What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

SJHovey said:
Personally I don't think it's a great idea to have Supreme Court justices out there commenting on things like this. I don't even think it's ideal for state court judges to do that.

They certainly have the same first amendment protections the rest of us do, so I'm not in favor of the government coming in and passing a law or something that says she can't comment on these issues.

But purely from the standpoint of trying to create the appearance of a neutral judiciary, I think it's bad.
Click to expand...

Same here. I hated Scalia's electioneering and I don't like it from RBG either.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

joecct said:
I prefer to call it dark comedy. Rarely do I take them as gospel.
Click to expand...

I use Freep and DU for my dark comedy. I like to think of them as having the same contributers, each having an alterego and trolling the proles.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Kepler said:
Same here. I hated Scalia's electioneering and I don't like it from RBG either.
Click to expand...

I agree, and I'm surprised she did it. I guess lifetime appointments can do that for you.

Now, if she makes a second career out of doing this, she will be in Scalia's class. Be interesting to see if Scalia fans are kicking up a fuss about it.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Kepler said:
Same here. I hated Scalia's electioneering and I don't like it from RBG either.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with it. If Scalia could even up his piehole at all then certainly RBG his good friend could comment on the special case of Donald Trump.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

burd said:
I agree, and I'm surprised she did it. I guess lifetime appointments can do that for you.

Now, if she makes a second career out of doing this, she will be in Scalia's class. Be interesting to see if Scalia fans are kicking up a fuss about it.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they are. The only logical consistency of the "Constitutionalist" right is their hypocrisy.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

ScoobyDoo said:
I have no problem with it. If Scalia could even up his piehole at all then certainly RBG his good friend could comment on the special case of Donald Trump.
Click to expand...

Copy scoundrels and you become a scoundrel. There are plenty of voices to warn about Trump.
 
burd said:
I agree, and I'm surprised she did it. I guess lifetime appointments can do that for you.

Now, if she makes a second career out of doing this, she will be in Scalia's class. Be interesting to see if Scalia fans are kicking up a fuss about it.
Click to expand...
Scalia understood the significance of a justice commenting publicly though. As I recall he recused himself once or twice because he had commented on the subject in earlier speeches.

I think RBG's comments are simply a symptom of old persons syndrome. Once you hit a certain age your filter wears out. Personally, I can't wait.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

SJHovey said:
Scalia understood the significance of a justice commenting publicly though. As I recall he recused himself once or twice because he had commented on the subject in earlier speeches.

I think RBG's comments are simply a symptom of old persons syndrome. Once you hit a certain age your filter wears out. Personally, I can't wait.
Click to expand...

You may just be right about RBG. But it's not simply a question of whether Scalia understood what perceived conflict is. He was fully engaged in public discourse on all matters political and legal. I think most of us understand that judges have personal views they must put aside when the robe goes on, but many do not. He was eager to have people hear his opinions, and people knew it. He was also a bit of an entertainer. He politicized the court, IMO.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

SJHovey said:
Scalia understood the significance of a justice commenting publicly though. As I recall he recused himself once or twice because he had commented on the subject in earlier speeches.

I think RBG's comments are simply a symptom of old persons syndrome. Once you hit a certain age your filter wears out. Personally, I can't wait.
Click to expand...

Did he recuse himself from Bush v Gore?
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Handyman said:
Did he recuse himself from Bush v Gore?
Click to expand...
No. Personally, I don't recall whether he publicly endorsed either Bush or Gore. If he did, he should have recused himself.

As I recall he recused himself from participating in a decision on some sort of religion case or case of prayer in the schools or something, because he had publicly spoken on the topic of separation of church and state, although frankly I don't really recall the details.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

I still have no problem with the initial interview. It was coy and made the point without crossing a line. ("The next president, whoever she may be..." was a great line that worked on many different levels).

I think the subsequent ones are where RBG probably crosses the line and now will have to recause herself in the unlikely event the election goes to the courts. Calling him out directly and calling him a fake is a step too far.

Not that Scalia didn't do the same freaking thing all the time, mind you, but he probably should have recused himself more often than he did, too.

Of all the ways for RBG to remember her BFF, this isn't the one I would've seen coming.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

bronconick said:
Shame Sandra Day O'Conner didn't, but that was before social media took off.
Click to expand...

Why would she? Did she endorse Bush? I don't remember that.

I'm not comfortable with judges voicing their political opinions. Theoretically they should be as free as the rest of us as long as they maintain the proper etiquette. For example, if you're an employee of a company you never voice your opinion in your capacity as an employee of that company -- you separate yourself as a private individual speaking only for yourself. Networks put a proviso on their shows that statements voiced by people appearing on their shows are not their opinion. By extension it ought to be OK for RBG to say her thing if she's not in her robes or in chambers.

But I admit a double standard: I want justices to appear to be scrupulously neutral. If they want to have a couple drinks and mouth off at a cocktail party to a few guests, OK, fine. But not in an Op-Ed or into a mic. I don't think it should be in any way punishable -- that would be a cure worse than the disease -- but I do think justices should demur on political issues.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Kepler said:
Why would she? Did she endorse Bush? I don't remember that.

I'm not comfortable with judges voicing their political opinions. Theoretically they should be as free as the rest of us as long as they maintain the proper etiquette. For example, if you're an employee of a company you never voice your opinion in your capacity as an employee of that company -- you separate yourself as a private individual speaking only for yourself. Networks put a proviso on their shows that statements voiced by people appearing on their shows are not their opinion. By extension it ought to be OK for RBG to say her thing if she's not in her robes or in chambers.

But I admit a double standard: I want justices to appear to be scrupulously neutral. If they want to have a couple drinks and mouth off at a cocktail party to a few guests, OK, fine. But not in an Op-Ed or into a mic. I don't think it should be in any way punishable -- that would be a cure worse than the disease -- but I do think justices should demur on political issues.
Click to expand...

The court is already a political entity, and we can pretty safely guess what most of the justices' individual opinions on a hot button topic will be. But when you go ad-hom on a specific party as RBG has done, I'd say that's where there's a clear line in the sand and where she probably has to recuse herself from deciding any cases involving Trump.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
The court is already a political entity, and we can pretty safely guess what most of the justices' individual opinions on a hot button topic will be. But when you go ad-hom on a specific party as RBG has done, I'd say that's where there's a clear line in the sand and where she probably has to recuse herself from deciding any cases involving Trump.
Click to expand...

Yup
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

I should clarify, on the off chance Trump wins, she wouldn't need to revise herself from all cases involving his administration, just him personally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top