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

Rune said:
Did you mean "Do her words not..."?

Get back to me when you can compose an error free sentence....the legal opinion of of a high school dropout is meaningless here.
Click to expand...
I give you credit for grammar. you win the picayune award for worthless blandishments.
 
Thing1 said:
But why is that? Save for 2000, they're not deciding elections. Members of the legislative body can voice their favoritism all day, every day. Why not members of the judiciary?

Makes no sense to me. They're appointed & paid to render opinions on cases that make it to the highest court. They're not non-ideological people, and no one ever professes that they are. She's just expressing an opinion. Being a judge doesn't make her less of an American.
Click to expand...

They must recuse themselves if there is an appearance of bias. Her comments clearly indicate bias. What if his administration has a case before her? Now you see why basically no one agrees with you, even liberal legal ethics experts say you're wrong. But that has never stopped you before from doubling down.
 
Rune said:
Did you mean "Do her words not..."?

Get back to me when you can compose an error free sentence....the legal opinion of of a high school dropout is meaningless here.
Click to expand...

It's not a legal opinion, idiot. It's a fact Ginsburg broke Canon 5 in the Code of Ethics.

Just say you don't care and at least elevate your standing to 'honest hack'.
 
Thing1 said:
You talked about the appearance of impartiality. Again - no one made a big deal about Thomas officiating Limbaugh's wedding.

These people are citizens, also. Why shouldn't the legislative body have the appearance of impartiality? They make the laws. You could apply the same standard to them.
Click to expand...

When is officiating a private person's wedding a political statement?
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
It's not a legal opinion, idiot. It's a fact Ginsburg broke Canon 5 in the Code of Ethics.

Just say you don't care and at least elevate your standing to 'honest hack'.
Click to expand...
Did you care when Scalia did it? If I remember correctly, you didn't, another case of selective outrage!
 
Rana said:
Did you care when Scalia did it? If I remember correctly, you didn't, another case of selective outrage!
Click to expand...

Do you have an example of Scalia during election season saying don't vote for this candidate publically like Ginsburg did here?
 
cawacko said:
Do you have an example of Scalia during election season saying don't vote for this candidate publically like Ginsburg did here?
Click to expand...

If Scalia kept his speech limited to his legal philosophy I don't see where it's a problem. But Ginsburg engaged in an overt attack on a Republican presidential nominee in an election year. And not just once but several times.

There's no excuses to be made for it.
 
I saw a lot of Scalia's speeches and interviews -they were on judicial philosophy -not partisan politics
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
If Scalia kept his speech limited to his legal philosophy I don't see where it's a problem. But Ginsburg engaged in an overt attack on a Republican presidential nominee in an election year. And not just once but several times.

There's no excuses to be made for it.
Click to expand...

That's the thing, you have Democratic Senators trying to go after SC Justices (conservative ones) for speaking to right wing groups and that was just them speaking about their judicial philosophy. Now they're stuck having to defend Ginsburg's outright involvement in electoral politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top