U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should a sitting Supreme Court justice comment on a presidential candidate or nominee?
Yes 25 23.81%
No 80 76.19%
Voters: 105. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-13-2016, 05:06 PM
 
12,566 posts, read 4,748,202 times
Reputation: 5549

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post
And Hillary Presidency doesn't have any potential to be dangerous full of corruption and put our security at risk?....your hate towards Trump is funny especially coming from a "conservative"....lol


Imagine if a Conservative Supreme Court Justice said in public that Hillary is a liar and corrupt and there is something that smells over the Clinton Foundation and that the Department of Justice should have indicted Hillary on criminal charges.....would the media and democrats be o.k with that?

Ruth crossed the line by a mile and tainted the S.C. which already has a bad rap of being too political, she took it to the next level.
Well a Justice Dept official just did. Comey has no business offering opinions on Clinton behavior. His job is a crime or not. After that he is simply a political animal doing his thing.

I see no likelihood of any more corruption than we have seen over the last 40 or 50 years with Clinton. She is another standard politician and shows no particular sign of excessive need for anything.

And I would point out that the branch of government most distrusted is not the Executive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-13-2016, 05:07 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,692 posts, read 13,815,209 times
Reputation: 6930
New GOP investigation?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2016, 05:09 PM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
33,834 posts, read 41,892,438 times
Reputation: 43206
SCOTUS Map
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2016, 05:11 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,692 posts, read 13,815,209 times
Reputation: 6930
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch View Post
Well a Justice Dept official just did. Comey has no business offering opinions on Clinton behavior. His job is a crime or not. After that he is simply a political animal doing his thing.

I see no likelihood of any more corruption than we have seen over the last 40 or 50 years with Clinton. She is another standard politician and shows no particular sign of excessive need for anything.

And I would point out that the branch of government most distrusted is not the Executive.
Blame the house committee, they asked for the details.


If you didn't see the corruption under Reagan you need to go review the history on the indictments/convictions of his cabinet members
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2016, 05:53 PM
 
12,566 posts, read 4,748,202 times
Reputation: 5549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Blame the house committee, they asked for the details.


If you didn't see the corruption under Reagan you need to go review the history on the indictments/convictions of his cabinet members
No he volunteered the opinions in his original and written discussion.

Some years are worse than others. But the general level has not changed greatly. And perhaps the most corrupt was Bush with his false war.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2016, 06:20 PM
 
529 posts, read 278,265 times
Reputation: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by tangelag View Post
Excellent response.
No it was an absurd response.

No body is saying they can't have opinions. In fact it is their opinions on previous rulings that are examined and looked at when a President nominates a Justice.

What is inappropriate is voicing their opinion on a candidate 4 months away from an election.

That seems to be lost on most of the left, with a few admirable exceptions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2016, 06:23 PM
 
529 posts, read 278,265 times
Reputation: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayland Woman View Post
True. A Supreme Court Justice even ran for president once, suspended his term on the court and went back to the court after he lost.



Where was the Republican outrage over that? Oh wait, there wasn't any.
Because it is irrelevant to the discussion as has been pointed out already. If you can't see the difference there really isn't any point in trying to reason with you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2016, 06:23 PM
 
Location: Amongst the AZ Cactus
7,074 posts, read 4,895,532 times
Reputation: 7699
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea View Post
As that article from the ABA duly noted, the Code of Judicial Conduct does not apply to the United States Supreme Court, which was created in Article III of the Constitution of the United States.


Here is Section 1 of Article III:


"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."


Note that the section refers to 'such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish'. It was Congress that established the Federal District Courts, Federal Appeals Courts, and some other courts (bankruptcy, admiralty, and a few others I can't think of). Congress did NOT establish the Supreme Court.


Since Congress 'ordained and established' these lower Courts, they were able to create a Code of Judicial Conduct for said courts. However, the Legislative Branch (and the Executive Branch) of our government is not Constitutionally empowered to place restrictions upon the Supreme Court of the Judicial Branch.


"Good behavior" shall be addressed at another time. However, I hope this explanation suffices.


I shall spend some time looking for podiatrists and ENT doctors in the Constitution. I doubt I will find much.
Sorry my simple analogy example went over year head/you found humor in it and missed the unfairness I was trying to highlight.....good for other judges, not "us".

In any case, I don't care who created what/when. There are things called amendments that can be added to the constitution and if not, create other rules like they have been created for other judges to at least give the illusion of not being partial/taking favorites is not allowed. It's not right that a surpreme court justice can run their mouth/play politics/favorites and somehow are exempt from following the rules/somehow are above the rules that most other judges have to follow. Otherwise we have a "hands off this group of judges" and that's most dangerous in my view on many levels. Something is broke in our system that allows such a loophole in my view. And creates a big confidence gap to the public in regards to the supposed neutral position a judge should have.

And as for rules/law/the constitution, what does it all really matter these days anyways? Haven't you noticed in the world of politics more than a few feel they don't have to follow the constitution anymore? All one has to do is look at our current king and his playing around with trying to grant some forms of rights to millions of illegals(repeat, ILLEGAL aliens) via executive order on how the rule of law/the constitution is tossed aside.

Last edited by stevek64; 07-13-2016 at 06:49 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2016, 08:21 AM
 
26,229 posts, read 8,923,108 times
Reputation: 9122
SCOTUS Ginsburg today apologized. She no doubt had a lot of feedback and was pressured to do it. Maybe she got back on her medication and realized what she had done. Saying her comments were ill advised. Whatever the reason she has apologized.

I know I feel better about the justice system.......not !!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2016, 08:46 AM
 
11,280 posts, read 8,367,154 times
Reputation: 6984
Should Catholic justices recuse themselves on BC and abortion cases?

According to that noted socialist, Lawrence O'Donnell, 3 justices have run for POTUS while sitting on the court. One ran for governor of Pa while Chief Justice, twice.

Should a justice recuse himself if his wife is vetting nominees for positions to be appointed by the potential POTUS for a think tank while Bush v Gore is being argued before him?

Should a Justice recuse himself if his son is employed by the man arguing Bush v.Gore before the court?

We are living in lala land. What's real and what we think are 2 different things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:44 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top