Bernie Sanders does not seem to understand how the federal judiciary works

[Alcon]

That statement wasn't worded that well, but I'm sure he understands how it works. The point is, it's a litmus test for his SCOTUS appointees.

It's a litmus test that would require most judges to violate judicial canons, in fact.

What canon? Citizens United was a very controversial right-wing activist 5-4 ruling.

Or do you mean on how a case gets to the Supreme Court? Yeah, obviously SCOTUS doesn't just invent cases for themselves, so maybe we'd have to wait a year or two.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but...

Judicial canons of ethics generally prohibit discussion of issues that may come in front of the court, which is explicitly what Sanders is demanding.  He could find a nominee from a jurisdiction where this isn't applied (I don't think there are many) or from outside the judiciary, but this would thin his options out a lot, putting aside that a lot of jurists would be unwilling to do this because of self-imposed ethics.  And I can't blame them.

How would/did this apply to nominees like Taft, Charles Evans Hughes and Earl Warren, who were politicians prior to joining the court?  I mean Taft was a former president.  What issues wouldn't he have had public positions on?

It just seems to me that a judge is allowed to have an opinion on a major case. It's just sometimes they prefer to be less political and not show their cards. And if it's a case that hasn't had an argument on the merits that they've examined, it would be bad for them to have an opinion yet.

That's what I'm saying: the bold part is generally not true, in terms of making public statements (which is what Sanders advocated for here.)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

That statement wasn't worded that well, but I'm sure he understands how it works. The point is, it's a litmus test for his SCOTUS appointees.

It's a litmus test that would require most judges to violate judicial canons, in fact.

What canon? Citizens United was a very controversial right-wing activist 5-4 ruling.

Or do you mean on how a case gets to the Supreme Court? Yeah, obviously SCOTUS doesn't just invent cases for themselves, so maybe we'd have to wait a year or two.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but...

Judicial canons of ethics generally prohibit discussion of issues that may come in front of the court, which is explicitly what Sanders is demanding.  He could find a nominee from a jurisdiction where this isn't applied (I don't think there are many) or from outside the judiciary, but this would thin his options out a lot, putting aside that a lot of jurists would be unwilling to do this because of self-imposed ethics.  And I can't blame them.

How would/did this apply to nominees like Taft, Charles Evans Hughes and Earl Warren, who were politicians prior to joining the court?  I mean Taft was a former president.  What issues wouldn't he have had public positions on?

It just seems to me that a judge is allowed to have an opinion on a major case. It's just sometimes they prefer to be less political and not show their cards. And if it's a case that hasn't had an argument on the merits that they've examined, it would be bad for them to have an opinion yet.

That's what I'm saying: the bold part is generally not true, in terms of making public statements (which is what Sanders advocated for here.)

I'm sure we can find examples of public statements of judges on random cases. But anyways, Bernie didn't promise a public statement, they could be asked about it privately during vetting. And of course some judges have a judicial record that wouldn't even require any question to be asked.

[Alcon]

That statement wasn't worded that well, but I'm sure he understands how it works. The point is, it's a litmus test for his SCOTUS appointees.

It's a litmus test that would require most judges to violate judicial canons, in fact.

What canon? Citizens United was a very controversial right-wing activist 5-4 ruling.

Or do you mean on how a case gets to the Supreme Court? Yeah, obviously SCOTUS doesn't just invent cases for themselves, so maybe we'd have to wait a year or two.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but...

Judicial canons of ethics generally prohibit discussion of issues that may come in front of the court, which is explicitly what Sanders is demanding.  He could find a nominee from a jurisdiction where this isn't applied (I don't think there are many) or from outside the judiciary, but this would thin his options out a lot, putting aside that a lot of jurists would be unwilling to do this because of self-imposed ethics.  And I can't blame them.

How would/did this apply to nominees like Taft, Charles Evans Hughes and Earl Warren, who were politicians prior to joining the court?  I mean Taft was a former president.  What issues wouldn't he have had public positions on?

It just seems to me that a judge is allowed to have an opinion on a major case. It's just sometimes they prefer to be less political and not show their cards. And if it's a case that hasn't had an argument on the merits that they've examined, it would be bad for them to have an opinion yet.

That's what I'm saying: the bold part is generally not true, in terms of making public statements (which is what Sanders advocated for here.)

I'm sure we can find examples of public statements of judges on random cases. But anyways, Bernie didn't promise a public statement, they could be asked about it privately during vetting. And of course some judges have a judicial record that wouldn't even require any question to be asked.

what are you even arguing with me over?  

First, Sanders has, in the past, said he expects the nominee to speak "loudly and clearly" and, in at least one speech, "tell the American people that their first order of business on the Supreme Court will be to overturn Citizens United."  I haven't watched the speech myself, but I doubt Legal Ethics Form is making up the quote.

Second, as I've said repeatedly, and the link I just gave indicates, it's a violation of Rule 2.10(B) of the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct, which is commonly incorporated (in varying forms) in every jurisdiction I've ever seen a judicial campaign aware of.  Vaguely saying you're "sure we can find examples" isn't a response to this issue.  (This does not apply to all jurisdictions, and it's a moot point if the judge knows she'll never hear the case on which she's commenting.)

Moreover, as the link points out, federal disqualification statute requires recusal in situations where a judge's impartiality toward a case is questionable, which includes -- as far as I know -- cases where a judge has previously participated in a case as an attorney or expressed an opinion about its outcome.  I see no indication that inferences drawn from a previous record (apparent ideology, I'm assuming) require recusal.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

That statement wasn't worded that well, but I'm sure he understands how it works. The point is, it's a litmus test for his SCOTUS appointees.

It's a litmus test that would require most judges to violate judicial canons, in fact.

What canon? Citizens United was a very controversial right-wing activist 5-4 ruling.

Or do you mean on how a case gets to the Supreme Court? Yeah, obviously SCOTUS doesn't just invent cases for themselves, so maybe we'd have to wait a year or two.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but...

Judicial canons of ethics generally prohibit discussion of issues that may come in front of the court, which is explicitly what Sanders is demanding.  He could find a nominee from a jurisdiction where this isn't applied (I don't think there are many) or from outside the judiciary, but this would thin his options out a lot, putting aside that a lot of jurists would be unwilling to do this because of self-imposed ethics.  And I can't blame them.

How would/did this apply to nominees like Taft, Charles Evans Hughes and Earl Warren, who were politicians prior to joining the court?  I mean Taft was a former president.  What issues wouldn't he have had public positions on?

It just seems to me that a judge is allowed to have an opinion on a major case. It's just sometimes they prefer to be less political and not show their cards. And if it's a case that hasn't had an argument on the merits that they've examined, it would be bad for them to have an opinion yet.

That's what I'm saying: the bold part is generally not true, in terms of making public statements (which is what Sanders advocated for here.)

I'm sure we can find examples of public statements of judges on random cases. But anyways, Bernie didn't promise a public statement, they could be asked about it privately during vetting. And of course some judges have a judicial record that wouldn't even require any question to be asked.

what are you even arguing with me over?  

First, Sanders has, in the past, said he expects the nominee to speak "loudly and clearly" and, in at least one speech, "tell the American people that their first order of business on the Supreme Court will be to overturn Citizens United."  I haven't watched the speech myself, but I doubt Legal Ethics Form is making up the quote.

Second, as I've said repeatedly, and the link I just gave indicates, it's a violation of Rule 2.10(B) of the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct, which is commonly incorporated (in varying forms) in every jurisdiction I've ever seen a judicial campaign aware of.  Vaguely saying you're "sure we can find examples" isn't a response to this issue.  (This does not apply to all jurisdictions, and it's a moot point if the judge knows she'll never hear the case on which she's commenting.)

Moreover, as the link points out, federal disqualification statute requires recusal in situations where a judge's impartiality toward a case is questionable, which includes -- as far as I know -- cases where a judge has previously participated in a case as an attorney or expressed an opinion about its outcome.  I see no indication that inferences drawn from a previous record (apparent ideology, I'm assuming) require recusal.

That link says it doesn't apply in all cases. And if the judge didn't make a public statement, it wouldn't matter. Also, what if a judge says "I wasn't in favor of the Citizens United case"? They didn't say they'd be 100% sure to overturn it in a new case.

If you're going to apply a very strict of past comments made that make it clear you aren't "impartial", then Justice O'Connor should have recused herself from Bush v. Gore because she was upset when the media initially called Florida for Gore.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Oops, another desperate and pathetic attack on Bernie from the flailing Hillary campaign is busted. And this was Hillary herself, and not some twitter account.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/14/hillary-clintons-litmus-test-for-supreme-court-nominees-a-pledge-to-overturn-citizens-united/

[DrScholl]

Most candidates have a litmus test and that really isn't a misunderstanding of the court. What is a misunderstanding is to act as if a case can be overturned at will. I think the tweet was more directed at misleading people who really don't understand how the court works.

[Alcon]

That link says it doesn't apply in all cases.

I said it doesn't apply to all cases.  It doesn't apply to nominees who don't have to obey the canons.  That doesn't negate the point I'm making.

And if the judge didn't make a public statement, it wouldn't matter.

I also quoted Sanders saying that he'd expect the candidate to "tell the American people."  Dude.

Also, what if a judge says "I wasn't in favor of the Citizens United case"? They didn't say they'd be 100% sure to overturn it in a new case.

I'm pretty sure that would be a canon violation, since it effectively is a pledge to overturn the original logic of Citizens United.  That would be potentially germane to cases that would reach the court.  I'm not totally confident about that, but I'm pretty sure it would be a canon violation.

If you're going to apply a very strict of past comments made that make it clear you aren't "impartial", then Justice O'Connor should have recused herself from Bush v. Gore because she was upset when the media initially called Florida for Gore.

That's absurd.  That would not be a canon violation, because objecting to media calls has nothing to do with the legal merits of the Bush v. Gore case.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

That link says it doesn't apply in all cases.

I said it doesn't apply to all cases.  It doesn't apply to nominees who don't have to obey the canons.  That doesn't negate the point I'm making.

And if the judge didn't make a public statement, it wouldn't matter.

I also quoted Sanders saying that he'd expect the candidate to "tell the American people."  Dude.

Also, what if a judge says "I wasn't in favor of the Citizens United case"? They didn't say they'd be 100% sure to overturn it in a new case.

I'm pretty sure that would be a canon violation, since it effectively is a pledge to overturn the original logic of Citizens United.  That would be potentially germane to cases that would reach the court.  I'm not totally confident about that, but I'm pretty sure it would be a canon violation.

If you're going to apply a very strict of past comments made that make it clear you aren't "impartial", then Justice O'Connor should have recused herself from Bush v. Gore because she was upset when the media initially called Florida for Gore.

That's absurd.  That would not be a canon violation, because objecting to media calls has nothing to do with the legal merits of the Bush v. Gore case.

But it's OK if Hillary says the same thing? LOL!

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

Watching the left debate about these goons is pretty entertaining.

[Alcon]

That link says it doesn't apply in all cases.

I said it doesn't apply to all cases.  It doesn't apply to nominees who don't have to obey the canons.  That doesn't negate the point I'm making.

And if the judge didn't make a public statement, it wouldn't matter.

I also quoted Sanders saying that he'd expect the candidate to "tell the American people."  Dude.

Also, what if a judge says "I wasn't in favor of the Citizens United case"? They didn't say they'd be 100% sure to overturn it in a new case.

I'm pretty sure that would be a canon violation, since it effectively is a pledge to overturn the original logic of Citizens United.  That would be potentially germane to cases that would reach the court.  I'm not totally confident about that, but I'm pretty sure it would be a canon violation.

If you're going to apply a very strict of past comments made that make it clear you aren't "impartial", then Justice O'Connor should have recused herself from Bush v. Gore because she was upset when the media initially called Florida for Gore.

That's absurd.  That would not be a canon violation, because objecting to media calls has nothing to do with the legal merits of the Bush v. Gore case.

But it's OK if Hillary says the same thing? LOL!

?  When did I say that?  I'm not aware of any statements Clinton has made like this, but obviously, she'd be equally as wrong/disingenuous.

What exactly are you accusing me of -- secretly being a huge Clinton fan? no.  Being unwilling to say politicians I support are being wrong/disingenuous? no.  Even if Clinton has said this, I don't know why you presume I'd be aware.  Don't be an ass.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

That link says it doesn't apply in all cases.

I said it doesn't apply to all cases.  It doesn't apply to nominees who don't have to obey the canons.  That doesn't negate the point I'm making.

And if the judge didn't make a public statement, it wouldn't matter.

I also quoted Sanders saying that he'd expect the candidate to "tell the American people."  Dude.

Also, what if a judge says "I wasn't in favor of the Citizens United case"? They didn't say they'd be 100% sure to overturn it in a new case.

I'm pretty sure that would be a canon violation, since it effectively is a pledge to overturn the original logic of Citizens United.  That would be potentially germane to cases that would reach the court.  I'm not totally confident about that, but I'm pretty sure it would be a canon violation.

If you're going to apply a very strict of past comments made that make it clear you aren't "impartial", then Justice O'Connor should have recused herself from Bush v. Gore because she was upset when the media initially called Florida for Gore.

That's absurd.  That would not be a canon violation, because objecting to media calls has nothing to do with the legal merits of the Bush v. Gore case.

But it's OK if Hillary says the same thing? LOL!

?  When did I say that?  I'm not aware of any statements Clinton has made like this, but obviously, she'd be equally as wrong/disingenuous.

What exactly are you accusing me of -- secretly being a huge Clinton fan? no.  Being unwilling to say politicians I support are being wrong/disingenuous? no.  Even if Clinton has said this, I don't know why you presume I'd be aware.  Don't be an ass.

I posted earlier in the thread that Hillary said the same thing, so this whole line of attack is just another pathetic flail from Hillary supporters.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This.

[Alcon]

I posted earlier in the thread that Hillary said the same thing

I missed that post.  Yes, that's as inappropriate as Bernie's comments, except maybe the "tell the public part," which could be a bigger problem for the canons.  I've never asked about canon situations in private communications with officials with appointment power...but I would assume it's probably a problem too.

Why the heck would you presume I'd say otherwise?  I continued to argue with your defenses of Sanders' conduct.  How does that lead you to think I only have a problem with this behavior if it's Sanders?  I'm indicting the conduct, not Sanders himself, so obviously -- unless there's some hugely different context -- I'm going to apply the same standard to Clinton.  Obviously.

so this whole line of attack is just another pathetic flail from Hillary supporters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This.

It's pretty amazing that you guys manage to pack two logical fallacies into so little text.  The person making a criticism is not relevant to the substantive validity of an argument (poisoning the well).  Hypocritical application or practice also does not negate the substantive validity of an argument (tu quoque).

That's putting aside the fact that it's specifically ridiculous to say this while engaging with me, since when am I a Clinton booster anyway?.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

I think Torie has it right.  Iowa the last couple of times has gone to the surging candidates in the Democratic Party.  Kerry and Obama surged just in time.  I'm not sure how much they care about her e-mails though.