[See here how someone thinks it is "clear" that she violated judicial ethics. It just isn't hazy, mind you, or concerning, it is "clear." The breadth of the concern, which if evenhandedly supplied would affect lots of judges, is notable. Few, however, ever do that. They selectively attack people, sometimes with a faux "evenhanded" approach. It pisses me off.]
This is pretty lame. Really lame.
Justice O'Connor is out there serving the public interest in any number of ways, ways that are not "partisan" -- promoting civics for school children and the public at large, hearing lower court cases, educating the public about a disease that killed her husband and speaking out about her concerns of judicial elections. I realize, her votes supporting George Bush [hearing Gore might have won, she noted "that's horrible!"], state immunity, extended spending for church related schools etc. aside, she seems "liberal" given how far gone we have gone these days. Another member of "the left," a former Republican legislative leader in Arizona and Reagan appointee. So it goes.
But, come on. Judicial elections in particular are controversial, problematic at best, the road to biased judges (again, since no one side controls the money, this is not just a partisan issue, though the leanings of her attackers make that seem otherwise) and often people no one really knows about. Obscure third party candidates are more well known than most judicial candidates on the ballot in my state. The issue of donations is of particular concern though. It should not and pretty clear is not a violation of judicial ethics for her to talk about such things:
Her critics here along with many of those who will be elected on Tuesday are below it. Sometimes, like serious adults (contra some of the land of unicorn comments here), we need to have a sense of perspective. Her critics here surely don't. They are the definition of tools and hacks.
This is pretty lame. Really lame.
Justice O'Connor is out there serving the public interest in any number of ways, ways that are not "partisan" -- promoting civics for school children and the public at large, hearing lower court cases, educating the public about a disease that killed her husband and speaking out about her concerns of judicial elections. I realize, her votes supporting George Bush [hearing Gore might have won, she noted "that's horrible!"], state immunity, extended spending for church related schools etc. aside, she seems "liberal" given how far gone we have gone these days. Another member of "the left," a former Republican legislative leader in Arizona and Reagan appointee. So it goes.
But, come on. Judicial elections in particular are controversial, problematic at best, the road to biased judges (again, since no one side controls the money, this is not just a partisan issue, though the leanings of her attackers make that seem otherwise) and often people no one really knows about. Obscure third party candidates are more well known than most judicial candidates on the ballot in my state. The issue of donations is of particular concern though. It should not and pretty clear is not a violation of judicial ethics for her to talk about such things:
But Shaman, along with another top judicial ethics expert, New York University's Stephen Gillers, don't see anything ethically wrong with what O'Connor has done in the first place in relation to the Nevada initiative. "She has a special expertise about these matters, and I don't see anything wrong with her speaking out about a matter of public concern like this," said Shaman, who asserts that O'Connor's advocacy falls in the category of speech about the administration of justice that the canons permit.In fact, Supreme Court justices are not even technically covered by the ethics requirements, which allow "judges to speak to the public and to legislators about legal matters and the administration of justice" anyways. The rest is a bunch of what comes off as conspiracy theorizing. All very lame. Is this which we will be promised in the next few years? Public servants will be deemed unprincipled by unprincipled hacks? While we have every right to be upset at the limitations of our "leaders" and how they have not done enough, there is a base line. O'Connor is above it.
Her critics here along with many of those who will be elected on Tuesday are below it. Sometimes, like serious adults (contra some of the land of unicorn comments here), we need to have a sense of perspective. Her critics here surely don't. They are the definition of tools and hacks.