It is currently 04/11/25 6:33 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




  Page 1 of 1   [ 7 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/23/11 12:00 pm • # 1 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/04/09
Posts: 4072
This just makes me sad.  Next we'll have Justice Scalia on the radio, subbing for Rush Limbaugh.  Article is from Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/21/AR2011012102923.html

Justice Scalia is a political star - and that's bad for the Supreme Court

 

By Jonathan Turley

Friday, January 21, 2011; 7:00 PM





Justice Antonin Scalia is scheduled to appear before an eager freshman class Monday to talk about the Constitution. This is nothing new for Scalia, who often speaks at law schools. These students, however, are a little different.

At the invitation of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Scalia will be addressing new conservative members of the House of Representatives. To them, Scalia is a nothing short of a rock star. He personifies not only conservative values but a new model for the Supreme Court: the celebrity justice.

Where Scalia has ventured with crowd-pleasing rhetoric, other justices are following. They rally their bases on the right or the left with speeches, candid interviews, commencement addresses and book tours. They appear to be abandoning the principle of strict neutrality in public life, long a touchstone of service on the highest court.

The Bachmann event takes this posturing to a new level. Scalia will be directly advising new lawmakers who came to Congress on a mission to remake government in a more conservative image. Many of them made pledges to repeal health-care reform, restrict immigration and investigate the president - pledges based on constitutional interpretations that might end up before the court.

At best, Scalia's appearance can be viewed as a pep talk. At worst, it smacks of a political alliance.   Continue



Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/23/11 12:42 pm • # 2 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
It's VERY disappointing, gramps ~ and Scalia is not alone ~ he and Thomas attended the Koch brothers big political strategy pow wow recently ~ and Alito has been the featured guest at fund-raisers ~ it's as if they are daring someone to question them or bring charges against them ~ maybe their mothers never shared the universal motherly advice of being careful what you wish for because now Common Cause has filed a complaint with the DoJ, asking for an investigation of the Scalia/Thomas ethics [or lack of ethics] for not recusing themselves from hearing campaign finance cases ~ see our "Advocacy Group Says Justices May Have Conflict in Campaign Finance Cases" ~ Common Cause also made public Thomas 'forgetting' to include almost $700k of his wife's income on his income disclosure forms ... for 5 or 6 years ~ Image

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/23/11 1:37 pm • # 3 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/04/09
Posts: 4072
Regrettably, there is almost certainly nothing that can be done about it.  There are rules about advocacy by judges, but they only apply to lower courts. The Supremes are constrained onloy by their own consciences and their own sense of fairness and decorum, according to the OP article.  I don't understand their thinking on this...Do they think that the judicial branch is just another partisan political entity?  I'm worried that Scalia's and Thomas' case, they consider it the Big Cahuna Conservative Think Tank. The ultimate conservative think tank, and with police powers.

It should be an impeachable offense for a justice to raise money for, or deliver speeches on behalf of a political party or a party's candidate.

Of course, if you're an "originalist", you just have to ask where in the Constitution it says Antonin Scalia can't give a speech at Michelle Bachman's Tea Party soiree. If you can't find their names in it, you're screwed.


Last edited by grampatom on 01/23/11 1:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
PostPosted: 01/23/11 1:39 pm • # 4 
I find it makes me sad too. Poor judgement I think. It promotes a lack of respect for the court and rightly so IMHO.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/23/11 1:49 pm • # 5 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
That such a question is even considered pretty much says it all.


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/23/11 2:52 pm • # 6 
As an aside to most important concerns as expressed in the OP , he sure is playing into Bachmann's pathology.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/24/11 6:12 am • # 7 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
I believe Scalia's appearance at this 'Tea Party caucus' event raises BIG ethical questions ~ but what really grabbed my attention is the second-to-last paragraph here ~ Image ~ Sooz

By [url=/author/Ian M.]Ian Millhiser[/url] at 11:45 am
What The Tea Party Could Learn From Justice Scalia Today

Justice Antonin Scalia will speak today to a group of Tea Party Members of Congress organized by ultra-conservative Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), an arrangement that even President George W. Bush's former ethics attorney finds questionable:

Quote:

[T]he decision of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to speak at the first class on Monday has raised legal hackles about his participation in what turns out to be a closed-door event in conjunction with Bachmann's Tea Party Caucus.

One of the most outspoken critics is University of Minnesota law professor Richard Painter, chief White House ethics lawyer under former President George W. Bush. Painter notes that Bachmann is among 63 House members who filed a brief in support of a lawsuit by more than two dozen states challenging President Obama's health care overhaul. The case could easily end up before the Supreme Court.

Yet, if Bachmann is expecting Scalia to validate her comically wrong view that health reform is unconstitutional, she's in for a rude awakening. Like most of the right-wing lawmakers challenging the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Bachmann's brief focuses its ire on the provision requiring most Americans to either carry insurance or pay slightly more income taxes. But, in a case called Gonzales v. Raich, Justice Scalia practically drew a roadmap to a future opinion declaring this provision constitutional.

Scalia wrote in Gonzales that “where Congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective,â€



Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

  Page 1 of 1   [ 7 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.