual pages...) The whole article is very interesting, and shows that however much we might wish it otherwise, SC justices are very political animals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
