Ginsburg says she regrets comments on Trump

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...
Going a little overboard here....no?

She simply stated the truth. What she regrets, is saying anything about any candidate. None of which negates the credibility of her statements.

Now, Scalia going hunting with Cheney....that was problematic.
 
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...
What has impartiality got to do with deciding cases based on the LAW?
 
Althea said:
Going a little overboard here....no?

She simply stated the truth. What she regrets, is saying anything about any candidate. None of which negates the credibility of her statements.

Now, Scalia going hunting with Cheney....that was problematic.
Click to expand...
Scalia going hunting - it's assumed it's because it's common interest or friendship?
++
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan bagged herself a deer on a hunting trip to Wyoming with Justice Antonin Scalia last fall.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ice-scalia-are-hunting-buddies-really/277401/

Have you read the judicial canon on engaging in politics? Her "truth" is still partisan politics.
 
anatta said:
Scalia going hunting - it's assumed it's because it's common interest or friendship?
++
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan bagged herself a deer on a hunting trip to Wyoming with Justice Antonin Scalia last fall.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ice-scalia-are-hunting-buddies-really/277401/

Have you read the judicial canon on engaging in politics? Her "truth" is still partisan politics.
Click to expand...

Looks like you are giving Scalia the benefit of the doubt...not very impartial on your part.
 
Rune said:
There is no one who is totally impartial.
Click to expand...
it's called separation -or more correctly - compartmentalization of thought.

Demonstrating your ability to keep your bias/politics out of public discourse-is how it's done by judicial cannon.
If you can't STFU -it goes to leakage of your partisanship while on the bench
 
anatta said:
it's called separation -or more correctly - compartmentalization of thought.

Demonstrating your ability to keep your bias/politics out of public discourse-is how it's done by judicial cannon.
If you can't STFU -it goes to leakage of your partisanship while on the bench
Click to expand...

Yet the rulings are invariably along patisan lines..you are making a mountain out ofa molehill.
 
Althea said:
You conflate two justices socializing, to a justice and a v.p?
Click to expand...
do you think they were passing partisan jokes around?
"Two Democrats walk into a bar...buy everybody a beer and put it the taxpayers tab" or maybe they were practicing secret handshakes?
 
Rune said:
Yet the rulings are invariably along patisan lines..you are making a mountain out ofa molehill.
Click to expand...
no they are not. Roberts saved Obamacare even though he opposed the individual mandate.
He voted against using the 14th for gay marriage - but upheld and encouraged the organic change coming thru the states.
Those are well backed legal decisions-not partisan crap like Ginsberg's ramblings -whatever you think of the outcome

Kennedy also swings. The liberal block doesn't move or the far right wing either..

Maybe it's because the legislation is more partisan? Do you ever read the decisions? (no) :rolleyes:

Recall Ginsberg herself recanted - she finally had to accept the fact she was violating well established canon.
There are reasons for those.
 
Althea said:
You think telling the truth about Trump makes a difference in impartiality? She still has the same opinion, whether she states it publicly or not.
Click to expand...
stating an opinion here - is engaging in partisan politics. That's the bottom line.
which would be due cause to question any other opinion based/relying on partisanship
 
anatta said:
no they are not. Roberts saved Obamacare even though he opposed the individual mandate.
He voted against using the 14th for gay marriage - but upheld and encouraged the organic change coming thru the states.
Those are well backed legal decisions-not partisan crap like Ginsberg's ramblings -whatever you think of the outcome

Kennedy also swings. The liberal block doesn't move or the far right wing either..

Maybe it's because the legislation is more partisan? Do you ever read the decisions? (no) :rolleyes:

Recall Ginsberg herself recanted - she finally had to accept the fact she was violating well established canon.
There are reasons for those.
Click to expand...

Roberts is an honest man...it is common knowledge that the court is divided along partisan lines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top