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.
Many of you may not know that DC Circuit federal judge Ab Mikva was severely criticized for chairing an ABA section on the law. Now, Supreme Court Justice Scalia is to address a political function which is not public and is purely partisan.
I think Scalia has crossed the line and his agreeing to address a political group is inappropriate. It at least gives the appearance of partiality as to a judge, which is something to be avoided.
"Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) made official her invitation to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to address House Republicans. Bachmann confirmed in a statement that the conservative judge had accepted an invitation to address a seminar on the U.S. Constitution, as had been rumored.
“I am delighted that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has accepted my invitation to speak to members of Congress about the separation of powers," Bachmann said in a statement. It is a special privilege to have him address the first of what will be regular seminars featuring constitutional scholars," she added. "In his 24 years of service on the high court, Justice Scalia has distinguished himself by his ‘originalist’ approach to constitutional interpretation.”
The seminar will be a rare meeting of the minds between the House GOP and a sitting Supreme Court justice, especially at a time when a number of political issues are making their way to the high court. Many House conservatives are hoping that the Supreme Court, with Scalia as a key member, will vote to strike down elements of President Obama's healthcare law as unconstitutional."
I have no problem with a Supreme Court Justice addressing members of another branch of government. It is my suspicion that Scalia would have just as readily accepted an invitation from the House Democrats.
I think Scalia has crossed the line and his agreeing to address a political group is inappropriate. It at least gives the appearance of partiality as to a judge, which is something to be avoided.
I for one think it's highly inappropriate for a sitting president to criticize a Supreme Court decision in the State of the Union address.
Does the OP take a similar stance against the speaking engagements of all other Supreme Court Justices?
As a matter of fact, yes. They generally address law groups which have members of the general public, not something as specialized politically as this.
As a matter of fact, yes. They generally address law groups which have members of the general public, not something as specialized politically as this.
So you dismiss Justice Ginsberg's support of the NOW's Legal Defense Fund and expect her to recuse herself from hearing any cases that address abortion, is that correct?
So you dismiss Justice Ginsberg's support of the NOW's Legal Defense Fund and expect her to recuse herself from hearing any cases that address abortion, is that correct?
No. If she addressed NOW's Legal Defense Fund on a partisan issue, I think that would be inappropriate.
is this all you have to do with your time?.....i have to go shovel
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.
