Liberal Supreme Court Justice faces ethic questions

[Ripsnort]

Another high court justice faces questions on ethics:

 

 

Los Angeles Times

Thursday, March 11, 2004

 

 

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has lent her name and presence to a lecture series co-sponsored by the liberal NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, an advocacy group that often argues before the court in support of women's rights that the justice embraces.

 

In January, Ginsburg gave opening remarks for the fourth installment in the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Distinguished Lecture Series on Women and the Law.

 

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.

 

The liberal Ginsburg's involvement with the legal activist group, and recent outside activities by a conservative colleague, Justice Antonin Scalia, have touched off a debate over what kinds of extra-judicial appearances and contacts are appropriate for Supreme Court justices.

 

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.

 

Federal law says a judge or justice "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

 

Several legal experts said Ginsburg's ongoing affiliation with the legal activist group undercuts her appearance of impartiality. Ginsburg declined to comment.

 

Though Ginsburg was well-known as a lawyer for her support of women's rights, Hofstra University law Professor Monroe Freedman said she should have severed her public ties with advocates for women's issues when she was elevated to the Supreme Court by President Clinton in 1993.

 

"I think this crosses the line," he said.

 

Kathy Rodgers, president of the NOW legal defense fund, said Ginsburg's connection with the group should not raise questions about her impartiality as a Supreme Court justice.

 

"She is always very careful in her remarks," Rodgers said. "I've never heard her address cases that are in front of the court. So I don't see any evidence of her violating her impartiality."

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/auto/epaper/editions/today/news_04f4fe8d07a132d90065.html

Speaking of NOW, why did these people not speak out during Clintons Lewinsky affair? Hmmmm...

[ra]

If Kerry becomes president and starts appointing Supreme Court justices, Ginsburg will look like a moderate.

[lazs2]

Yep... Afraid you're right on this one..  one of the few reasons to vote for Bush.

lazs

[lord dolf vader]

lol this is the same supreme court that appointed him last time?

[lazs2]

no problem with that decision.  would have lots of problems with the diecisons of a liberal supreme court.

lazs

[MJHerman]

"The liberal Ginsburg's involvement with the legal activist group, and recent outside activities by a conservative colleague, Justice Antonin Scalia, have touched off a debate over what kinds of extra-judicial appearances and contacts are appropriate for Supreme Court justices."

Interesting that the original poster is not as outraged about Scalia's extra-judicial appearances.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by MJHerman
"The liberal Ginsburg's involvement with the legal activist group, and recent outside activities by a conservative colleague, Justice Antonin Scalia, have touched off a debate over what kinds of extra-judicial appearances and contacts are appropriate for Supreme Court justices."

Interesting that the original poster is not as outraged about Scalia's extra-judicial appearances.

Considering it was a HUNTING TRIP with Cheney, no, I am not outraged at that.  As a sportsman myself, we go hunting to get away from discussing work, and focus on simple things like killing animals.

[MJHerman]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Considering it was a HUNTING TRIP with Cheney, no, I am not outraged at that.  As a sportsman myself, we go hunting to get away from discussing work, and focus on simple things like killing animals.

Hunting is fine.

The VP inviting the Justice to travel to such hunting trip on Air Force Two while such Justice is responsible for looking into certain legal matters related to such VP is not fine.  Even if all they discussed was hunting, it gives the appearance of something improper.

But then again, I am quickly learning that liberals in the US can do no right while conservatives in the US can do no wrong.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by MJHerman

But then again, I am quickly learning that liberals in the US can do no right while conservatives in the US can do no wrong.

They both do wrong, just one party (liberals) do more wrong than the rest of the parties (Libertarians, Democrats, Republicans)

I hear Canaduh recently had a problem with a liberal politician?

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Considering it was a HUNTING TRIP with Cheney, no, I am not outraged at that.  As a sportsman myself, we go hunting to get away from discussing work, and focus on simple things like killing animals.

Excerpted from the Los Angeles Times, 3/8/04:

Scalia's talk to antigay group spurs ethics questions

By Richard A. Serrano and David G. Savage

WASHINGTON -- As the Supreme Court was weighing a landmark gay rights case last year, Justice Antonin Scalia gave a keynote dinner speech in Philadelphia for an advocacy group waging a legal battle against gay rights.

Scalia addressed the $150-a-plate dinner hosted by the Urban Family Council two months after hearing oral arguments in a challenge to a Texas law that made sex between gays a crime. A month after the dinner, he sharply dissented from the high court's decision overturning the Texas law.

Some specialists in legal ethics said they saw no problem in Scalia's appearance before the group. But others say he should not have accepted the invitation because it calls into question his impartiality on an issue that looms increasingly large on the nation's legal agenda.

Scalia declined to comment on his appearance before the group.

Scalia's activities outside the court in two other instances -- both involving hunting trips -- have also drawn criticism for suggesting partiality on cases before his court. But the Philadelphia dinner May 20, unlike the other cases, shows him appearing to support partisan advocates on a hotly disputed issue.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Excerpted from the Los Angeles Times, 3/8/04:

Scalia's talk to antigay group spurs ethics questions

By Richard A. Serrano and David G. Savage

WASHINGTON -- As the Supreme Court was weighing a landmark gay rights case last year, Justice Antonin Scalia gave a keynote dinner speech in Philadelphia for an advocacy group waging a legal battle against gay rights.

Scalia addressed the $150-a-plate dinner hosted by the Urban Family Council two months after hearing oral arguments in a challenge to a Texas law that made sex between gays a crime. A month after the dinner, he sharply dissented from the high court's decision overturning the Texas law.

Some specialists in legal ethics said they saw no problem in Scalia's appearance before the group. But others say he should not have accepted the invitation because it calls into question his impartiality on an issue that looms increasingly large on the nation's legal agenda.

Scalia declined to comment on his appearance before the group.

Scalia's activities outside the court in two other instances -- both involving hunting trips -- have also drawn criticism for suggesting partiality on cases before his court. But the Philadelphia dinner May 20, unlike the other cases, shows him appearing to support partisan advocates on a hotly disputed issue.

Thanks, I had not seen this before.

Bottom line as I mentioned above, both sides are evil.  One must have to decide the less evil of the two.

[Trell]

I dont think we need to deside which one is less evil,  we need to linch both sides untill they both learn how to act.

[Dune]

"The American political system is like a gigantic Mexican Christmas fiesta. Each political party is a huge pinata -- a papier-mache donkey, for example. The donkey is filled with full employment, low interest rates, affordable housing, comprehensive medical benefits, a balanced budge and other goodies. The American voter is blindfoled and given a stick. The voter then swings the stick wildly in every direction, trying to hit a political candidate on the head and knock some sense into the silly bastard."

- P.J. O'Rourke, "Parliament of potatos"

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Dune
"The American political system is like a gigantic Mexican Christmas fiesta. Each political party is a huge pinata -- a papier-mache donkey, for example. The donkey is filled with full employment, low interest rates, affordable housing, comprehensive medical benefits, a balanced budge and other goodies. The American voter is blindfoled and given a stick. The voter then swings the stick wildly in every direction, trying to hit a political candidate on the head and knock some sense into the silly bastard."

- P.J. O'Rourke, "Parliament of potatos"

LOL! Great post!

[Charon]

Bottom line as I mentioned above, both sides are evil. One must have to decide the less evil of the two.

Have you ever actually criticized a Republican, or any aspect of Republican policy? I'm just curious because that would really stand out, but I don't recall it ever happening.

Charon