Checks and Balances?

[Don Corleone]

In reading different stories about Roberts confirmation by the Senate panel, I came across some rather interesting (to me, disturbing) comments from Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg. She gave a speech where she said "And not just any woman will do. She must be committed to advancing human and women's rights. I have a list of qualified women that I find acceptable, but of course the president hasn't asked me my opinion yet." This was along the lines that according to conventional wisdom, the president should be impeached if he doesn't nominate a woman to replace O'Connor.

All politics aside I'm taking the Civics class side of this for a moment, because I'd be just as pissed if Scalia came out and said "If the President has any cojones, he'll nominate Estrada". In my mind, it is NOT the position of the Supreme Court to use the press to tell the President who to nominate (or the Senate who to ratify for that matter). Her job is to rule on cases and leave the nominations to those the Constitution empowers, no? Sure, she's entitled to her opinion, but this wasn't her chatting at a cocktail party. This was her giving a targeted speech. And it wasn't the first time she's done it. She's frequently publicly berated the Senate and the House for not putting forward bills she expects them to pass.

So, I'm a very poll-ish mood today... no political arguments, just the legal/constitutional aspects of it. Do Supreme Court justices, of any stripe have a right to use the bully pulpit to tell the rest of America how Congress and the President ought to do their job?

Darn! I forgot the poll. Okay, everyone yes or no... does SCOTUS have the right to go on the air to tell the other branches of government how to do their job?