07-14-2016, 09:50 AM
(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.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
