{"id":534,"date":"2003-08-20T13:08:31","date_gmt":"2003-08-20T18:08:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com\/archives\/534.html"},"modified":"2003-08-20T13:08:31","modified_gmt":"2003-08-20T18:08:31","slug":"should-sitting-supreme-court-justices-address-advocacy-groups","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/should-sitting-supreme-court-justices-address-advocacy-groups\/","title":{"rendered":"Should sitting Supreme Court justices address advocacy groups?"},"content":{"rendered":"

I noticed late last week that Joseph Farah, editor of the right-wing news-website WorldNetDaily, launched a fairly predictable criticism of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg<\/a>. After reading it twice, however, I came to believe that Farah, conservative though he may be, may have had a point.<\/p>\n

Farah noted that Ginsburg, whom he dislikes anyway because of her ideology, gave a speech recently to the American Constitution Society<\/a> at the group’s first national convention. For those of you unfamiliar with the group, the ACS was formed a couple of years ago to offer a counterweight to the growing number of conservative legal groups hoping to shift American jurisprudence to the right.<\/p>\n

As the ACS sees it, the group’s leaders formed the organization, in part, to “counter the dominant vision of American law today, a narrow conservative vision that lacks appropriate regard for the ways in which the law affects people’s lives.” A noble cause, to be sure.<\/p>\n

In any event, Farah was outraged by Ginsburg’s recent speech to the ACS because, as he read it, she used “condescending language undermining the principle of American sovereignty.”<\/p>\n

There’s obviously no reason to address the merits of Farah’s critique; he’s a conservative who hated Ginsburg’s speech and I’m a liberal who liked it. That, however, is not the point of this post.<\/p>\n

Farah’s secondary point was that Ginsburg should not have been giving a speech to the American Constitution Society at all. On this, I think Farah may be right.
\n
\nAs his column explained, the ACS is “a political organization with a strong political agenda.” This much is probably true. Farah went on to blast the group for having a roster of left-leaning speakers that have addressed the group in the past, including Hillary Clinton, Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy, Paul Wellstone, Barney Frank, Jesse Jackson, Jr., and Janet Reno.<\/p>\n

Naturally, Farah went on an extended rant, whining bitterly about the ACS’ take on gun ownership, abortion, gay rights, etc. Because Farah is a bit of right-wing loon, he concluded his column with a call for Ginsburg’s “impeachment.”<\/p>\n

Putting this aside for the moment, I think his broader point — that Ginsburg should not have spoken to the ACS — has merit.<\/p>\n

As a sitting member of the Supreme Court, Ginsburg has a unique responsibility to appear non-partisan and impartial. Obviously, justices are people. Despite their position on the high court, these men and women don’t live or work in a vacuum. Nevertheless, when Ginsburg speaks to a group like the ACS — which, by the way, I think is an excellent group with worthwhile goals — there’s an implicit endorsement of the organization and its agenda.<\/p>\n

If and when an ACS leader is arguing before the high court, there could be lingering questions about Ginsburg’s neutrality.<\/p>\n

In short, I think Supreme Court justices should be “above the fray.” Speaking at a university is fine, addressing a group with a political agenda that may one day have business before the high court is not.<\/p>\n

However, unlike Farah who is too blinded by his ideology to be intellectually honest, I think it’s equally problematic for conservative justices to speak to ideological and political groups on the right.<\/p>\n

Antonin Scalia, for example, is one of the most conservative justices the high court has ever seen. While serving at the Supreme Court, however, Scalia has delivered speeches<\/a> to several conservative think tanks and activist groups. Indeed, Scalia helped create<\/i> the Federalist Society, which by its own admission<\/a>, is a conservative group that exists to break the dominance of “orthodox liberal ideology” over “law schools and the legal profession.”<\/p>\n

While Farah scolded the ACS for its ties to prominent liberal politicians, the Federalist Society’s Board includes conservative figures such as Robert Bork, Orrin Hatch, Edwin Meese, and Frank Keating. When the group hosted a black-tie gala last fall, Scalia gave a stirring speech<\/a>, as did three members of Bush’s cabinet — Attorney General John Ashcroft, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, and Interior Secretary Gale Norton — all of whom are members of the organization.<\/p>\n

Funny, I can’t seem to find Farah’s criticism of Scalia’s speech to the group. Hmm.<\/p>\n

Moreover, I’d be remiss if I failed to mention that Scalia’s partner in crime, Justice Clarence Thomas, gives so many speeches to conservative ideological groups, you’d think he had retired from the Court to join the lecture circuit.<\/p>\n

During his decade on the high court, Thomas has delivered more speeches to conservative ideological groups than all of his colleagues put together. He’s addressed the American Enterprise Institute<\/a>, the Claremont Institute<\/a>, the Acton Institute<\/a>, and — the granddaddy of them all — the Heritage Foundation<\/a>. Some of these groups, he’s spoken to more than once.<\/p>\n

For a guy who hardly ever says a word during oral arguments, Thomas sure does like to give speeches to his conservative buddies.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, I can agree that Ginsburg may want to avoid giving speeches to groups like the ACS in the future. But it’d also be awfully nice to see Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia held to the same standard.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I noticed late last week that Joseph Farah, editor of the right-wing news-website WorldNetDaily, launched a fairly predictable criticism of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. After reading it twice, however, I came to believe that Farah, conservative though he may be, may have had a point. Farah noted that Ginsburg, whom he dislikes anyway […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[617],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-534","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/534","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=534"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/534\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=534"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=534"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=534"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}