The Washington Post  is running some pretty scary stuff this morning about out Supreme Court justices.  Rather than the cloistered, nearly unrecognizable justices like retired John Paul Stevens, these younger ones are acquiring an almost cult like following.  For example:

At the invitation of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Scalia will be addressing new conservative members of the House of Representatives. To them, Scalia is a nothing short of a rock star. He personifies not only conservative values but a new model for the Supreme Court: the celebrity justice.

Where Scalia has ventured with crowd-pleasing rhetoric, other justices are following. They rally their bases on the right or the left with speeches, candid interviews, commencement addresses and book tours. They appear to be abandoning the principle of strict neutrality in public life, long a touchstone of service on the highest court.

Whatever happened to court neutrality?  It sounds like cases are predetermined, before they are even heard.  Why would Justice Scalia appear before conservative members of the House of Representatives only?  When will they start accepting honoraria? 

The Bachmann event takes this posturing to a new level. Scalia will be directly advising new lawmakers who came to Congress on a mission to remake government in a more conservative image. Many of them made pledges to repeal health-care reform, restrict immigration and investigate the president – pledges based on constitutional interpretations that might end up before the court.

At best, Scalia’s appearance can be viewed as a pep talk. At worst, it smacks of a political alliance.

At best, this behavior is conflict of interest.  The three branches of government need to remain independent.  It certainly doesn’t seem very conservative to allow this kind of cross pollination.  Perhaps ‘conservative’ is just a label of convenience. 

…Scalia is the first real celebrity justice. When he appears at conservative events, supporters line up to greet a man who seems more oracle than orator. They are drawn not just to his originalist views but to the sense that he is a purist on a court of relativists. And his fans are often rewarded with a zinger from the justice that would set the hair of every liberal on fire.

 

Clarence Thomas’ wife was also a Tea Party Leader and even went so far as to call and leave a message for Professor Anita Hill.  This unseemly behavior also removes that air neutrality from the court process.  Should there be rules for spouses?

It’s time for the Supreme Court to return to its more somber, isolated  days where the justices were removed from the scuttle-butt and kerfuffle of politics.  Certainly they should not be part of fund raisers or appearing at any functions as a speaker that aren’t academic in nature.  The WaPo   explains further:

Justices who flaunt their politics publicly do more than just lecture – they also can raise cash for ideological allies. Scalia and Thomas have reportedly attended events funded by conservative billionaires David and Charles Koch. Last week,  that he “dropped by” a Koch session in 2008. Both justices were even featured in Koch promotional material with Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

Does anyone out there see some conflict of interest or is it just me?  It isn’t just the conservative justices who behave like this.  Justice Ginsberg and Breyer both speak before outside groups.  It just should not be happening.  Lower court justices and judges are prevented from this kind of behavior.  Justice Alito says it doesn’t matter.  The Washington Post and I disagree:

But it is important. Perhaps not to Alito or Scalia, but to the court. If justices come to personify political movements, the law appears to be merely an extension of the personalities – and the politics – on the bench.

Some judicial commentary and appearances raise serious ethical questions. Canon 4 of the judicial Code of Conduct states that a federal judge should not take part in any activities that “reflect adversely on the judge’s impartiality.” This canon specifically warns that “a judge should not personally participate in fund-raising activities, solicit funds for any organization, or use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for that purpose.”

But this code applies only to lower-court judges; the members of the highest court in the land are not, in fact, subject to any code of conduct. The only direct limitation is the federal law that requires a judge or a justice to “disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” This law, however, lacks a process for making a complaint and has never been enforced against a justice. Each justice is left to be the judge of his or her own alleged misconduct.

Is it time for Congress to codify some behavior standards for our esteemed Supreme Court?  Perhaps this might be just a little more important than trying to regulate a teen series on MTV.   I would like to think that each decision made by the high court has been made based on previous cases and the Constitution, not the whims of a various political party or special lobby.  

 

 

44 Thoughts to “Anthony Scalia: Rock Star? Noooooooooooo!!!!!!”

  1. marinm

    The WPost article seems to indicate that only the Tea Party caucus will be at the event but that conflicts with what CNN is reporting.

    Bachmann has said all members of Congress, including Democrats, are invited to the Scalia event, even though it is billed as a “conservative constitutional seminar.” – CNN

  2. I questioned who all was invited.

    I don’t think it should be happening at all. I am just too conservative for a populist Supreme Court.

  3. marinm

    I think according to the WPost article the cat was out of the bag during FDR and probably before that.. 😉

    1. I don’t think on a wide scale basis @ marin.

  4. @Moon-howler
    I don’t think our respective definitions of “conservative” match. 😉

    And Supremes with agendas are a time honored tradition since day one. Look at the Marshall reign, for one……

    Besides, every exposure that politicians have to Constitutional thinking is a good thing.

    1. I never commented on their personal agendas, just their populist behavior.

      Traditionally with a few exceptions, justices have not inter-mingled with congress or the various presidents.

      I would not call the having a justice at my disposal real conservative thinking.

  5. Morris Davis

    Common Cause has asked the Department of Justice to investigate the involvement of Justices Scalia and Thomas in invitation-only, closed to the public and the media, events hosted by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers (their father co-founded the John Birch Society). Here’s a link to the Koch brothers invitation to their next invitation-only event later this month and the program from the June 2010 session where they highlight the involvement of Scalia and Thomas to entice invites to register. [I’m guessing none of us made the cut for an invitation.] http://images2.americanprogressaction.org/ThinkProgress/secretkochmeeting.pdf
    (see page 13 where it notes that Scalia, Thomas, Glenn Beck, Haley Barbour, Rush Limbaugh, Charles Krauthammer, Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn, and Mike Pence, among others “notable leaders” were featured participants at past meetings). The Koch brothers financed the Tea Party, the Heritage Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, the Mercatus Center (located at George Mason Univ.), the American Enterprise Institute, and the Thomas More Law Center (the group that wrote the article Cargo cites in his Sharia rant). Some of the Koch financed groups filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case (and guess who Scalia and Thomas sided with?). Apparently owning large parts of the two elected branches of government isn’t enough for the Koch brothers. We really do have the finest government money can buy (and a sufficiently large flock of poor sheepeople gullible enough to think they are patriots for trying to keep it that way).

  6. Moe, that is scary stuff you have there.

    Where does Murdoch fit in to all this?

  7. marinm

    And this is going to go all go in one direction. No where.

  8. Morris Davis

    Moon – Frank Rich did a good piece on Murdoch and the Koch brothers a few months ago in the NY Times calling them the “invisible hands” behind the apparent populist anti-government movement. He notes that when “David Koch ran to the right of Reagan as vice president on the 1980 Libertarian ticket (it polled 1 percent), his campaign called for the abolition not just of Social Security, federal regulatory agencies and welfare but also of the F.B.I., the C.I.A., and public schools — in other words, any government enterprise that would either inhibit his business profits or increase his taxes.”

    Rich notes: “The Koch brothers must be laughing all the way to the bank knowing that working Americans are aiding and abetting their selfish interests. And surely Murdoch is snickering at those protesting the “ground zero mosque.” Last week on “Fox and Friends,” the Bush administration flacks Dan Senor and Dana Perino attacked a supposedly terrorism-tainted Saudi prince whose foundation might contribute to the Islamic center. But as “The Daily Show” keeps pointing out, these Fox bloviators never acknowledge that the evil prince they’re bashing, Walid bin Talal, is not only the biggest non-Murdoch shareholder in Fox News’s parent company (he owns 7 percent of News Corporation) and the recipient of Murdoch mammoth investments in Saudi Arabia but also the subject of lionization elsewhere on Fox.”

    You’ve got admire a couple of fat cats who grow fatter without getting their paws dirty by playing average people like violins and incites them to insist on policies that make the fat fatter and the poor proud to have fought the battle.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html

    1. @Moe,

      It is so incestuous I can barely keep up with it. Maybe we need a big chart.

  9. Wolverine

    A big chart.— Good idea, Moon. But, in the interest of being a fair and balanced blog, you should also insist on a companion chart detailing all the “progressive” political groups and NGO’s to which George Soros and his minions dole out his big bucks, either directly through his Open Society Institute (OCI) or secondarily through such outfits as The Funding Exchange. As a firm believer in transparency, let me help you get started just a bit on that one:

    Open Society Institute>>>$$$>>>Crimes of War Project (see COWP website)
    The Funding Exchange>>>$$$>>>Crimes of War Project (See COWP website)

  10. It sounds more like you want me to pick up the ‘fairness doctrine.’ No thanks. Think I am done with that fair and balanced stuff if I have to provide equal time for the Koch bros and Murdoch. I think they can afford their own time. I have heard what Murdoch does and I do not like it.

    Silly me. I don’t want the Supreme Court being part of a crowd drawer for any politico.

  11. Starryflights

    He should be impeached for violating the constitution.

  12. punchak

    Monday morning blahs:

    Rush Limbaugh’s third marriage took place at the home of Clarence Thomas. He also officiated. Thomas was also a guest at Rush’s fourth wedding (where Elton John entertained to the tune of an alleged million bucks).

    Mary Matalin and James Carville were among the guests at BOTH weddings?!?!

  13. punchak

    Fill Scalia’s head with hot air and he could fly all the way to Miami –

  14. Morris Davis

    Wolverine is correct and ferreted out the information that is publicly available on our website. The Crimes of War Project used to get some of its funding from the JEHT Foundation. Unfortunately, all of JEHT’s money was managed by Bernie Madoff, so they abruptly ceased to exist. Open Society Institute stepped in and picked up the obligations that JEHT could no longer fulfill to keep the Crimes of War Project and a number of other non-profits hurt when JEHT folded from going under. I believe that was in 2007-2008. Wolverine didn’t list our other supporters … Ford, MacArthur, Knight, Carnegie, Hewlett, Oak, Oxfam, Sandler, Chicago Tribune, the U.S. Institute of Peace, and the British Embassy in Kabul.

  15. Censored bybvbl

    Wolverine, I remember linking that NYTimes article (or a similar one) several months ago and you said you’d never heard of the Koch brothers. Time to do some research of just who is funding your “populist” party. Follow the money.

  16. So lets see, what all do the Koch brothers control? How come Glenn Beck isn’t crowing about them?

  17. Slowpoke Rodriguez

    Well, once the President of the US disgraces his office by being openly critical of the Supreme Court for his misinterpretation of a decision, it just all goes out the window, doesn’t it?

  18. Actually he spoke of the decision, not the court. Huge difference. Justice Alito showed zero class by mouthing ‘not true.’ How dare he! Hopefully he will continue to show his lack of class by just staying home. Maybe he can talk Joe Wilson into staying there with him.

    To criticize a decision is not the same thing as criticizing people. It is done all the time.

  19. Speaking of breach of protocol and misbehavior, I wonder if the new House Speaker will have better manners this year? Will he make faces and gesture in disbelief with his arms again this year?

    Too bad so many people have to display rude, mannerless behavior in a place where decorum is expected.

  20. Censored bybvbl

    @Moon-howler

    Too bad so many people have to display rude, mannerless behavior in a place where decorum is expected.

    They’re just playing to the crowd of rude, mannerless people who disrupted the townhall meetings. 😉

  21. @Censored bybvbl
    Good one.

    If a civilian acted like that during a state of the Union address, that civilian would be whipped out of there so darn fast his/her head would spin.

    I went back in the mid to late 1990s while Clinton was in office. The R’s were plotting against Clinton. and I don’t think the Lewinsky case had broken so it must have been 98. (tracked it down by Mary Bono) I didn’t see any of that extreme rudeness. And that was about as canktankerous as I had ever seen Congress. The Justices all filed in and had good manners and no one shouted out.

  22. “We really do have the finest government money can buy (and a sufficiently large flock of poor sheepeople gullible enough to think they are patriots for trying to keep it that way).”

    That’s not a nice way to talk about Obama and his minions.

    As for class, why did Obama single out the Supremes in a partisan manner? It WASN’T true. By bringing up that decision in such a manner, he was showing disrespect to them. That showed LOTS of class. And Joe Wilson turned out to be right. I guess President Obama was just playing to the crowd of rude mannerless people that riot and demonstrate at peoples HOMES because the Union told them too. Or is it ok for unions to be the only ones sending in political money?

    If we don’t want partisanship in the SOTU, lets return to the pre-Wilson days when it was just a note read in Congress, instead of a campaign speech promising more goodies.

    As for all that money the Koch’s are spending on the Tea Party, still waiting and my friends are still waiting to see any of that money.

  23. Starryflights

    If you want to talk about money buying government, it was Scalia who voted with the majority decision that corporations have the same rights as people.

  24. Morris Davis

    Justice Thomas failed to list nearly $700k his wife received from Koch brothers backed groups when he filed his financial disclosure reports.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/personnel-notes/139591-records-show-justice-thomas-didnt-report-wifes-income

  25. marinm

    …..and what’s the penalty for Justice Thomas’ wife having a job and that information not being reported on his taxes?

    The chance of any charges being filed?

    Mr. Obama’s attack on the seated SCOTUS was no better than taking a 2×4 to a kitten held down by rope. They can’t defend themselves while people literally right next to them are cheering the POTUS on as he misstates the ruling. When someone has the audacity to mouth the words “not true” they’re suddenly crossing a line. Wow. Really?

    Great job, President Michael Vick.

  26. Elena

    Let me share how scary I believe the influence of the Koch brothers has been for decades. My big sis has a lot to share about their undue influence in our society. George Soros doesn’t hold a candle to Koch!

  27. Elena

    Morris Davis :Moon – Frank Rich did a good piece on Murdoch and the Koch brothers a few months ago in the NY Times calling them the “invisible hands” behind the apparent populist anti-government movement. He notes that when “David Koch ran to the right of Reagan as vice president on the 1980 Libertarian ticket (it polled 1 percent), his campaign called for the abolition not just of Social Security, federal regulatory agencies and welfare but also of the F.B.I., the C.I.A., and public schools — in other words, any government enterprise that would either inhibit his business profits or increase his taxes.”
    Rich notes: “The Koch brothers must be laughing all the way to the bank knowing that working Americans are aiding and abetting their selfish interests. And surely Murdoch is snickering at those protesting the “ground zero mosque.” Last week on “Fox and Friends,” the Bush administration flacks Dan Senor and Dana Perino attacked a supposedly terrorism-tainted Saudi prince whose foundation might contribute to the Islamic center. But as “The Daily Show” keeps pointing out, these Fox bloviators never acknowledge that the evil prince they’re bashing, Walid bin Talal, is not only the biggest non-Murdoch shareholder in Fox News’s parent company (he owns 7 percent of News Corporation) and the recipient of Murdoch mammoth investments in Saudi Arabia but also the subject of lionization elsewhere on Fox.”
    You’ve got admire a couple of fat cats who grow fatter without getting their paws dirty by playing average people like violins and incites them to insist on policies that make the fat fatter and the poor proud to have fought the battle.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html

    GO MOE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  28. He criticized the decision. I wonder if Breyer felt attacked? The Justices already have defended themselves. They write their opinions. Presidents have criticized decisions since there were presidents. That includes Saint Ronald.

    If Justice Alito doesn’t have the self control to not mouth back to the president, he should not attend. I am very sick of rude behavior being justified. Some of it can’t be. Being a sitting justice should be apolitical That goes for all of them.

  29. Actually, the PRESIDENT doesn’t have to attend EITHER. He can send a letter to be read by the Sergeant at Arms, or whomever it was that read it. Just think, we wouldn’t have to listen to the President (of any party) speechify for an hour and then have the other party rebut, and then have the assorted talking heads go BLAH BLAH BLAH for days on the pablum that the SOTU address has become.

    Face it. The President was rude. He either misspoke or lied. He is constantly shading the truth to advance the liberal agenda and the press covers for him. I hope the Supreme Court DOESN’T show up. I wouldn’t. Presidents criticize decisions, not describe them in inaccurate terms to the faces of the Supreme Court. The State of the Union was not the place for that. If he wants to hold a press conference about it…. great.

    Lets not have any TV coverage of the address. I bet it goes back to its original statement, the actual STATE OF THE UNION, not campaign statements.

  30. No, the President was NOT rude. His speech–It is his job to give the State of the Union Address. He had the floor. He gave his opinion.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/27/alito-not-true_n_439672.html

    Presidents have always made comments about various Supreme Court decisions. You really are holding him to a different standard. Why are you singling out Obama? Were you as critical of Clinton, Bush or Reagan?

    I have never really heard a person voice such hatred of a President.

    We don’t have to listen. We can turn the TV off. Meanwhile, its a good idea to be polite.

  31. marinm

    Any bets on how many Justices come to the SOTU? I’m thinking 3-5. I don’t see Roberts, Scalia, Alito or Thomas going. 🙂

  32. Actually, Reagan and Clinton, during a SOTU address, did not criticize, they talked about the State and what THEY were going to do.

    But, yes, I think that this whole charade of the President giving this big grandiose speech is counterproductive. I want to go back to the old way, where the SOTU was just a report to Congress.

    If you’re talking about me “hating” the President, and you think THIS is bad, where have you been the last 8 years, where people were calling for the DEATH of President Bush. I don’t hate Obama, I oppose his policies and believe him to be dishonest and incompetent.

    You apparently see nothing wrong in what he did. Ok. He had the floor. He gave his opinion. He did it in such a way as to shade the SCOTUS decision in a falsehood. I see that he was rude to co-equals while giving a report to the other co-equal branches of the government. Again, the House and Senate don’t HAVE to allow him to speak. The Justice did not interrupt. He did not ask the cameras to move to him. He mouthed the words “Not True” to HIMSELF. If that’s rudeness, then your other calls for civility are a double standard.

  33. Why is every statement always answered with a ‘yes but what about Bush?’ PUH-leez. That has nothing to do with it. People have threatened to kill every president since Washington. Not good but hardly rare.

    No, I really don’t see anything wrong with what he did. It was his show. Now, if he had called out those 5 who voted to affirm the campaign finance he was criticizing, I would say he was wrong. He gave his opinion about the decision. He actually called for the Congress to make laws that clarified the person vs the corporation.

    Are you saying a president should never comment on a Supreme Court decision? How about a bill passed by Congress–is that off limits also too?

    I keep saying, the Supremes aren’t his co-equals. The branches of government are equal. The people serving in each are not co-equal. Now that is a myth.

    Mouthing to himself? 🙄 No, when others can see something, it isn’t to one’s self. Would you let your kid get by with that kind of lame excuse? I wouldn’t. I always told mine that I couldn’t control what went on in their heads but I sure would have consequences for things that came out of their mouths or crossed their faces.

  34. punchak

    @marinm

    If THAT happens, we can say goodbye to the US justice system, as it is supposed to work.

    Yes, I notice the smiley.

  35. Wolverine

    Oh, Censored, I have since done some research on the Koch brothers and on the opposition to them. You should take a look at Jane Mayer’s August 2010 Koch hit piece in the New Yorker. In the middle of it, she felt obliged to admit that George Soros was doing something similar, but then she threw in a disclaimer that the Soros money (the amount making the Koch brothers pale in comparison) was being doled out for the same reasons as the Koch money. Her confirming source on that? A direct quote from one of George’s top henchmen. The opposition never seems to understand the real techniques of propaganda. Always making stupid mistakes right in the middle of the game. But what really irks me is when someone lays out the slant of a known ideologue of the Left ( think Rich at the NYT) as if some undeniable gospel and absolute truth is being preached. Do your own frigging primary research and then come back to me. Don’t quote some other guy. In my former business, such second hand “intelligence” wound up in the shredder without further distribution. (I hope that primary research is policy at COWP, by the way, since I have taken an interest in their reporting on Africa.)

    What also irks me to no end is the assumption by you and others that the rest of us are just chumps who take every word put out by every self-proclaimed conservative person or entity as the gospel truth. Thanks for that. Not! Look, my friend, I’ve had an awfully lot of experience and battle with the best of of the propaganda masters — namely the Comintern and the KGB. I know how that game works.

    And let me tell you something else. This use of the words”Sheeple” and “Sheepeople” is somewhat out of context. The original “Sheeple” and “Sheepeople” are really those who lapped up the cries of the revolutionary left — as in “Power to the People” — and then ran with it, right into the cages of tyranny. I’ve seen that happen up close and personal in many places, including Africa. You just don’t get to use that kind of insulting crap with guys like me.

    As for Morris, I am delighted that he tried to explain those donations from the Open Society Institute. I was wondering as well about the continued inclusion of JEHT on the list, since I did know that the New York couple running that foundation had lost their shirts in the Madoff scandal and shut down their grant system in 2009. My first thought was some possible false advertising by COWP to attract more donors, but now that Morris has explained….

    Moreover, I do have to hand it to Morris on one thing. The COWP actually had the cajones to keep including the Open Society Institute (OSI) as a donor on the website. That was a Hell of a lot better than trying to hide completely the Soros connection as some have done — including Media Matters — until the evidence became too much for continued plausible denial. I will, however, get in one small dig. The COWP description of the Open Society Institute contains the usual up front stuff plus the founding date of 1993. What was left out was the name of the OSI founder and still its chief “decider.” I guess those COWP cajones only went so far.

    I am not going to claim here that I know all the aspects of either the Soros operation or the Koch activities. But I do know that Soros has been on this particular battlefield much longer than the Koch brothers; and, even if I think he is wrong-headed in many of his stated beliefs, I still have to doff the cap to a skilled player. I did the same to the Comintern and the KGB but always turned around to fight it out with them. I have seen numerous reports of the “progressive” organizations supported by Soros and his Open Society Institute. The list is as long as my arm. Some have admitted it. Others still try to hide it. Some make use of the Funding Exchange for the latter reason. But, in the end, all I can give you is my considered opinion and not a sermon as fact. It does appear to me that Soros has developed the same technical skills as the Comintern once had. And one of those primary skills was ascertaining just where he could find the “Sheeple” or “Sheepeople” in the left-of-center milieu and make effective use of them while simultaneously hiding his hand as best he could. In any case, I disagree with Soros up and down the line, but I have to say that he is no dummy when it comes to spreading his financial ammo around — and creating a whole facade of feel good causes to cover up purpose.

  36. @punchak
    Why would the justice system fail because they don’t show up. There’s no actual reason for them to be there. Then again, there’s no actual reason for the President to be there either.

  37. Censored bybvbl

    Wolverine, I’m not the one who admitted a few months ago that I didn’t know who the Koch brothers were. I’m not a Teabagger. I’m an Independent and info on Soros doesn’t make me quake in my boots. I’d welcome all info.

    BTW, my friends in intelligence agencies usually keep info to themselves unless they’re among their close buddies. If you’re hinting at one of the investigative agencies – yeah, my dad did that too.

  38. I guess sheeple can have many different kinds of wool.

  39. Cato the Elder

    Moon-howler :
    I guess sheeple can have many different kinds of wool.

    Yes, but in the end they all get fleeced.

  40. Report on the Scalia meeting

    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/139827-scalia-no-plans-to-attend-state-of-the-union

    Lawmakers said a number of hot-button issues came up, as members asked Scalia’s views on the constitutionality of earmarks, the line-item veto and the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Scalia weighed in on issues that the Court has already ruled on, like the line-item veto and the EPA, but he would not discuss issues that could come before the justices in the future.

    The challenge to last year’s healthcare law, which is expected to reach the Supreme Court, did not come up during the discussion, Bachmann said.

    Schakowsky said the talk was “fascinating” and “perfectly suited for a bipartisan audience.”

    “He started out by saying, ‘You’re not going to like some of the things I have to say about the ability of the Congress to limit the executive, et cetera,’” Schakowsky said.

    She said Scalia also urged the members to “get a hard copy of the Federalist Papers and read them and underline them and dog-ear them.”

Comments are closed.