Why the Left Fusses About "Extrajudicial Activity"
In an op-ed today in the New York Times, former Clinton speechwriter Jeff Sheshol holds up a magnifying glass to the political "extrajudicial activities" of the conservative justices of the Supreme Court. As examples, Sheshol suggests that Justices Scalia and Thomas have demonstrated impropriety by attending meetings hosted by the Koch brothers, and that it was similarly inappropriate for Justice Alito to give the keynote speech at an American Spectator event.
There is nothing wrong with Justices attending talks or participating in conferences, no matter who hosts them, as long as the hosts are not litigants in cases directly before the Court or are partisan political outfits. Justices from both the liberal and conservative wings have long attended such functions as the ones Shesol implies are improper. I've been to conferences with both liberal and conservative Justices for many years, and I cannot see -- nor did anyone there -- that attendance or giving a speech raised some kind of impropriety. Suppose a Justice attends a meeting held by a group that wants to expand the protections for private property, or wants to defend Roe v. Wade or affirmative action. I do not think it affects the judge's duty of impartiality by sitting and listening to the conference or even speaking at it. If this were the standard, then I think judges should resign from, and attend no meetings held by, the American Bar Association, which takes positions on policy issues of all kinds.
It seems to me that all of this "extrajudicial activity" business is being ginned up by the Left to protect Obamacare when it gets to the Supreme Court. The Left either wants to get one of the conservative Justices to recuse himself or, more likely, muddy the waters so much that Justice Kagan -- who served as Solicitor General in the Obama administration while Obamacare went through -- would feel it safe not to recuse herself.
- Comment (4)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: Why the Left Fusses About "Extrajudicial Activity"
That's all it is, John, you nailed it in the last paragraph.
Aug '10
Re: Why the Left Fusses About "Extrajudicial Activity"
Exactly right, John. They are preparing the battlefield for the coming conflict. The Left in all their crypto-Marxist permutations know that they must gain control of "the narrative", as they call it. There is no such thing as objective truth to them, just a story that can be manipulated; as George Orwell predicted. They know from experience that they can gain control of language and reshape entire cultures and societies by destroying the traditional foundations of history and religion. Being atheist and anti-theist, the desire and desperate need for godlike power comes naturally to them.
Edited on Jun 29, 2011 at 12:42pmAug '10
Re: Why the Left Fusses About "Extrajudicial Activity"
Aug '10
Re: Why the Left Fusses About "Extrajudicial Activity"
Professor Yoo, on the Law Talk podcast "Sports Center", there was a discussion about Supreme Court justices doing moot court and judging Hamlet for fundraisers. You were saying these kinds of appearances were good to get them out in the public eye, and that you would prefer if they did so to "explain what philosophies they have".
I think most of us on Ricochet would prefer a system with better information and more predictable outcomes for lawsuits and appeals. But do you think there should be a limit to how explicit they are when outlining their judicial philosophy, short of telegraphing rulings on specific cases?
At some point, a USSC justice who picks and chooses what beliefs he reveals can cross over into signalling. I'm inclined to err on the side of more information, especially in a system where 9 interpreters claim final say about law... but that doesn't seem like how the system was designed to be run.