By Dr. Ray Kessler, who is, incidentally, a retired Prof. of Criminal Justice, former defense attorney and prosecutor is your host. I am also a part-time instructor in Criminal Justice at Richland College, an outstanding, 2-year institution in Dallas, TX.
https://richlandcollege.edu/
Note that I do NOT select which ads run on the blog.
Friday, February 10, 2012
S.Ct. Justice Sotomayor on Sesame Street
Justice Breyer and former Justice Stevens have been pimping themselves and feeding their egos by going on TV. We just hit a new low. I guess she's trying to lower public, bench and bar expectations about her work on the Supreme Court.
The integration and interaction of elected and appointed officials with popular culture (like the president and presidential candidates appearing on late night "talk" shows or Stephen Colbert testifying before a Congress) cheapens and demeans these important positions. No wonder we hold these folks with such low esteem.
I had a senior military officer once tell me that he didn't care if the people under his command were green with purple polka dots, as long as they did their job. For this reason, I have to agree with Ridgway. These appointed and elected officials are free to interact with any American, whoever they may be, as long as they do their constitutionally delegated jobs. Unfortunately for the country, and popular culture, the current president and social activists on the supreme bench have failed miserably at their fiduciary and impartial decision making responsibilities, respectively.
I would ask where does one draw the line. Like it or not, certain activities or associations will build up or tear down a reputation or standing. Despite principles of freedom of association, it is important for a president to act presidential, or for example a judge to not only be free of impropriety and bias but free from the appearance of it as well, and that means practical, reasonable limits. Trying to be cool on late night TV while pandering for votes or cheap laughs or being called "dude" by a comedy show's host chips away at the dignity and stature of the position. Now if those in power did their jobs effectively I might scrounge up a little more tolerance...
Thanks to everyone for the comments. Yes, Supreme Court Justices, like others, have freedom of speech and association. I guess when Obama said he was looking for "empathetic" judges he got what he wanted. Who can't be empathetic with kids. Personally, I think it demeans the office and institution. However, it does make clear the intellectual level of the folks we are dealing with.
I hope everyone can distinguish my lame attempts at humor and cynicism from obviously over-the-top statements.
See the link below re more on the topic: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-justices-are-being-served-on-late-night-television/2012/02/09/gIQAbsjB9Q_story.html
There is also a book on this topic http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/justices-and-journalists-richard-davis/1100751675?ean=9780521704663&itm=1&usri=justices+and+journalists
The integration and interaction of elected and appointed officials with popular culture (like the president and presidential candidates appearing on late night "talk" shows or Stephen Colbert testifying before a Congress) cheapens and demeans these important positions. No wonder we hold these folks with such low esteem.
ReplyDeleteYes . . . of course . . . once these former humans ascend to the thrones of the Gods, they must throw off their lowly human countenances.
ReplyDeleteI had a senior military officer once tell me that he didn't care if the people under his command were green with purple polka dots, as long as they did their job. For this reason, I have to agree with Ridgway. These appointed and elected officials are free to interact with any American, whoever they may be, as long as they do their constitutionally delegated jobs. Unfortunately for the country, and popular culture, the current president and social activists on the supreme bench have failed miserably at their fiduciary and impartial decision making responsibilities, respectively.
ReplyDeleteI would ask where does one draw the line. Like it or not, certain activities or associations will build up or tear down a reputation or standing. Despite principles of freedom of association, it is important for a president to act presidential, or for example a judge to not only be free of impropriety and bias but free from the appearance of it as well, and that means practical, reasonable limits. Trying to be cool on late night TV while pandering for votes or cheap laughs or being called "dude" by a comedy show's host chips away at the dignity and stature of the position. Now if those in power did their jobs effectively I might scrounge up a little more tolerance...
ReplyDeleteThanks to everyone for the comments. Yes, Supreme Court Justices, like others, have freedom of speech and association. I guess when Obama said he was looking for "empathetic" judges he got what he wanted. Who can't be empathetic with kids. Personally, I think it demeans the office and institution. However, it does make clear the intellectual level of the folks we are dealing with.
ReplyDeleteI hope everyone can distinguish my lame attempts at humor and cynicism from obviously over-the-top statements.
ReplyDeleteSee the link below re more on the topic:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-justices-are-being-served-on-late-night-television/2012/02/09/gIQAbsjB9Q_story.html
There is also a book on this topic
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/justices-and-journalists-richard-davis/1100751675?ean=9780521704663&itm=1&usri=justices+and+journalists
I got it.
ReplyDelete