07-14-2016, 04:12 PM
I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. We know Justices are political, as it plays into the nomination process to begin with (at least the past few decades). Making a comment doesn't change who they are.
And the simple fact is, being appointed for life means they are immune to political influences. That is very different than having political leanings.
I'm not sure why anything they say publicly would have any bearing on how they rule. And although much work is done to discern their politics thru an analysis of rulings, when they make it clear where they stand (as if there was ever any doubt), then that's probably a good thing.
A better question is if it's inappropriate to comment on cases pending in lower courts. I would tend to say THAT is wrong, because one or two comments don't necessarily reflect the view of the entire SCOTUS. And if a case is going to find it's way to the SCOTUS, it's important they rule on it (along with consenting and dissenting opinions) to clarify nuances and establish qualifications and boundaries.
And the simple fact is, being appointed for life means they are immune to political influences. That is very different than having political leanings.
I'm not sure why anything they say publicly would have any bearing on how they rule. And although much work is done to discern their politics thru an analysis of rulings, when they make it clear where they stand (as if there was ever any doubt), then that's probably a good thing.
A better question is if it's inappropriate to comment on cases pending in lower courts. I would tend to say THAT is wrong, because one or two comments don't necessarily reflect the view of the entire SCOTUS. And if a case is going to find it's way to the SCOTUS, it's important they rule on it (along with consenting and dissenting opinions) to clarify nuances and establish qualifications and boundaries.
--------------------------------------------------------
