Ginsburg says she regrets comments on Trump

To be clear, what Ginsburg is doing right now—pushing her case against Trump through on-the-record interviews—is not just unethical; it’s dangerous.

As a general rule, justices should refrain from commenting on politics, period.

That dictate applies to 83-year-old internet folk heroes as strictly as it applies to anybody else who dons judicial robes.

The independence of our judiciary—and just as critically, its appearance of impartiality—hinges on a consistent separation between itself and the other branches of government.

That means no proclamations of loyalty to any candidate, or admissions of distaste of any other.

Best-case scenario, this feud gives Trump license to drag Ginsburg through the mud and turn her into an election issue; worst-case, it delegitimizes Ginsburg’s judicial authority. And since Ginsburg’s criticisms will change exactly zero minds, the benefits of the debate will flow almost exclusively to Trump.

Ginsburg’s comments also set a dark precedent for other justices with equally strong political inclinations—in other words, every justice ever to sit on the bench except David Souter.

I can’t imagine, for instance, that Notorious RBG–loving liberals would be as pleased to hear Justice Samuel Alito bash Hillary Clinton as they are to hear Ginsburg diss Trump.

Had Ginsburg said something similar about Mitt Romney, or John McCain, or George W. Bush, her slights would have been profoundly inappropriate.

Here, progressives might point out that Sandra Day O’Connor declared her distaste for Al Gore on election night in 2000. (When Gore appeared to have won Florida, she reportedly said aloud, “This is terrible.”) But her comment that night was neither as deliberate nor as brazen as Ginsburg’s; it was more of a slip than an intentional campaign to impugn her disfavored candidate’s character.



http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/07/ruth_bader_ginsburg_risks_her_legacy_to_insult_donald_trump.html
 
anatta said:
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Thursday she regrets the critical comments she made about presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, after facing a bipartisan backlash.

Ginsburg had given an interview to The New York Times saying she didn’t “even want to contemplate” the country and court under a President Trump.

She later called him a “faker” in a separate interview.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/14/ginsburg-says-regrets-comments-on-trump.html
Click to expand...
Poor Thing's head is going explode.

Sent from my LG-D631 using Tapatalk
 
Thing1 said:
You said it. I get that it was borderline, but the false outrage is unreal.

Partisan nonsense, really.
Click to expand...
Did you admit it was borderline? I read some of your posts and they were in full support of her comments. Who or what changed your mind?

And really, the outrage was clearly justified as she now admits her comments were inappropriate.

What do you make of the lefts outrage over Scalia and Rush?

Sent from my LG-D631 using Tapatalk
 
Legion Troll said:
To be clear, what Ginsburg is doing right now—pushing her case against Trump through on-the-record interviews—is not just unethical; it’s dangerous.

As a general rule, justices should refrain from commenting on politics, period.

That dictate applies to 83-year-old internet folk heroes as strictly as it applies to anybody else who dons judicial robes.

The independence of our judiciary—and just as critically, its appearance of impartiality—hinges on a consistent separation between itself and the other branches of government.

That means no proclamations of loyalty to any candidate, or admissions of distaste of any other.

Best-case scenario, this feud gives Trump license to drag Ginsburg through the mud and turn her into an election issue; worst-case, it delegitimizes Ginsburg’s judicial authority. And since Ginsburg’s criticisms will change exactly zero minds, the benefits of the debate will flow almost exclusively to Trump.

Ginsburg’s comments also set a dark precedent for other justices with equally strong political inclinations—in other words, every justice ever to sit on the bench except David Souter.

I can’t imagine, for instance, that Notorious RBG–loving liberals would be as pleased to hear Justice Samuel Alito bash Hillary Clinton as they are to hear Ginsburg diss Trump.

Had Ginsburg said something similar about Mitt Romney, or John McCain, or George W. Bush, her slights would have been profoundly inappropriate.

Here, progressives might point out that Sandra Day O’Connor declared her distaste for Al Gore on election night in 2000. (When Gore appeared to have won Florida, she reportedly said aloud, “This is terrible.”) But her comment that night was neither as deliberate nor as brazen as Ginsburg’s; it was more of a slip than an intentional campaign to impugn her disfavored candidate’s character.



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

I have to ask.
Did Scalia ever pretend, in any way, to be politically impartial?
The obvious fact that Justices are selected and appointed by political figures,(Presidents) makes political impartiality virtually impossible. To imply otherwise is just a silly game of lets pretend.
If Justices must be totally impartial politically, in the Bush v. Gore decision shouldn't all the Justices have recused themselves because of the fact that they were all appointed by either a Democratic or Republican President?
Supreme Court Justices have always been political entities and always will be, unless the means of their selection is changed.
RBG gave her personal political opinion just as Scalia often did in very public ways.
For her to pretend not to have a political opinion would be to lie.
 
Trolls don't understand the difference between stumping for a particular candidate or against a particular candidate and having your own personal beliefs.

JPP should be embarrassed to have such dumb Trolls.

Sent from my LG-D631 using Tapatalk
 
Leonthecat said:
Poor Blabo.
Can you deny though that S C Justices are political entities?
Click to expand...

That's not the point. No sitting Justice has ever publicly sought to condemn or endorse a candidate in an impending presidential election. It's a breach of judicial ethics.

If she gets away with it, the independence of the Court is done.

She must be pressured to resign.
 
Seahawk said:
Did you admit it was borderline? I read some of your posts and they were in full support of her comments. Who or what changed your mind?

And really, the outrage was clearly justified as she now admits her comments were inappropriate.

What do you make of the lefts outrage over Scalia and Rush?

Sent from my LG-D631 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I didn't seen nearly as much "outrage" over Scalia & Rush, though I'm sure you'll spend 20 minutes finding some obscure link to some article by some guy who was outraged.

None of it bothers me. I think they all have a right to free speech & association. I'm under no illusions about how some of them vote, and how ideological they are.
 
Seahawk said:
Trolls don't understand the difference between stumping for a particular candidate or against a particular candidate and having your own personal beliefs.

JPP should be embarrassed to have such dumb Trolls.

Sent from my LG-D631 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

LOL @ this post, a couple of days after your incessant whining about how mean everyone is to you.
 
Seahawk said:
Thing says none of it bothers him, but from his three posts and anger toward a former member says it all.
Click to expand...

That doesn't even make sense. Ginsburg's comments don't bother me. That has nothing to do with "anger" toward Yurt.

But I'm not angry at you, Yurt. I just think you're dopey.
 
Thing1 said:
That doesn't even make sense. Ginsburg's comments don't bother me. That has nothing to do with "anger" toward Yurt.

But I'm not angry at you, Yurt. I just think you're dopey.
Click to expand...
Okay Yurt. We got along fine until you agreed with trolls.

Sent from my LG-D631 using Tapatalk
 
Thing1 said:
I didn't seen nearly as much "outrage" over Scalia & Rush, though I'm sure you'll spend 20 minutes finding some obscure link to some article by some guy who was outraged.

None of it bothers me. I think they all have a right to free speech & association. I'm under no illusions about how some of them vote, and how ideological they are.
Click to expand...

Explain how Thomas officiating Limbaughs wedding is the same thing. Be specific. I will understand if you won't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top