Ginsburg says she regrets comments on Trump

A

anatta

100% recycled karma
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.

“On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them. Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect,” she said in a statement.
Click to expand...
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
 
get the hell outta here.
she had no "regrets" until she was rightly slammed, and the damage is done to SCOTUS. She single handedly made every decision by her suspect
and tarnished her fellow judges, she needs to go.
 
She's now reduced whatever judicial legacy she might have had to being a trivia question. Hope it was worth it to her.
 
anatta said:
get the hell outta here.
she had no "regrets" until she was rightly slammed, and the damage is done to SCOTUS. She single handedly made every decision by her suspect
and tarnished her fellow judges, she needs to go.
Click to expand...
Lol, quite dramatic.. I hope we can survive, but I am confident we can, as we did the Anton..
 
Bill said:
Lol, quite dramatic.. I hope we can survive, but I am confident we can, as we did the Anton..
Click to expand...
she's tarnished her fellow jurists/shown her impartiality doesn't exist -she is incapable of rendering a decision without her objectivity being questioned
Why should she stay another minute on the bench? because she has "regrets??"
 
Celticguy said:
She's now reduced whatever judicial legacy she might have had to being a trivia question. Hope it was worth it to her.
Click to expand...

My guess is it was worth it to her. The liberals are seriously frightened of the prospect of Trump as president and they will make any sacrifice to keep him away from power. As a bonus, the liberals know their fellow liberals will forgive anything they do so they have nothing to lose.
 
anatta said:
she's tarnished her fellow jurists/shown her impartiality doesn't exist -she is incapable of rendering a decision without her objectivity being questioned
Why should she stay another minute on the bench? because she has "regrets??"
Click to expand...

Tell me again how that differs from Anton?
 
anatta said:
she's tarnished her fellow jurists/shown her impartiality doesn't exist -she is incapable of rendering a decision without her objectivity being questioned
Why should she stay another minute on the bench? because she has "regrets??"
Click to expand...

Such a myth of impartiality. I guess Scalia can golf w/ Limbaugh & Thomas can preside over his wedding, but there's a chance they might still vote Democrat.
 
Thing1 said:
You said it. I get that it was borderline, but the false outrage is unreal.

Partisan nonsense, really.
Click to expand...

I just see it opposite. If Thomas was interviewed and said Hillary's a crook and would be terrible for this country you know people who are defending Ginsburg today would be up in arms about it.

There's a code of ethics and a certain decorum we expect from people on the highest court in our country. It's not they don't, or can't, have their own political beliefs but we don't expect them to be so nakedly politically partisan over electoral politics and people whose policy they may have to rule on.
 
Bill said:
Tell me again how that differs from Anton?
Click to expand...
you need to link up reference -do you mean the speech before the federalist society?

That wasn't blatant partisanship for one, and Ginsburg would HAVE to rule on any case coming from the Trump Adm.
Or even if it's Hillary -her overt bias- causes her to be disqualified in any ruling along partisan grounds.

Also this goes to her judicial (in)temperament. Those were extreme speeches. and she's done it before -if not to this extent.

Nobody could have any confidence they were getting a fair hearing by her.

Justice Scalia Goes to Conservative Legal Event, Gives Boring Speech
But such complaints have not caused Scalia and his conservative brethren to rethink their cozy relationship with the Federalist Society, and this morning the group could once again boast a big get—the often fiery justice who is a hero within conservative legal circles. But if any of the conventioneers were hoping for fireworks from Scalia, they were sorely disappointed. Rather than opine on Hobby Lobby and religious freedom or the Affordable Care Act and government overreach, Scalia spent 30 minutes at the dais lecturing on the history of Magna Carta—"No definite article!" he insisted—and its influence on American law.

Scalia mostly stuck to legal issues from the 13th century. He might well have been a curator from the Library of Congress, where the Magna Carta is currently on exhibit (sponsored, incidentally, by the Federalist Society). Scalia ended his speech by urging everyone to go see the 800-year-old document.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/11/justice-antonin-scalia-federalist-society-supreme-court
 
Limbaugh is just a talking head. He has no real power to craft law. He might influence voters and thus he has an effect on politics but he has no direct power. As for judges having friends in politics, who cares? Judges are supposed to have opinions. But everyone knows they shouldn't get into current political contests because it gives the appearance of bias. Judges can be biased all they want but they are supposed to hide it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top