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.
The article is a bit vague: it states that the two named Justices had attended a prior meeting; it did not say 'when' the prior meeting was, or if they were on the Court at that time.
However, I can't imagine these two having been invited 20 years ago (in Justice Thomas's case) before they were on the Court.
I agree that a sitting Justice should not be attending such partisan meetings. They are to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or partiality.
I did like the comment herein about how the meeting 'must not have been very secretive if the NYT was reporting it'.
Perhaps true. However, when the NYT's published the Pentagon Papers back in 1971, should we have just said "Well, they must not be very secretive if the NYT are reporting them!"
Any Supreme Court Judge who attends the planning sessions of EITHER party should be impeached.
Well, hardly that. No where in the Constitution does it say that members of the Supreme Court give up their right to participate in the political process, such as meetings.
They should, however, recuse themselves from any case that comes before them involving the subject of planning meetings they attend.
For instance, if I, Justice Legalsea, were to go to a weekend meeting sponsored by a person or corporation, and listen to speeches and attend seminars concerning how a partcular industry should be exempt from the Law of Gravity, I would recuse myself if a case arrives involving the Law of Gravity.
What can be done, however, if I do not recuse myself and even write the majority opinion ruling in favor or said person or corporation on the Law of Gravity?
Nothing.
It has happened in the past, and it will happen again. Most justices recuse themselves so as to avoid the appearance of impropiety, but there is no 'law' about it.
I tried to do some digging. Did they participate as attendees or as speakers ?
If speakers, then that should be ok as public speaking is not the same as an attendee.
Even Huffpost is holding off calling it one way or another because they cannot determine whether the Justices were speakers or active attendees who participated in planning sessions.
I tried to do some digging. Did they participate as attendees or as speakers ?
If speakers, then that should be ok as public speaking is not the same as an attendee.
Even Huffpost is holding off calling it one way or another because they cannot determine whether the Justices were speakers or active attendees who participated in planning sessions.
Does it really matter? Even the appearance of impropriety damages the Court and calls into question the agenda of those corporate millionaires and their Republican cronies.
While it would probably be impossible to establish a definitive quid pro quo, it's interesting to note that both Scalia and Thomas voted for the Court ruling last January which opened the door to unlimited corporate funding of political ads, a decision which is even now resulting in a flood of campaign ads in Congressional races all over the country. In fact, it was that ruling which allowed Karl Rove to create his money pipeline called American Crossroads which is funneling cash from unknown sources into Republican campaigns.
I can only hope the OP is as critical as of the company kept by SCOTUS justices Sotomayor and Kagen as he is of the constructionist justices. Somehow I suspect once again it is selective outrage at best and an all out Soros lemming attack at the worst.
Does it really matter? Even the appearance of impropriety damages the Court and calls into question the agenda of those corporate millionaires and their Republican cronies.
While it would probably be impossible to establish a definitive quid pro quo, it's interesting to note that both Scalia and Thomas voted for the Court ruling last January which opened the door to unlimited corporate funding of political ads, a decision which is even now resulting in a flood of campaign ads in Congressional races all over the country. In fact, it was that ruling which allowed Karl Rove to create his money pipeline called American Crossroads which is funneling cash from unknown sources into Republican campaigns.
Yes it does. Justices are not prevented from speaking engagements.
I can only hope the OP is as critical as of the company kept by SCOTUS justices Sotomayor and Kagen as he is of the constructionist justices. Somehow I suspect once again it is selective outrage at best and an all out Soros lemming attack at the worst.
I would be equally outraged if Justices had been invited attendees at a Democratic planning session.
However, I have not found any evidence that they have been. Do you have any?
Here's a story about another gathering of the Republican uber-rich. That in itself is not remarkable as the Koch's have been funding these things for years.
What's interesting is this from page 2 of the article:
"...And he notes that previous guests have included Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court, Gov. Haley Barbour and Gov. Bobby Jindal, Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, and Representatives Mike Pence, Tom Price and Paul D. Ryan..."
Why are Supreme Court justices involved in planning sessions for either political party? What business do they have involving themselves in partisan politics?
And obama has a reason to dress down the SCOTUS justices on national tv in his SOTU address? What precedent is there for a president to do that?
Do liberal judges ever attend DNC meetings?
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.
