First of all, regarding judicial codes of conduct. Yes, federal judges are not allowed by their ethical code to engage in partisan politics. Theoretically they don’t have to because they don’t have to run for office—they are appointed. The Supreme Court, however, is not bound by this judicial code of conduct. They can do pretty much anything they want. The reason they go through such an intense confirmation process is so that Congress can look at their work over their legal career; review opinions written and decisions made. The idea is that the past is prologue, or, most of us behave much as we have in the past.
This week, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has made headlines for her blunt comments about Donald Trump. She has made it very clear that she does not think he is qualified to be president and in fact, fears for our country if he wins. Of course, the Republicans are in a tizzy and even such “balanced” tomes as the New York Times have weighed in stating her comments were inappropriate. Trump, of course, has tweeted about this and says she is an embarrassment (someone give that man a mirror). Unfortunately, our distinguished media has once again, failed to do their homework. Once again, facts and evidence seem not to matter.
On to the history lesson. Our first Chief Justice, John Jay became Governor of New York. He ran while a sitting justice and after losing in his first attempt, won and only then stepped down from the court.
David Davis ran for president in 1877 and avoided a tie-breaker by accepting a position of Senator. The most fascinating was Charles Hughes. A sitting justice, he ran against Woodrow Wilson (if you aren’t familiar with our history, Wilson won). He did become Secretary of State and in 1930 after service as a diplomat, returned to the court to become Chief Justice.
Moving a little outside of politics but still interesting, the famous Warren Commission which investigated the assassination of John F. Kenned was run by Chief Justice Warren. The Nuremburg trials held after WWII at the International War Crimes Tribunal were prosecuted by Justice Jackson.
More recently, Chief Justice Roberts sitting in the audience at a State of the Union speech very visibly and clearly made his disdain for President Obama known when the President criticized the recent Citizens United decision. What is more political than that? Justice Scalia not only spoke frequently about political issues, but did so on Fox News. He attended Koch brothers gatherings, accepted trips from lobbyists, and was at a private hunting club (all expenses paid of course) when he died.
So. Can we all just let Justice Ginsburg say what she wants and perhaps give Donald Trump a copy of the Constitution?
Thanks for stopping by, come back soon,
k
Posts
Greetings Kyra! This is my first post on your blog! Madame Justice Ginsburg is well-respected by her peers in legal circles, since she is well-educated and her knowledge of the law is first-rate! The thing that chaps my arse is the MSM crapping all over a learned woman, yet they gave a free pass to the idiot palin, whose ignorance and poisonous diatribe towards the President knows no bounds! Talk about a double standard! They have the absolute gall to call out Madame Justice Ginsburg, a highly-educated woman, yet they cover for the idiot palin, whose academic prowess is highly questionable! I would pay big money to hear Madame Justice Ginsburg bitch-slap the idiot palin AND The Donald; however, I don't think she will, since she has much more class than both of those bozos put together!
ReplyDeleteThank you! If you like my writing please share. I agree about Palin, i. Fact have a lot of posts about her. What a piece of work.
ReplyDelete