13 Republican lawmakers have asked Ruth Bader Ginsberg to sit out of any abortion cases because of her affiliation with the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. With Justice Scalia being reprimanded for his affiliation with the Cheney hunting party, is this tit-for-tat politics, or just appropriate for impartiality on the highest court?
Justice Scalia’s comments regarding the Pledge of Allegiance case brought up from California’s ninth circuit court, which is going to be heard on March 24, gave Michael Newdow reason to suspect Scalia’s impartiality, and asked him to recuse himself from the case. He did, and now only eight justices will decide the fate of the Pledge of Allegiance being recited in public schools.
Such public comments could be costly. A tie will revert the ruling back to the lower court.
With Ginsberg’s affiliation with the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, the ethical lines are being drawn again. Of course, NOW Legal Defense Fund president Kathy Rodgers believes Ginsberg’s impartiality is not affected by her support of the group. “She is always very careful in her remarks,” Rodgers said. “I’ve never heard her address cases that are in front of the court. So I don’t see any evidence of her violating her impartiality.” With all due respect to Ms. Rodgers, that opinion is, well, impartial at best.
“It is not illegal, but as a matter of judgment I would say appearing before the NOW legal defense fund is inappropriate,” said Geoffrey C. Hazard, a University of Pennsylvania law professor. “It is a demonstration of an affiliation.”
This begs the question: when does a judge’s public activities become grounds for questioning their impartiality? Discuss amongst yourselves.
UPDATE: Justice Scalia declined to recuse himself from the Cheney energy case, writing in response to the request from the Sierra Club, “If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined.”
Good point there.