Here we go
The question, for now, is whether a Supreme Court Justice should give a speech to an advocacy group that opposes the gay-rights agenda.
Notice: 1) No serious observer sees any ethical issue at all here. 2) If he's spoken to a group that favored gay rights, the media wouldn't bat an eye. 3) By raising the question of propriety-- even while admitting that it's probably OK-- the Boston Globe is encouraging readers to think of this behavior as suspect.
OK, so today it's an advocacy group. But it won't be long before the Globe and its editorial confreres will be raising questions about judges who speak to the Knights of Columbus, or to a diocesan conference. Or-- cut to the chase-- judges who go to Mass.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: -
Mar. 09, 2004 2:54 PM ET USA
ethics, smethics...methinks the Globe doth protest too much. This is about power and such sanctimonious posturing lays bare a fear of losing control of juridical rulings. The old "fox in the henhouse" anxiety is nagging gay activists and sympathizers who insist on only eunuchs in the Gay Lesbian Transgendered and Bisexual harem (court) of public opinion and highest court in the land.
Posted by: -
Mar. 09, 2004 6:46 AM ET USA
All comments are unfortunately true. The salient case is the recess appointment of William Pryor, fmr Atty Gen of AL, who was grilled by Sen. Russ Feingold over Pryor's decision to change his family's vacation plans once he learned his trip to Disney World coincided with the "Gay Days" on the park's calendar. Apparently Sen. Feingold found in inexplicable that a Christian, Catholic at that, wouldn't want to subject his young children to the spectacle those things generate.
Posted by: John J Plick -
Mar. 08, 2004 6:06 PM ET USA
Dear jch, Not a question of whether this is a "problem," rather whether this is a deliberate strategy on the part of the Globe and other media personnel to manipulate peoples' minds. Which reminds me of the cutest remark I ever saw in Newsweek Magazine (which I hardly ever read anymore) with regard to "The Passion..." that stated basically "Some people consider that the media is hostile to Christianity..." Nawwwwww!!! JP
Posted by: -
Mar. 08, 2004 9:16 AM ET USA
There certainly is no ethical problem with exercising one's free speech rights; commenting on a case before the Court is of course a different matter entirely. Scalia did nothing wrong, and he and Justice Thomas remain the luminaries on a court that by all rights should be firmly strict constructionist by now. (R appts who have defected to moral relativism: Souter (a wierdo), Kennedy (a dullard), O'Connor (traitor).