Republicans Ask Justice Ginsburg to Recuse Herself From Abortion Cases

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 3/23/04 | Melanie Hunter

[kattracks]

(CNSNews.com) - A group of Republican congressmen are calling on Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse herself from abortion-related cases because of her close ties to NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund.

In a letter to Ginsburg, Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) and 12 other Republicans, including Reps. Dave Weldon and Sue Myrick, pointed to a March 11, 2004 LA Times report that said "in January, Ginsburg gave opening remarks for the fourth installment in the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Distinguished Lecture Series on Women and the Law."

"Two weeks earlier," the paper reported, "she had voted in a medical screening case and taken the side promoted by the legal defense fund in its friend-of-the-court brief."

"It is well known that NOW Legal Defense engages in active lobbying on behalf of pro-abortion activists and regularly submits briefs to the Supreme Court in a variety of cases," the congressmen wrote to Ginsburg. "As a matter of fact, an entire section of the NOW Legal Defense website is dedicate (sic) to cases that are heard before the High Court.

"Furthermore, the NOW Legal Defense homepage highlights your speaking engagement and pictures you next to the President of the organization, Kathy Rodgers," the congressmen wrote.

"Nevertheless you have continued to involve yourself with this legal activist group. Such a relationship casts serious doubts on the impartiality that is so important in judicial matters," they added.

The Republicans reminded Ginsburg of the federal courts' code of conduct that warns jurists to avoid outside legal activities that "would cast reasonable doubt on the capacity to decide impartially any issue that may come before them."

They also pointed to a federal law that states a judge or justice "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

"As legislators, we believe your actions call into question your ability to rule with impartiality on any case involving abortion. We, therefore, request that you immediately recuse yourself from any such cases," they concluded.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

[Coop]

Sweet! LOL

[Salman]

I like it, but strictly speaking she only has to recuse herself if NOW is a party to the case.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

She's been a paid speaker at ACLU conferences (not to mention being a member of ACLU) yet hears ACLU cases on the high court. Couldn't possibly be a conflict here.

[Sister_T]

Wasn't she also a member of the ACLU?

So wouldn't she have to recuse herself from all cases of child pornography, seeing how the ACLU supports such?

[Enduring Freedom]

You are the master of posters.

I feel like an im-poster by comparison.

[Blood of Tyrants]

But if she recuses herself, how can she vote to continue abortions?</sarcasm>

[trebb]

Yes Agnes, there is a God and He will show us the sweet truth. If you are good, the truth will set you free; if you are a Dim, it will condemn you.

[Gritty]

Howcum we haven't seen this demand for recusal all over the news like the wall-to-wall coverage of the Scalia/Cheney hunting trip?

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

kattracks, along with JohnHuang2, are posting legends.

[Aquinasfan]

Another proud baby-killer. Sheesh.

[kcvl]

bttt

[jwalsh07]

Gotta love these guys and gals. Republicans with intestinal fortitude, what a concept.

[Colonel_Flagg]

Good post, and a nice catch.

But as long as I'm dreaming about this coming true, can I wish for a pony too?

[BibChr]

Whoa... some GOPers taking Hardball 101 classes?

I like it!

Dan

[AmishDude]

Even if it would mean Ginsburg would recuse herself, NOW wouldn't be able to resist filing an amicus brief on any abortion case.

This isn't about Ginsburg, actually. This is more like deflecting the ridiculous Scalia/Cheney criticism. That's all.

[RottiBiz]

Great find! Thanks.

We all know this will get the same media attention as the Scalia/Cheney duck hunt recusal demand. ;-)

[LTCJ]

Hmmmm. Could this possibly be what's behind Scalia recusing himself from the POA case????

There has been a lot of puzzling over why he would knowingly speak before the KoC about a case that was pending, forcing himself to recuse.

Did he deliberately do so in order to set peer precedent and put pressure on Ginsburg to do so on abortion?

If so, it would be a stroke of pure genius.

[Salman]

So wouldn't she have to recuse herself from all cases of child pornography, seeing how the ACLU supports such?

Technically, only if the ACLU is a party in the case.

[PhiKapMom]

This is hilarious! Can I say finally?