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

Rana said:
I would, you are right! Simply because Scalia got away with his shenanigans all those years, so if Ruth feels she needs to warn the voting public about Trump, then I commend her!
Click to expand...

Exactly. Scalia often spoke out against Roe v. Wade, should he have recused himself from any cases pertaining to it?
 
christiefan915 said:
Exactly. Scalia often spoke out against Roe v. Wade, should he have recused himself from any cases pertaining to it?
Click to expand...

That is not at all the way the standard is applied. Having an issue with a case is part of their job.

No wonder you ban me from your threads, you're too dumb to keep up with me.
 
Oh goody gumdrops, instead of responding to my post, Christiefan made a thread about my response and then banned me from it.

Any guesses as to what Zappa would say if someone did that to him?
 
And she has taken another one of my points and made a thread and banned me.

This really works well JPP.

Christiefan,

I have not seen one person talk about her constitutional right to speech when it came to her comments. Your strawman is bullshit. The issue is impartiality, something I have no doubt you no nothing about.
 
I can't help it. I'm still a bit flabbergasted that people are so obsessed w/ "impartiality" in this situation. And I conceded that Grind's point about the code of ethics was correct.

But please. Does ANYONE think that these judges are politically impartial? Is there any doubt whatsoever that Ginsburg votes "D" down the line in November? Was there any doubt at all that Scalia & Thomas both vote "R" down the line?

So, when they voice it publicly, they're all of a sudden not impartial? It doesn't matter as long as they keep it private?

Does everyone live in a dreamworld, then?
 
Thing1 said:
I can't help it. I'm still a bit flabbergasted that people are so obsessed w/ "impartiality" in this situation. And I conceded that Grind's point about the code of ethics was correct.

But please. Does ANYONE think that these judges are politically impartial? Is there any doubt whatsoever that Ginsburg votes "D" down the line in November? Was there any doubt at all that Scalia & Thomas both vote "R" down the line?

So, when they voice it publicly, they're all of a sudden not impartial? It doesn't matter as long as they keep it private?

Does everyone live in a dreamworld, then?
Click to expand...

they aren't required to be impartial......they're required to keep their mouth's shut about it......I don't blame Ginsberg that much though......she's old.....old people do stupid things......
 
Thing1 said:
I can't help it. I'm still a bit flabbergasted that people are so obsessed w/ "impartiality" in this situation. And I conceded that Grind's point about the code of ethics was correct.

But please. Does ANYONE think that these judges are politically impartial? Is there any doubt whatsoever that Ginsburg votes "D" down the line in November? Was there any doubt at all that Scalia & Thomas both vote "R" down the line?

So, when they voice it publicly, they're all of a sudden not impartial? It doesn't matter as long as they keep it private?

Does everyone live in a dreamworld, then?
Click to expand...
if they can't maintain an ethical code -can they maintain impartiality?
We place all of our trust in their impartiality -we give them the final say in disputes.
In return we ask they maintain an arms distance from politicking. can they do that for the benefit of everyone?

If they cannot it brings everything they do into question
 
PostmodernProphet said:
they aren't required to be impartial......they're required to keep their mouth's shut about it......I don't blame Ginsberg that much though......she's old.....old people do stupid things......
Click to expand...

But you're ignoring what your fellow righties are saying. They are mostly saying "how can she be impartial now," as though it's some new thing because she actually voiced it.
 
anatta said:
if they can't maintain an ethical code -can they maintain impartiality?
We place all of our trust in their impartiality -we give them the final say in disputes.
In return we ask they maintain an arms distance from politicking. can they do that for the benefit of everyone?

If they cannot it brings everything they do into question
Click to expand...

But you're ignoring the basic idea that justices like Ginsburg, Thomas & (the late) Scalia were never impartial to begin with. What's the difference if they voice it, or not?
 
Thing1 said:
But you're ignoring what your fellow righties are saying. They are mostly saying "how can she be impartial now," as though it's some new thing because she actually voiced it.
Click to expand...
they're talking about being impartial in a legal proceeding, not being impartial in politics......but you knew that and just wanted to talk like an ass, I know.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top