Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on March 11, 2004, 08:09:04 AM
-
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...
-
If Kerry becomes president and starts appointing Supreme Court justices, Ginsburg will look like a moderate.
-
Yep... Afraid you're right on this one.. one of the few reasons to vote for Bush.
lazs
-
lol this is the same supreme court that appointed him last time?
-
no problem with that decision. would have lots of problems with the diecisons of a liberal supreme court.
lazs
-
"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.
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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? ;) ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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"
-
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!
-
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
-
of course he has never posted anything negitive about republicans. They do no wrong in rips eyes.
-
Originally posted by Charon
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
Yep. Want links?
Many more than this if you care to review 14,000 posts over the last 4 years. :)
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=101581&referrerid=3203
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=53498&referrerid=3203
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=96103&referrerid=3203
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=110781&referrerid=3203
Now that I've made you look sort of foolish, have YOU ever been optimist with this administration?
-
Sure. It was frankly an honest question on my part.
[see you posted them]
Charon
-
added them to my post above.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
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? ;) ;)
The Liberal Party? Odd, I've never heard of them in The United States. At least I see where Democrats are not liberals, according to your post.
-
pleas ohh please read his links.
negative republican comments possibly one out of four.
snorts got a mental problem.
-
I think Bush is blowing it right now in Iraq.
Best to leave him in another 4 years and clean it up.
ROFL.... nuff said.
-
You first post is actually pretty strong and the third as well. I stand corrected. The other two are about as forceful as the Democratic opposition to the Iraq war before it started :) I don't know about looking foolish, I mean, how many hundreds of other posts of yours could we find containing derogatory photoshops, urban legends and general contempt for the Democratic Party. But I will conceded you have criticized Republican policy.
...have YOU ever been optimist with this administration?
Not really. In a nutshell… I did think he handled 9/11 adequately, on through Afghanistan. I would probably like him a whole lot better today, and be able to offer him more support (maybe even a vote), if he had listened to Colin Powell instead of Paul Wolfowitz where Iraq was concerned. I don’t blame him for the recession, but at the same time I don’t think he’s helping matters much. The Clinton administration did much to lay the groundwork for overseas job loss and rampant over consolidation of industry (IMO) that Bush is riding full speed ahead today. I disagree with having tax cuts and ballooning deficits at the same time, but haven’t looked into it in enough detail to really post on it. Bush panders a bit to the far right, but frankly no more than the Democrats pander to the far left and in the end neither really do much for either once the sound byte airs. I don’t like Ashcroft at all, but Clinton wasn’t all that friendly to individual rights either. Nor do I hate him. I just think that in trying to do the best job he could he let himself get sidetracked by advisors who may not prove to be as smart as they think they are.
For me the last election was a toss up. I didn't much like Al Gore and particularly disliked the Carol Browner (Al Gore) EPA. And I consider myself an environmentalist. But I had the opportunity to cover some EPA issues during the 1990s and found total inflexibility and bad science. I also disliked his support of ethanol, but there not much you can do about that with most politicians. I consider Al Gore to be just another Washington political careerist. I though George Bush was just another politician as well. More a committee choice type of guy. “Who can we run? How about Geroge’s son?” I did vote for Gore, but for the sole reason that I though he would make Supreme Court choices that would be more friendly to the protection of individual rights. When I found out he lost, it didn’t bother me particularly. The only two candidates I thought were worth anything didn't make it (Bradley and McCain) and I would likely have voted for McCain if I had that option. I would vote for him in this one as well, or even a Pat Buchanan or Pat Robertson if they were committed to breaking the money lock on Washington.
This election is shaping up to be the same. Kerry is a Washington hack, IMO. Edwards might have been OK, not that it matters now. I will probably just cast a vote against Wolfowitz. And, even though I don’t think we were lied to about WMD (admin. actually thought they were there), I do think it was pretty low on the list of reasons for moving into Iraq and that the war was sold on the point because it got the most traction with the public. That does piss me off.
Charon
-
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.
He went Duck hunting with the vice president. This old Lady is politically active with a Wacko group. If the old bag wanted to go bar- hoping with the rest of the old warf-rats, nobody would
give a crap.
-
Originally posted by Charon
You first post is actually pretty strong and the third as well. I stand corrected. The other two are about as forceful as the Democratic opposition to the Iraq war before it started :) I don't know about looking foolish, I mean, how many hundreds of other posts of yours could we find containing derogatory photoshops, urban legends and general contempt for the Democratic Party. But I will conceded you have criticized Republican policy.
Not really. In a nutshell… I did think he handled 9/11 adequately, on through Afghanistan. I would probably like him a whole lot better today, and be able to offer him more support (maybe even a vote), if he had listened to Colin Powell instead of Paul Wolfowitz where Iraq was concerned. I don’t blame him for the recession, but at the same time I don’t think he’s helping matters much. The Clinton administration did much to lay the groundwork for overseas job loss and rampant over consolidation of industry (IMO) that Bush is riding full speed ahead today. I disagree with having tax cuts and ballooning deficits at the same time, but haven’t looked into it in enough detail to really post on it. Bush panders a bit to the far right, but frankly no more than the Democrats pander to the far left and in the end neither really do much for either once the sound byte airs. I don’t like Ashcroft at all, but Clinton wasn’t all that friendly to individual rights either. Nor do I hate him. I just think that in trying to do the best job he could he let himself get sidetracked by advisors who may not prove to be as smart as they think they are.
For me the last election was a toss up. I didn't much like Al Gore and particularly disliked the Carol Browner (Al Gore) EPA. And I consider myself an environmentalist. But I had the opportunity to cover some EPA issues during the 1990s and found total inflexibility and bad science. I also disliked his support of ethanol, but there not much you can do about that with most politicians. I consider Al Gore to be just another Washington political careerist. I though George Bush was just another politician as well. More a committee choice type of guy. “Who can we run? How about Geroge’s son?” I did vote for Gore, but for the sole reason that I though he would make Supreme Court choices that would be more friendly to the protection of individual rights. When I found out he lost, it didn’t bother me particularly. The only two candidates I thought were worth anything didn't make it (Bradley and McCain) and I would likely have voted for McCain if I had that option. I would vote for him in this one as well, or even a Pat Buchanan or Pat Robertson if they were committed to breaking the money lock on Washington.
This election is shaping up to be the same. Kerry is a Washington hack, IMO. Edwards might have been OK, not that it matters now. I will probably just cast a vote against Wolfowitz. And, even though I don’t think we were lied to about WMD (admin. actually thought they were there), I do think it was pretty low on the list of reasons for moving into Iraq and that the war was sold on the point because it got the most traction with the public. That does piss me off.
Charon
I agree with ALOT you just said...Being a Republican Liberal :) that I am I think some things could have been handled better in the IRAQ war. CLinton did some good for the economy IMO but allll that he did do was lost on a Cigar and a scandal.
Your post was nice.:aok