Bbbbbububu Bullshit!
Ginsburg says she regrets comments on Trump
- Thread starter anatta
- Start date
Bbbbbububu Bullshit!
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Upends the Notion of the Silent Justice Feb. 18, 2015
Not everyone agrees that Ginsburg’s increased public exposure is a good thing, especially when Ginsburg discussed the upcoming gay marriage case, sparking calls from some conservatives for her to recuse herself.
http://time.com/3713302/ruth-bader-ginsburg-interviews/
Darth Omar
Russian asset
He's 'special' all right lol.
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
He is a fucking viking
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Nah.
You just admit what a partisan hack you are when you don't at least admit that someone like Scalia was an ideologue, just like Ginsburg.
How can you say he wasn't w/ a straight face? So silly.
lol
Agreed, but I am unconvinced that Ginsberg is as much a partisan in her rulings as her personal politics might otherwise suggest. The trouble begins, IMO, when clear precedence, and, or a compelling argument is absent. This is when you might have a liberal Justice will apply socio economic emotion (think abortion) a conservative Justice a clear constitutional rationale (Obamacare is a tax).
Before a knee jerk might suggest Obamacare is a bad example, I point you to the bone Roberts through the GOP in congress. They could have, and should have, demanded a new vote. any new tax requires a vote as such.
Can't find where Alito ever apologized to Obama, but then he doesn't have RBG's classiness.
It should have been Obama apologizing to the Justices. Obama is classless, angry, and divisive.
So you don't hold Alito to the same standard as you do RBG. Unsurprising.
Two different types of behavior. One was a personal attack, the other was a disagreement over the facts. Obama owed the apology.
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
Ginsburg is widely considered the next justice to go, which makes her comments about who might name her replacement even more surprising to many.
“I find it baffling actually that she says these things,” said Arthur Hellman, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh who studies the judiciary. “She must know that she shouldn’t be. However tempted she might be, she shouldn’t be doing it.”
Louis J. Virelli III is a Stetson University law professor who just wrote a book on Supreme Court recusals, titled “Disqualifying the High Court.” He said that “public comments like the ones that Justice Ginsburg made could be seen as grounds for her to recuse herself from cases involving a future Trump administration.
“I don’t necessarily think she would be required to do that, and I certainly don’t believe that she would in every instance, but it could invite challenges to her impartiality based on her public comments,” Virelli said.
Ginsburg’s comments could muddy the waters when it comes to decisions not just involving Trump but also his policies — something that could come up regularly should he win the presidency.
“It would cast doubt on her impartiality in those decisions,” Hellman said. “If she has expressed herself as opposing the election of Donald Trump, her vote to strike down a Trump policy would be under a cloud.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/in-her-remarks-on-the-presumptive-gop-nominee-ruth-bader-ginsburg-may-have-trumped-her-usual-outspokenness/2016/07/11/860ef316-47a5-11e6-bdb9-701687974517_story.html
“I find it baffling actually that she says these things,” said Arthur Hellman, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh who studies the judiciary. “She must know that she shouldn’t be. However tempted she might be, she shouldn’t be doing it.”
Louis J. Virelli III is a Stetson University law professor who just wrote a book on Supreme Court recusals, titled “Disqualifying the High Court.” He said that “public comments like the ones that Justice Ginsburg made could be seen as grounds for her to recuse herself from cases involving a future Trump administration.
“I don’t necessarily think she would be required to do that, and I certainly don’t believe that she would in every instance, but it could invite challenges to her impartiality based on her public comments,” Virelli said.
Ginsburg’s comments could muddy the waters when it comes to decisions not just involving Trump but also his policies — something that could come up regularly should he win the presidency.
“It would cast doubt on her impartiality in those decisions,” Hellman said. “If she has expressed herself as opposing the election of Donald Trump, her vote to strike down a Trump policy would be under a cloud.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/in-her-remarks-on-the-presumptive-gop-nominee-ruth-bader-ginsburg-may-have-trumped-her-usual-outspokenness/2016/07/11/860ef316-47a5-11e6-bdb9-701687974517_story.html
Obama didn't attack anyone personally.
"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said.
"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems."
canceled.2021.3
Former Vice President
I can't wait for Cumtwatfan to shit her panties when Trump replaces Ginsberg
My guess is we will be treated to cries that we must "maintain the balance of the court"
My guess is we will be treated to cries that we must "maintain the balance of the court"
Yes, the president, using his bully pulpit, weighed in as a partisan, publicly spanking SCOTUS. Alito mouthed "not true" about Obama's framing of the merits of the courts ruling.
This is no where in the same ballpark of Ginsbergs openly partisan and personally demeaning comments.
Obama is the person in this incident who should have apologized.
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
This was a remarkably stupid and egregious comment for a sitting Supreme Court justice to make on the record.
Say what you will about Justices Scalia or Thomas, but they never weighed in on presidential politics quite like this.
The closest example I can find is that in January 2004, during an election year, Scalia went on a hunting trip with Vice President Dick Cheney. That action alone got legal ethicists into a lather.
What Ginsburg did was way worse, though. Indeed, I can find no modern instance of a Supreme Court justice being so explicit about an election — and for good reason. As the Chicago Tribune noted:
To say her public comments are unusual is like saying dancing cows are scarce. Supreme Court justices don’t — at least until now — take public stands on presidential or other elections. One reason is that they are barred from doing so by the federal code of judicial conduct, which states that as a general rule, judges shall not “publicly endorse or publicly oppose another candidate for public office.” They also aren’t allowed to make speeches on behalf of political organizations or give money to candidates.
Nowhere is that impartiality more important than in the highest court in the land, which has the final word on a host of grave questions. For justices to descend into partisan election campaigns would undermine public faith in their willingness to assess each case strictly on its legal merits. It would also encourage justices to let their political biases affect, if not determine, their decisions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/12/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-has-crossed-way-way-over-the-line/
Say what you will about Justices Scalia or Thomas, but they never weighed in on presidential politics quite like this.
The closest example I can find is that in January 2004, during an election year, Scalia went on a hunting trip with Vice President Dick Cheney. That action alone got legal ethicists into a lather.
What Ginsburg did was way worse, though. Indeed, I can find no modern instance of a Supreme Court justice being so explicit about an election — and for good reason. As the Chicago Tribune noted:
To say her public comments are unusual is like saying dancing cows are scarce. Supreme Court justices don’t — at least until now — take public stands on presidential or other elections. One reason is that they are barred from doing so by the federal code of judicial conduct, which states that as a general rule, judges shall not “publicly endorse or publicly oppose another candidate for public office.” They also aren’t allowed to make speeches on behalf of political organizations or give money to candidates.
Nowhere is that impartiality more important than in the highest court in the land, which has the final word on a host of grave questions. For justices to descend into partisan election campaigns would undermine public faith in their willingness to assess each case strictly on its legal merits. It would also encourage justices to let their political biases affect, if not determine, their decisions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/12/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-has-crossed-way-way-over-the-line/
canceled.2021.3
Former Vice President
It is funny that KKKhristiefan seems afraid to take on her buddy Legion Fag who disagrees with her on this issue. Maybe she is being a good loyal soldier afraid to go against her leader. I just hope he didn't share personal information with her like Darla did