WSJ Editorial Board Quotes
Progressives and the press corps claim that judges who speak to conservative groups or attend their seminars are guilty of conflicts of interest. They even made an effort through the Judicial Conference to bar Justices from attending meetings of the Federalist Society, a legal organization that espouses constitutional originalism. But they are mute about the easy access to judges by the Climate Judiciary Project. Progressives and their friends at ProPublica and the New York Times say Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are tainted by their social connections with conservative donors and interactions with constitutional lawyers. They demand that the Justices recuse themselves from cases, despite no evident conflict of interest. But under the left’s ethics standard, every judge who attends a Climate Judiciary Project event should have to step aside from climate-related cases. Democrats Sheldon Whitehouse and his Senate sidecar Dick Durbin are trying to use ethics as a political weapon against conservative Justices, but watch out: It’s a double-edged sword.
Chase a Supreme Court justice at the time was a very partisan Federalist. The Senate was controlled by the Democratic Republicans. Randolph, then a member of the House of Representatives, orchestrated the impeachment of Chase because of his extreme partisanship. The Senate in trying the case had to decide for the first time what “high crimes and misdemeanors” the actually means in terms of impeachment. A number of the Democratic Republicans joined the Federalists in taking the view that however undesirable the Supreme Court justice’s partisanship would be, that did not reach the threshold of a “high crime and misdemeanor.” Chase was acquitted. In this sense this impeachment trial was similar to that of President William Clinton almost 200 years later. The behavior was undesirable but did not amount to a high crime and misdemeanor, Clinton was also acquitted.
Scalia had been a close friend of the Vice President. He had recently been taken on the Vice President’s plane and they went duck hunting.
He uses the term, “Non-interpretivism”, in a judge’s decision to indicate a judge who does not accept the interpretation of the Constitution as written and intended by the framers. His bias is a conservative one and this is how he views decisions that he does not like. When liberals see an opinion with which they do not agree, they also very often accuse the judge of activism and not adhering to the framer’s intentions. Generally it is a question of “whose ox is gored?”
Her co-leader, Martin J. Healy, was accused of accepting a bribe from a judge in exchange for his appointment. What makes this quotation particularly interesting is the fact that she was speaking before a reform organization, yet it is clear that Mathews herself saw no immorality in party officials accepting kickbacks. One of the major problems in reform was that most of the Tammany Hall leaders and voters had a different morality from the reformers and many genuinely thought that the situation as it existed was only “fair.” Reform, as with civil rights, required a transformation of public opinion and sense of right and wrong. See {626674} for one of her solutions to political corruption.
Hughes constantly allowed that it was improper for a sitting Supreme Court justice to be a candidate for the Presidency. But the Republican Party was badly split between the progressives and the conservatives. Each likely candidate had been on one side or the other, and was therefore unacceptable to the wing he had not supported. Hughes was one of the few Republicans who did not take sides in the 1912 schism as he was a member of the Supreme Court. His neutrality and his absence of any political statements in recent years made him a very attractive Presidential Nominee for Republicans. But his luster would wear off quickly if he let the Republicans know how he stood on any of the issues splitting the party. The only way that he could avoid saying anything was to maintain that he was not and should not be a candidate. Therefore he was nominated. However, to avoid losing one of the wings of his party, he had to essentially take a position on very few issues in the 1916 campaign. He just criticized President Woodrow Wilson and the Democrats. See {642634} for how the Wilson forces turned his avoidance of issues to their advantage.
This is the earliest surviving attempt of the Romans to formulate a legal code.
Then Clarence Thomas replaced Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court, there appeared to be a majority of the court that would overturn Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to an abortion. However it was an election year and the Chief Justice, a Republican, was concerned that if Roe was overturned the electorate might take it out on the Republicans, whose Solicitor Generals had fought to overturn Roe, at the polls. He therefore postponed the hearing of a Pennsylvania case, and then tried to postpone it again till after the election. Blackmun’s memo caused a majority of the court to vote to hear the case with no additional delay. Ironically, by a single vote, Roe was upheld.
At the time of the interview she had retired from the bench.
From time to time, the assessment of a prospective Supreme Court justice has depended on an attempt to move the court in a particular direction or to prevent that. This is as opposed to the issue of the competence of the nominee. In most cases, such nominees may not have been the best qualified but they have been extremely competent. In a few cases, such as that of Justice Clarence Thomas, the justice was mediocre and inexperienced at best, but his virtues were his race and his total ideological consistency. Most attorneys can predict his vote in advance. He has never asked a question in oral arguments. See {623452} .
The editorial board at The Wall Street Journal is the editorial board of the New York City newspaper The Wall Street Journal (WSJ). The Wall Street Journal editorial board members oversee the Journal's editorial page, dictating the tone and direction of the newspaper's opinion section.
