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

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...
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/11...icial-ethics-headlining-wing-fundraisers.html

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/01...ourt-justices-spurs-call-mandatory-ethics-rul

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/06/19/248151/clarence-thomas-resign/

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/17/139646573/bill-puts-ethics-spotlight-on-supreme-court-justices

Supplying different sources for those who would complain :)
 
Scalia and Thomas, however, have said they were invited to speak by the conservative Federalist Society, a legal group.
Scalia's speech was about international law, and Thomas' about his then recently published book.
Thomas did say he attended one panel at the Koch brothers' conference, but that he could not remember which one. Scalia said he did not attend the Koch conference. Both Justices said their expenses were paid by the Federalist Society
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/11...icial-ethics-headlining-wing-fundraisers.html
 
anatta said:
the federalist society is a partisan group??
t's mostly concerned with judicial philosophy


Federalist Society
http://www.fed-soc.org/
Advancing the principles of freedom, separation of governmental powers, and that judges are paid to interpret the laws, not to make them
Click to expand...

To a group as far left as politicsusa the ideas of the federalist society are extremely partisan
 
Rana said:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...comments_on_donald_trump_violate_ethics_rules
Click to expand...
^ The Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges—which applies only to lower federal court judges—says judges should not “make speeches for a political candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office” or “engage in any other political activity.”

Though the code doesn’t apply to justices, the idea of keeping judges out of politics helps protect the rule of law, according to New York University law professor Stephen Gillers, who wrote a post for the New York Times Room for Debate column.

“Much as I wish it were otherwise,” Gillers writes, “there is no way to read these remarks as nonpolitical. The clear message is that Ginsburg believes that Donald Trump will be bad for the country and the court. I agree, but a Supreme Court justice should not say so.”
 
oh I love this situational ethics in play ( same source by Rana)
++
Normally Supreme Court justices should refrain from commenting on partisan politics,” Butler wrote. “But these are not normal times.
The question is whether a Supreme Court justice—in this case, the second woman on the court, a civil rights icon and pioneering feminist—has an obligation to remain silent when the country is at risk of being ruled by a man who has repeatedly demonstrated that he is a sexist and racist demagogue. The answer must be no.”
Click to expand...
"my partisanship is pure -your's is rank"
 
 
Ginsberg is not content to do hit job interviews -now she's getting into with Trump directly. What a disgrace
But Ginsburg does not appear to be holding back. In a Tuesday interview with CNN, she doubled down on her criticism and called him a “faker.”

“He has no consistency about him,” Ginsburg said. “He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. … How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.”
Click to expand...
 
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...

Lol; anatta has started thread after thread in which he gives his legal opinion.
My point is that if he can't even write correctly then he certainly isn't capable of rendering legal judgement.

FYI, Lol; in the future try to refrain from addressing me. It will never go well for you....never has.
 
Rune said:
Lol; anatta has started thread after thread in which he gives his legal opinion.
My point is that if he can't even write correctly then he certainly isn't capable of rendering legal judgement.

FYI, Lol; in the future try to refrain from addressing me. It will never go well for you....never has.
Click to expand...
spelling and grammar messages are hardly an "inability to write" for a message board.
Legion Troll is a pain in the ass with his corrections, but the dude's mind is right enough. his comments/ points are cogent.

All you have is banal fluff being as ..
8845436fe93db4b0f240501855e2db81.jpg
 
so what Im hearing is that if trump wins the judge moves to new zealand. Which means trump gets to pick another justice to fill the slot :) win for conservatives :3
 
anatta said:
spelling and grammar messages are hardly an "inability to write" for a message board.
Legion Troll is a pain in the ass with his corrections, but the dude's mind is right enough. his comments/ points are cogent.

All you have is banal fluff being as ..
8845436fe93db4b0f240501855e2db81.jpg
Click to expand...

Why don't you answer his questions directed to you?
Hypocrite; half the time I am correcting your english it isn't typos it is misuse of terminology. No law can be understood by one who doesn't know the actual meaning of the words. All the indications are that you don't.
 
Rune said:
Defends white male conservative judge,
attacks female lib for same thing.
Click to expand...
yes,, the criticism is about Ginsberg being a woman and Scalia a guy :palm:
Fantastic Rune...you have now devolved below the lowest rung of PC stupidity.
you've become a basement dwelling afterthought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top