|
|
 Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You're making a different set of rules for one area of law versus another.
Law scholars, not me. This is such an important ethical consideration that in WA, on the ballots, candidates for court positions are not even allowed to provide political opinion. Ginsburg did something law scholars tend to think of in ethically disqualifying ways.
Regardless, why should she be forcibly muted as a judge? Are we expected to believe SCJs are apolitical? It's not like she made these statements and then had to try a case with Trump as the defendant.
She'll give ruling on many pieces of legislation he signed.
Also, I don't believe you would be upset had Clinton won and a SCJ had come out against her.
My opinion is irrelevant. And you can't know that. Even if it was my all time favorite jurist who said that, I still think the damage done to the legal system by allowing such partiality would be immense.
Comey's obvious bias (one that actually affected the outcome of the election in a very real and possibly decisive way) and your defending of it are a case in point.
Comey's not a judge. Two different sets of ethics.
|
Reply With Quote
