So why is it ok for Scalia to publically comment on a topic that is currently before the court?

[usregimechange]

Scalia: Women Don't Have Constitutional Protection Against Discrimination
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/03/scalia-women-discrimination-constitution_n_803813.html

The Supreme Court will decide whether female employees of Wal-Mart can bring a class-action suit alleging sex discrimination.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-walmart-20110103,0,534712.story


Judicial ethics problem? :think:

[SpiralHawk]

1. Republicons are 'special'

Not at all like ordinary Americans.

Be sure and do all you can to see that fatcat Republicons get
MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE
Tax breaks...

...And that we CUT SLASH & RIP programs for the hungry and homeless...

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Whaddya gonna do?

Make a Supreme Court case out of it?

[pacalo]

7. "They have nowhere else to go" is the new best friend of "Whaddya gonna do?"

:banghead:

[Jackpine Radical]

9. I guess you have to work at the points in the system

where you can make a difference. This is not such a point. Our only recourse against a SC Justice is impeachment, which would have to start in a Republican-controlled House.

[Kablooie]

36. If he wasn't one of the Mafia himself we could hire a hit man.

[Uncle Joe]

3. Because he has no ethical sense of justice.

Thanks for the thread, usregimechange.

[usregimechange]

4. "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[emulatorloo]

5. He's above the law.

[enough]

8. Yes, and he gets off on flaunting that fact. He likes us to know there's nothing we can (or will)

do about it.

[BrklynLiberal]

6. as usual..IOKIYAR

[truebrit71]

10. It isn't and is yet another reason why this ignoramus needs to be impeached..

..

[Laelth]

11. It's not OK. n/t

-Laelth

[blondeatlast]

12. Good catch. To my knowledge, he can't; but when has that ever stopped

the bullies?

[hardluck]

13. Because it is not at issue

Because the issue of whether women have a constitutional protection against discrimination is not before the court in the Walmart case. The issue in Walmart is a limited procedural issue (that will have a major impact) with regard to class actions.

[WinkyDink]

15. Bzzzzt! Wrong! The answer is: because Fat Tony is nothing more than a CORRUPT THUG with a law degree

[hardluck]

19. That may be but

As the LA Times article points out, the Walmart case hadn't even made it past the class cert stage -- the substantive issues of discrimination haven't even been heard in the trial court. Even if they had, I'm pretty sure the discrimination claims alleged in the Walmart case are based on federal and state statute, not constitutional law.

[usregimechange]

18. Thanks but you confirmed my point, a case with major implications on the issue is before the court

[former9thward]

21. No that is not before the court.

What is before the court is class action procedure -- not discrimination against anyone. The SC will not be hearing discrimination claims in this particular case. Whether they ever will years in the future is total speculation.

[usregimechange]

27. The fact that they have no current case relating to this issue directly indicates to me that...

Scalia's statement hasn't convinced even 3 more of his colleagues. But the fact that they are not deciding the issue directly doesn't mean that it is appropriate to publicly discuss while hearing a case with broad implications on the issue. That is the reason for this particular ethical standard, to prevent the appearance and actuality of pre-judgment. Suppose Scalia's views on the current state of the law would happen to influence where he comes down on it's application under certain legal procedures? Would that be entirely radical to imagine?

[former9thward]

31. Almost all legal issues have a potential to come before the court.

Would this mean that SC justices have to take a vow of silence? Almost all of the nine justices give lectures before various groups where all sorts of things are discussed. Scalia and Beyer have publicly debated several times where various legal issues have come up and each one has given their opinions. When I was in law school I took two classes presented by SC justices where they gave their opinions on the issues to law students. As long as they aren't talking about a specific case before the court I see no problem with it.

[Angry Dragon]

20. Such as the citizens united case

where the court over reached in claiming that corporations were people??

[unblock]

14. the only enforcement to prevent this is impeachment

and he knows he's not getting impeached.

liberals judges can never be too sure.


why? because republicans look for excuses to impeach and remove liberal and democrats on the flimsiest of pretense, whereas democrats pretty much need a criminal conviction AND a lock on removal before they'll even try to impeach and remove anyone.

the reason for that, in turn, is because democrats believe that impeachment and removal is only about getting rid of truly rotten individuals, whereas republicans believe the impeachment and possibly removal is all about tarnishing the democratic brand and delaying and distracting from the liberal agenda.

[jberryhill]

16. The Wal-Mart class action is not a 14th Amendment suit

What Scalia said about the 14th Amendment is, of course, nonsense.

The Wal-Mart suit is not premised on the 14th Amendment.

One thing that gets lost in the discussion is that the Constitution does not "limit" rights. What the Constitution does is to enumerate certain rights that cannot be infringed.

The part that Scalia was correct about, and which is trivially correct, is that it is perfectly possible, and normal, for statutes to provide MORE rights than the minimal Constitutional rights.

The Wal-Mart litigation is a claim based on the existing gender discrimination statutes.

Consider a simpler example.

Some states have capital punishment. Some states do not. Whether a state has or does not have capital punishment is entirely up to the legislature of that state.

All the Constitution says is "no cruel and unusual punishment". The existing Supreme Court case law on whether capital punishment is "cruel and unusual" says that it is not cruel and unusual.

Nevertheless, if you live in a state that has banned execution, then you have a right not to be executed.

Scalia can say "the 14th Amendment doesn't protect against gender discrimination", but he cannot say that "the existing anti-gender-discrimination laws don't protect against discrimination."

His overall point was that if Congress would enact more civil rights legislation, instead of punting on a lot of these issues, then it would not be up to nine folks in black robes to decide all of these things on a Constitutional basis. But that's neither here nor there as far as the Wal-Mart case is concerned.

[Art_from_Ark]

28. Scalia's only understanding of the 14th Amendment

is that it somehow provides "equal protection" to only one presidential candidate (the one from his party) in a disputed election. Ruling good for one time only. :banghead:

[HughBeaumont]

17. "Vaffanculo", says the corpulent robed Cosa Nostra Don.

Vai e fottiti, mignotta!

[dkofos]

22. He doesnt understand the Constitution, do you think he would understand ethics??

[dkofos]

23. He doesnt understand the Constitution, do you think he would understand ethics??

[Recovered Repug]

24. The Wal-Mart case is whether the female employees

qualify as a "class", not if discrimination occurred.

[fascisthunter]

25. It's Not Ok...

[GeorgeGist]

26. Because he's a corporate whore.

[Warren DeMontague]

29. Because he's a dick.

next question.

[tavalon]

30. Because he's above the law

Didn't you get the memo?

[Unvanguard]

32. The two issues are separate. The case you mention concerns statutes, not the Fourteenth Amendment.

Scalia is talking about government sex discrimination, not sex discrimination by employers, which everyone agrees is not prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment.

In any case, justices can say pretty much anything they like, unless it's a really specific reference to a particular case--especially when it's a long-standing view of theirs that they've already expressed in their opinions.

[Wednesdays]

33. IOKIYAR!

:spank:

[spanone]

34. because he's not challenged on it....is no one in politics concerned about this?

[Kablooie]

35. He's SCOTUS so immune from the legal limitations other judges submit to.