Originally Posted by truebrit";p=&quot

Scalia WON'T recuse himself when there is an obvious question about is objectivity in a pending case...But in a non-existent, hypothetical case, Justice Ginsburg should automatically recuse herself??

WTF are you talking about...you are making less sense than usual old chap...

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

Truebrit....I am the one making the point that NEITHER SC justice should have to recuse themselves in such situations. It's partisan Democrats who want to pick and choose depending on their own partisan interests. Which was my point all along.

Originally Posted by Ankf00";p=&quot

and i dont see how speaking for NOW invovles recusement

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

But how about the ACLU? And the fact that Ginsburg had been head of it once and still has many friends there. Should she then....recuse herself from ANY case that comes before her where the ACLU is involved?

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

Let's see if this leftist group....the Sierra Club... or any others...will ask for Ruth Bader Ginsburg to "recuse" herself the next time a case comes before the SC that involves abortion......since she often speaks before NOW groups and is a big advocate. Or maybe anything that comes before the court that involved the ACLU.....an organization that Ginsburg used to be the head of and still has friends there? Yeah, right........we'll just see. But we won't hold our breath.


"In January, for example, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke at an event held in her honor, sponsored by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York and the National Organization for Women's Legal Defense and Education Fund. Last year, she spoke to the American Civil Liberties Union, a group in which she served as a leader and lawyer before becoming a judge."

Can we say....."hypocrisy?"

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/19/ethics.ap/index.html