I'm gonna go ahead and wait until someone other than the Moonie Times runs with this before I get all up in a lather. Remember, you can't spell "stupid" without "UPI."
Oh come on! This is a HUUUUGE difference. NOW probably files amici briefs all the time, as do many organizations which have public agendas and legal departments. But they are NOT representing a client before the court! All one would have to do to recuse justices then is to have a group they once spoke to file an amicus brief. I guess we could eliminate 5/9 of the court if we just had the Federalist Society write an amicus brief. The one case they mentioned probably drew dozens of amici briefs, which influence the judges very rarely anyway. I wouldn't have a problem with Scalia or Thomas speaking to, say, Lawyers for Judicial Restraint to present a lecture. Its not a big deal. This is NOT an Abe Fortas issue. Shooting ducks with someone who's department is about to go before you in Court is a whole 'nother issue.
Justice Ginsburg sided with the majority in a 2003 case finding against NOW in Scheidler v. National Organization for Women http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/000/01-1118.html I don't personally have an opinion on whether Scalia can be impartial after duck-hunting with Cheney-- if anything I think he can-- but I don't think this comes close to the smell test when it comes to Justice Ginsburg.
The inability of people to figure out the idea of relevance scares the holy flying f****** out of me. I once made the mistake of offering to teach a course on informal logic. It was the most frightening experience of my life -- my attraction to the politics board is probably some sort of neurosis, the core of which is to repeatedly play out the suffering of that experience in the wish that I can somehow resolve my fear of the mouthbreathing hordes and their immunity to reason.
How you can say something like this after the terrible events of 9/11 just boggles my mind. Maybe you should go live in Russia.
Sir, your comment is one of the reasons why there is an anti-intelectual movement in the US today. While I agree with you in principle, your elitist tone turns alot of people off.
Before jumping all over Ginsberg think about this: Has she ever been asked to recuse herself in a case where her ojectivity been question but refused to do so? Remember, if you appear before the supreme court and you think there's a conflict you can request a recusal. The fact that it appears no one has done so tells me that she probably didn't have a conflict.