Justice Ginsburg's mistake.........................benefits Trump so thanks babe

Thing1 said:
Because you say so?
Click to expand...
No because this is the law, if she does not resign she must recluse herself from every case that involves partisan politics which is a good number of cases. Ginsburg knows this and wants off the court, she is after all 117 years old....................
 
Clock Town said:
It's really not kosher thing1. The court should have at least the appearance of impartiality. It should be above politicking. Even slate was criticizing her yesterday.
Click to expand...

Do you think that there is anyone on the planet who doesn't know that Ginsburg votes Democrat, and Thomas votes Republican?

Did you have any problem w/ Thomas presiding over Limbaugh's wedding?
 
Ziggy said:
No because this is the law, if she does not resign she must recluse herself from every case that involves partisan politics which is a good number of cases. Ginsburg knows this and wants off the court, she is after all 117 years old....................
Click to expand...

It's the law that she can't express a political opinion?
 
Thing1 said:
Do you think that there is anyone on the planet who doesn't know that Ginsburg votes Democrat, and Thomas votes Republican?

Did you have any problem w/ Thomas presiding over Limbaugh's wedding?
Click to expand...

you are missing the point. there is a difference between ruling on court opinions (their job) and stumping for a president. Would you think it would be acceptable for the supreme court justices to hit the campaign trail? The court should be above the muck of electioneering. Yes they have their own liberal and conservative opinions, but this isn't a criticism of belief, it's a criticism of actions. that is the difference thing1
 
Clock Town said:
you are missing the point. there is a difference between ruling on court opinions (their job) and stumping for a president. Would you think it would be acceptable for the supreme court justices to hit the campaign trail? The court should be above the muck of electioneering. Yes they have their own liberal and conservative opinions, but this isn't a criticism of belief, it's a criticism of actions. that is the difference thing1
Click to expand...

You talked about the appearance of impartiality. Again - no one made a big deal about Thomas officiating Limbaugh's wedding.

These people are citizens, also. Why shouldn't the legislative body have the appearance of impartiality? They make the laws. You could apply the same standard to them.
 
Thing1 said:
You talked about the appearance of impartiality. Again - no one made a big deal about Thomas officiating Limbaugh's wedding.

These people are citizens, also. Why shouldn't the legislative body have the appearance of impartiality? They make the laws. You could apply the same standard to them.
Click to expand...

thing1 you are being disingenuous. You use citizens to insinuate they are private actors. They are also PUBLIC figures, of the highest court in the land. They have a responsibility to be above the political fray.
 
Thing1 said:
You talked about the appearance of impartiality. Again - no one made a big deal about Thomas officiating Limbaugh's wedding.

These people are citizens, also. Why shouldn't the legislative body have the appearance of impartiality? They make the laws. You could apply the same standard to them.
Click to expand...

Do I really need to explain to you the 3 branches of government and how they all have different roles? This is 3rd grade stuff. Our courts are not about populism and grandstanding.
 
There is really very little to debate about the ethics of Ginsburg’s comments. They were plainly a violation, the kind of partisan partiality that judicial ethics codes strive to prevent. But Ginsburg, who is a quietly canny judicial and political strategist, surely knows that her comments were an ethical error.
Click to expand...


That's from slate ^. Super liberal mag.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/07/ruth_bader_ginsburg_risks_her_legacy_to_insult_donald_trump.html

What about the nytimes?

In this election cycle in particular, the potential of a new president to affect the balance of the court has taken on great importance, with the vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. As Justice Ginsburg pointed out, other justices are nearing an age when retirement would not be surprising. That makes it vital that the court remain outside the presidential process. And just imagine if this were 2000 and the resolution of the election depended on a Supreme Court decision. Could anyone now argue with a straight face that Justice Ginsburg’s only guide would be the law?
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/o...t-about-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg.html?_r=0

You are way out of line on this one thing1. Please stop defending liberals at all costs. There are perfectly valid ethical reasons why a supreme court justice shouldn't be stumping during an election year.
 
Last edited:
I used to work with judges. They would never talk opinions about the law if it couldn't even be slightly applied to current cases with the media, and that was a low level family court. Why do you think judges even wear robes? It's supposed to be a branch of high integrity, without the appearance of biased politicking and basic muckraking. It's completely crass, low brow, and does our institution a disservice.
 
Thing1 said:
Do you think that there is anyone on the planet who doesn't know that Ginsburg votes Democrat, and Thomas votes Republican?

Did you have any problem w/ Thomas presiding over Limbaugh's wedding?
Click to expand...

What a lame comparison. Rush isn't running for president and presiding over a wedding may be a political statement but it's a pretty subtle one by comparison.

Ginsburg didn't even stop at saying Hillary would be good for the country---she attacked her opponent. She's a political hack along with being a Supreme Court justice.
 
Rush Limbaugh is arguably the most prominent right-wing idealogue in history.

You guys really can't hear yourselves. If your main argument is really the "appearance of impartiality"...I mean, my goodness. No one had any doubts about Thomas' leanings when he officiated Limbaugh's wedding. They didn't have any doubt before that, either.
 
Clock Town said:
I used to work with judges. They would never talk opinions about the law if it couldn't even be slightly applied to current cases with the media, and that was a low level family court. Why do you think judges even wear robes? It's supposed to be a branch of high integrity, without the appearance of biased politicking and basic muckraking. It's completely crass, low brow, and does our institution a disservice.
Click to expand...

Ginsburg needs a shirt that says Team Hillary lol.
 
Clock Town said:
I used to work with judges. They would never talk opinions about the law if it couldn't even be slightly applied to current cases with the media, and that was a low level family court. Why do you think judges even wear robes? It's supposed to be a branch of high integrity, without the appearance of biased politicking and basic muckraking. It's completely crass, low brow, and does our institution a disservice.
Click to expand...

Way over the top.

You're really a hack.
 
officiating a wedding with Limbaugh is nowhere near backing Clinton....also she said she wants the Citizens United overturned.
Why is she doing this? because she doesn't care about herself, but this is damaging the entire judicial impartiality.
She's selfish.
 
Thing1 said:
They are 2 very different things on most levels.

But, under the heading of "appearance of impartiality," they're no different.
Click to expand...
yes they are very different. A wedding is a social occasion - Limbaugh is not in politics.

Ginsberg's language is partisan -if Trump were to win it would show hostility to him as POTUS.
It's a really bad place to be for a SCOTUS judge
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top