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

So JP5, you don't think Scalia should have avoided a situation that could potentially look to have an impact on a ruling of his? And are you calling the Sierra Club hypocrites for an act that according to you could hypothetically happen in the future? I'm not clear on this.

The decision is his. Just like the decision is Ruth Bader Gingsburg when she does NOT recuse herself when cases come before them that involve her friends/former co-workers/acquaintances. You DO realize that she used to head the ACLU, don't you? You DO realize that she speaks before NOW all the time, don't you? So.....here's a question for ya: The next time a case comes before the US Surpreme Court concerning abortion (as we know it will) ........do you believe Gingsburg should recuse herself?

All I am trying to say is that there is enough hypocrisy in this world as it is, we don't need to get into a tizzy about possible future hypocrisy.

And as to the Ginsburg thing, if a case comes up with the ACLU or NOW as a named party, yes, I do think she should recuse herself. If it's just the issue of abortion and doesn't involve those groups, no I don't think she should. It's one thing to have a past involvement with people or groups. It's another entirely to be an invited guest of a named party in case you've just agreed to hear.

This pretty much says it all. Regardless of the specifics, if it ever gets to the point where a majority of the people see the court as compromised, then it will have little further value, and we will have anarchy. We may not agree with the decisions, but we understand that those making them have held themselves beyond the influence of those being heard by the court.

The only reason the court's decisions on the contested 2000 election were accepted, and there wasn't widespread civil unrest, was that the court has maintained an aura of integrity over the centuries.

Unfortunately, in today's polarized political environment, we are unlikely to ever get the same level of great jurists we have enjoyed in the past. Todays nominees will have to pass an ideological litmus test by their nominator and by those confirming them.

oc

The SC has 9 justices for a reason. If one continually "recuses" themselves because of prior friendships, etc. there would be more ties. And they are ALL lawyers....so that's bound to happen continually. You don't recuse yourself because you went on a hunting trip with someone who is indirectly attached to a case....anymore than you recuse yourself because you are asked to speak before NOW or any other political organization. On Scalia's trip were many friends and acquaintances. There is absolutely NO PROOF that anything nefarious went on between him and any one of them.

This complaint from the Sierra Club organization is strictly political, IMO. They are simply trying to get a conservative off the court to benefit themselves.

HASN'T happened???

WTF???

__________________
The last time this country mixed politics with religion, people got burned at the stake.

That's exactly what I thought about the Sierra Club.

that an organization which gained much influence through the efforts of an uneducated loner like David Brower can get enviro-friendly legislation passed.

Keeps me up at night, I'm so concerned about it!! NOT.