Should SCOTUS speak on POTUS?

[*bfine32*]

Here's some comments from folks more knowledgeable on this matter than any of us:

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/inside-stunning-face-off-between-donald-trump-supreme-165557187--abc-news-topstories.html

Quote:Did She Cross the Line?

That depends on how you define “the line.” The Supreme Court is the only court in the United States that lacks a code of conduct, so there is no formal prohibition on justices’ discussing issues that may come before the court, Lubet said.

So while no law imposes a penalty for political speech by sitting justices, he argued that Ginsburg’s comments diminish the neutrality of the court — an important feature of an independent judiciary.

But at least one other scholar applauds her breaching of the tradition that justices avoid discussing politics. “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,” Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California at Irvine School of Law, wrote Tuesday on The New York Times’ Room for Debate blog.

“We are in a relatively new era of public statements by justices, and I applaud it.”

Seems folks everywhere are split on it. I wonder if everybody is allowing politics to influence their judgment.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-13-2016, 07:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You said they are suppose to stay neutral. I'm asking where this was established.

Article III of the Constitution.


Their pay can never be cut and the job is for life.

The Judicial courts was created as a checks and balance for the Executive and Legislative branches. How can they effectively do their jobs if they are not a-political and putting the people first instead of constantly voting on the party line?

[Millhouse]

(07-13-2016, 07:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You said they are suppose to stay neutral. I'm asking where this was established.

Actually they should stay neutral per Code of Conduct of U.S. judges. http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#f 

from Canon 5-A-2:

Quote: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

Also even the NY Times & Washington Post editorial groups agreed she shouldn't have

[Belsnickel]

(07-13-2016, 07:59 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Actually they should stay neutral per Code of Conduct of U.S. judges. http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#f 

from Canon 5-A-2:

Also even the NY Times & Washington Post editorial groups agreed she shouldn't have

They aren't judges, but justices. Those codes of conduct actually aren't applicable to the SCOTUS. bfine's post mentions this.

[Belsnickel]

(07-13-2016, 07:40 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Article III of the Constitution.


Their pay can never be cut and the job is for life.

The Judicial courts was created as a checks and balance for the Executive and Legislative branches. How can they effectively do their jobs if they are not a-political and putting the people first instead of constantly voting on the party line?

I always find the idea that the court is apolitical, or that it is intended to be so, as interesting. Especially since its membership is appointed and approved by political people and it has been used as a political tool since its conception.

[Millhouse]

(07-13-2016, 08:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They aren't judges, but justices. Those codes of conduct actually aren't applicable to the SCOTUS. bfine's post mentions this.

justice judge, tomata tomato .. but yeah apparently it does apply to all federal judges outside of the highest court in the land. I guess they figured once someone reaches that point, it is assumed to follow it.

[*bfine32*]

(07-13-2016, 08:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I always find the idea that the court is apolitical, or that it is intended to be so, as interesting. Especially since its membership is appointed and approved by political people and it has been used as a political tool since its conception.

Why does Lady Justice wear a blindfold?

[Belsnickel]

(07-13-2016, 09:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you disagree with the notion that justice should be blind?

Nope. I just don't believe it is possible.

[BmorePat87]

(07-13-2016, 07:40 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Article III of the Constitution.


Their pay can never be cut and the job is for life.

The Judicial courts was created as a checks and balance for the Executive and Legislative branches. How can they effectively do their jobs if they are not a-political and putting the people first instead of constantly voting on the party line?

No it doesn't. The point of this exchange is to show that there is no rule, just our opinion. 

(07-13-2016, 07:59 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Actually they should stay neutral per Code of Conduct of U.S. judges. http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#f 

from Canon 5-A-2:

Also even the NY Times & Washington Post editorial groups agreed she shouldn't have

They're not judges and are bound to no code of conduct as bfine's link stated and as Matt pointed out.

[*bfine32*]

(07-13-2016, 09:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Nope. I just don't believe it is possible.

And this is why the question posed in the OP is "should" SCOTUS speak on POTUS; not, is SCOTUS allowed to speak on POTUS. 

[SunsetBengal]

As being the highest court in the Land, one would certainly hope that the Justices of the Supreme Court would be politically neutral. (as many of us were taught to believe back in school) However, we know that is not the case. They are supposed to only rule on the constitutionality of issues.

In my opinion, for RBG to opine what she did, in the way she did, is about equal to the average FB opinion that any person might make. To me, this diminishes her character, and should (at least to most people) diminish her credibility. How are we, as Americans, supposed to have faith in the Supreme Court when a Justice decides to opine similar to a Middle School girl on facebook?

[GMDino]

(07-13-2016, 10:39 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: As being the highest court in the Land, one would certainly hope that the Justices of the Supreme Court would be politically neutral. (as many of us were taught to believe back in school)  However, we know that is not the case.  They are supposed to only rule on the constitutionality of issues.

In my opinion, for RBG to opine what she did, in the way she did, is about equal to the average FB opinion that any person might make.  To me, this diminishes her character, and should (at least to most people) diminish her credibility.  How are we, as Americans, supposed to have faith in the Supreme Court when a Justice decides to opine similar to a Middle School girl on facebook?

Because she rules on law...not opinion.

[*Nately120*]

(07-13-2016, 10:39 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: How are we, as Americans, supposed to have faith in the Supreme Court when a Justice decides to opine similar to a Middle School girl on facebook?

How are we supposed to have faith in anyone who doesn't warn us of the danger of electing Trump!?

ZING!

[Rotobeast]

(07-13-2016, 10:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: Because she rules on law...not opinion.

Wouldn't it be her interpretation of the law ?

[Au165]

(07-13-2016, 06:30 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Sure I do, they are supposed to be selected because of their ability to interpret the laws, not politics. It is sad though how a majority of the time, they put politics ahead of the law when it's time to rule on a case.

The reason I said that is, you said Trump should be calling for her head. There is literally nothing anyone can do about it, so calling for her head would make him look more foolish than anything. You said they are supposed to work together, that is not true. The Supreme court isn't supposed to work with anyone, but rather act as oversight of the other branches.

[GMDino]

(07-13-2016, 11:58 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Wouldn't it be her interpretation of the law ?

*An* interpretation maybe?

My point is most Justices have made their political views known.  And some quite clearly.

For one to say they don't like someone who is running for President isn't much of a leap from saying they stopped getting a particu newspaper because it was "too liberal".

AS others have said: They are human.  They will have a bias.  Yet we see them agree on many, many things so I think those biases are less in play than with say an elected official.

[GMDino]

(07-13-2016, 11:58 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Wouldn't it be her interpretation of the law ?

*An* interpretation maybe?

My point is most Justices have made their political views known.  And some quite clearly.

For one to say they don't like someone who is running for President isn't much of a leap from saying they stopped getting a particu newspaper because it was "too liberal".

AS others have said: They are human.  They will have a bias.  Yet we see them agree on many, many things so I think those biases are less in play than with say an elected official.

[Belsnickel]

(07-13-2016, 10:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And this is why the question posed in the OP is "should" SCOTUS speak on POTUS; not, is SCOTUS allowed to speak on POTUS. 

Should they in my opinion? No.

Personally, I don't think the comments we saw from RBG should have come from anyone in our government. I think any number of things being thrown around between elected and appointed officials is childish, annoying, and unnecessary. But I prefer statesmen over politicians, but we're stuck with politicians because that is what the majority of the people seemingly want. In a governmental system where politics is the name of the game is is laughable to pretend the highest court in the land which is made up of political appointees is somehow above politics. It's a lie people like to tell themselves to pretend there is some corner of our federal government that has been left untouched by this taint, but it just isn't true.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/ruth-bader-ginsburg-donald-trump-supreme-court-politics-history-214044

Imagine if Justice O'Connor had been chastised for her comments like Justice Ginsburg is now. We could have had at least four years of President Gore. I'm not a fan of President Bush, but Gore would have been scary.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-14-2016, 09:14 AM)Au165 Wrote: The reason I said that is, you said Trump should be calling for her head. There is literally nothing anyone can do about it, so calling for her head would make him look more foolish than anything. You said they are supposed to work together, that is not true. The Supreme court isn't supposed to work with anyone, but rather act as oversight of the other branches.

Understood.
If he wins, he can call her out on moving to New Zealand, and he should also call out all of the other celebrities that have said they would leave as well. For nothing other than to put them in their place when it comes to mouthing off about politics. And he probably will because that is the type of guy he is.

I think Bernie is a fool for dropping out now, or most likely was pressured hard by the DNC. Clinton is in a downward spin right now. The majority of the people aren't buying her bs about playing dumb with confidential emails especially since she admitted in the past she was using it to avoid the FOI transparency act.

[Au165]

(07-14-2016, 10:09 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Understood.
If he wins, he can call her out on moving to New Zealand, and he should also call out all of the other celebrities that have said they would leave as well. For nothing other than to put them in their place when it comes to mouthing off about politics. And he probably will because that is the type of guy he is.

I think Bernie is a fool for dropping out now, or most likely was pressured hard by the DNC. Clinton is in a downward spin right now. The majority of the people aren't buying her bs about playing dumb with confidential emails especially since she admitted in the past she was using it to avoid the FOI transparency act.

Sure, but if he gets elected he better gets lamb basted for A. Not building his magical wall, and B. Not making Mexico pay for it. It was a great rallying cry for the dumb and racist, but any rationale person knows neither are ever happening. Can he patch what is there? Yea, sure, but his whole early gimmick of this massive monstrosity is never happening.