T1B

Surely no one was surprised by any of the views expressed by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in an interview with The New York Times reporter Adam Liptak, though it is surprising for a Supreme Court justice to be so candid. This, however, is part of a trend in the past several years where many of the justices have spoken publicly and I think this is a very good development. More speech, especially by thoughtful people, is almost always desirable in a democratic society.

I would always rather know what justices and judges think rather than have enforced silence and pretend they have no views.

There was nothing surprising in Justice Ginsburg expressing pleasure at the abortion and affirmative action decisions from the last few weeks; she was in the majority in both cases. Nor was anyone shocked to learn that she thought that the court was wrong in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in holding that corporations could spend unlimited money in election campaigns, or in District of Columbia v. Heller, in striking down a city’s ban on handguns. She dissented in both cases. Quite important, she did not comment on any case now pending before the court or say anything that could not already be inferred from her past votes.

Nor was it surprising that she praised President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland, and expressed her view that the court’s work is hindered by the Senate’s failure to consider him. I wish that more of the justices would explain that the Senate’s refusal to consider this nomination, as well as nominations for lower federal court judgeships, is seriously interfering with the functioning of the courts.

Perhaps most surprising was her sharp criticism of Donald Trump and her worrying about what the country would be like with him as president. But she simply voiced what countless people, liberal and conservative, think about the possibility of a Trump presidency and no one should be surprised that Ginsburg thinks this too. The judicial code of ethics says that judges are not to endorse or oppose candidates for elected office. But these provisions do not apply to Supreme Court justices.

Nor do I believe that such restrictions are constitutional or desirable. The First Amendment is based on the strong presumption that more speech is beneficial because it means we are all better informed. I think it is valuable for people to hear what the justices have to say on important issues. As a lawyer and as a citizen, I’d always rather know what justices and judges think rather than have enforced silence and pretend they have no views. We are in a relatively new era of public statements by justices, and I applaud it.

88 wrote: It is beyond stupid for a sitting Supreme Court justice to express views on candidates running for president.

Screw_Michigan wrote:What is it with women being unable to keep their fucking mouths shut?

Jsc810 wrote:I'll join the voices who think it is wrong for Justices to opine on political matters, like she did.

Moving Sale wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:I'll join the voices who think it is wrong for Justices to opine on political matters, like she did.

smackaholic wrote:There is a long standing precedent that Justices keep their fukking traps shut on this.

88 wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:

88 wrote: It is beyond stupid for a sitting Supreme Court justice to express views on candidates running for president.

Why?

Uh, maybe because it is unethical and reflects poorly on the "independent" judiciary?

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeshi ... s-judges#f

Screw_Michigan wrote:What is it with women being unable to keep their fucking mouths shut?

R-Jack wrote:So it's a unwritten rule.....like bat flips and not stealing signs? Does Donald now get to toss a heater into her ribcage now?

Moving Sale wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:I'll join the voices who think it is wrong for Justices to opine on political matters, like she did.

Why?

mvscal wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:
Because they might have to rule on them one day...

smackaholic wrote:You mentioned 3, so I assumed that it might have extended into the early 19th century. Anyhoo, it further proves my point that for apparently 200+ years there has been a policy for SCOTUS members to STFU when it comes to open support/criticism of pols, particularly pols in the middle of a campaign.

Moving Sale wrote:Abe Fortas wrote Johnson's 1966 SOTU address.

mvscal wrote: Because they might have to rule on them one day, you brainless lump of shit.

mvscal wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:Abe Fortas wrote Johnson's 1966 SOTU address.

He was also shot down by the Senate when Johnson nominated him for Chief Justice for his inappropriate relationship with LBJ and was forced to resign under threat of impeachment from the SC altogether the following year.

You remain a pitifully stupid fuck and an even worse lawyer.

Jsc810 wrote:I worked within the judiciary for almost a decade. Most of them don't talk about anything, much less things political.

Even personal relationships change. For example, just going out to lunch with a long time friend can raise issues, if that friend is a lawyer whose firm has cases pending before the judge.

Judges must be neutral, fair, and impartial. Anything that even gives the appearance of being otherwise is not good.

It was wrong when Scalia did it, and it is wrong when Ginsburg did it.

Papa Willie wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:Nice IKYABWAI cum worshiper.

How's that?

Moving Sale wrote:And where does the USC say RBJ can't give an opinion like the one she gave? Take your time you inbred fraud.

Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity

(A) General Prohibitions. A judge should not:

(1) act as a leader or hold any office in a political organization;

(2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office; or

(3) solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution to a political organization or candidate, or attend or purchase a ticket for a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization or candidate.

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeshi ... tes-judges

smackaholic wrote:I have a bad feeling about the Trump picking Pence. Would rather have seen Newt.

smackaholic wrote:I have a bad feeling about the Trump picking Pence. Would rather have seen Newt.