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.
This would be an example of some Justice expressing her dismay of election RESULTS.
This is AFTER the election.
Turned out that there would be a big challenge and the outcome was not yet decided, but she had no way of knowing that when she made her comments "at a dinner party".
That is NOT EVEN CLOSE to the same as a sitting judge "in an interview with CBS" voicing her opinion on the election.
I mean you can certainly make that attempt, but I am going to call it out every time.
Why not? Would you speak up if your boss fires 30 people and assigns all their duties to you?
If Donald J. Trump wins the supreme court is gonna be very busy handling human rights violations. The supreme must speak now before it's too late.
The supreme court would need at least as t 435 justices to handle their case overload: Waterboarding, war crimes, illegal seizures, Freedom of the press, Freedom of religion, freedom of assemble, Nepotism, fraud, abuse of power, discrimination,zionism, right to bear arms, 14 amendment, conflict of interest
While Trump has no record of doing any of that while in government office. Crooked Hillary has several that you mention in her record. Even by liberal standards it's clear Trump hasn't done any of what's mentioned. Crooked Hillary has and there is no reason to think the leopard will change it's spots.
It took a long time to bring down the mafia bosses and many efforts. They even had to create new laws to do it. That same effort will continue until crooked Hillary is doing the perp walk. As it should.
I hope with every fiber in my soul that Donald Trump loses. I think a Trump presidency has a potential to be dangerous. I am an ABT (anybody but Trump) voter.
However, even though I agree with her, I really do not think Ruth Ginsburg, a sitting Supreme Court justice should comment on a presidential nominee. I think it is very important that the Supreme Court be apolitical. It's possible I missed it but I don't remember this happening in my lifetime. What is your take?
Ah, yes, everyone's favorite human skeleton, Roofie Bader Ginsburg is back in the news once again.
At least this time, it's not for falling asleep in public due to her problems with alcohol.
But I'm with you -- I don't think she should EVER comment on anything having to do with ANY political candidate. I can't remember it happening in my lifetime, but then again, in president Borat Obama's Amerikka, things are a bit different.
The larger problem with Ginsburg is that she's too old to be serving on the Supreme Court, or even the People's Court. At 83, she's likely lost competence and continence, neither of which we want in a SCJ. Then there's that disturbing trend of her morphing into Alan Greenspan in drag:
A Clinton appointee, this chatty bag of bones does not believe in the individual's right to own guns. It's hardly shocking that she's indirectly pimping for Hillary. Here's hopefully her last interview, not surprisingly in the NYTimes:
Why not? Would you speak up if your boss fires 30 people and assigns all their duties to you?
If Donald J. Trump wins the supreme court is gonna be very busy handling human rights violations. The supreme must speak now before it's too late.
The supreme court would need at least as t 435 justices to handle their case overload: Waterboarding, war crimes, illegal seizures, Freedom of the press, Freedom of religion, freedom of assemble, Nepotism, fraud, abuse of power, discrimination,zionism, right to bear arms, 14 amendment, conflict of interest
Ah, yes, everyone's favorite human skeleton, Roofie Bader Ginsburg is back in the news once again.
At least this time, it's not for falling asleep in public due to her problems with alcohol.
But I'm with you -- I don't think she should EVER comment on anything having to do with ANY political candidate. I can't remember it happening in my lifetime, but then again, in president Borat Obama's Amerikka, things are a bit different.
The larger problem with Ginsburg is that she's too old to be serving on the Supreme Court, or even the People's Court. At 83, she's likely lost competence and continence, neither of which we want in a SCJ. Then there's that disturbing trend of her morphing into Alan Greenspan in drag:
A Clinton appointee, this chatty bag of bones does not believe in the individual's right to own guns. It's hardly shocking that she's indirectly pimping for Hillary. Here's hopefully her last interview, not surprisingly in the NYTimes:
NO! they should not utter their personal opinion. They should be above that to show they are bi-partisan and uphold the law but now we see how important it is to vote even if that means the nominee is not your cup of tea as it is the party or side they stand for.
You can't like everyone but there is ore at stake and to say "anyone but Trump" to me is already too much.
Anyone but Hilliary wouldn't make any sense to me either. As it is not just the person but also what their party stands for!
I hope with every fiber in my soul that Donald Trump loses. I think a Trump presidency has a potential to be dangerous. I am an ABT (anybody but Trump) voter.
However, even though I agree with her, I really do not think Ruth Ginsburg, a sitting Supreme Court justice should comment on a presidential nominee. I think it is very important that the Supreme Court be apolitical. It's possible I missed it but I don't remember this happening in my lifetime. What is your take?
Interestingly, I don't think she would have dared do this if Scalia were still alive. I know there are people who will applaud this, because they don't want Trump (a sentiment I totally agree with), but since this will set a precedent, how are they going to feel next time if it's their guy?
I don't think that Justice Scalia's passing changes this. I'm also not terribly concerned about this kind of statement from a Justice. They are US citizens interested in the functioning of the country's government. They are highly competent legal experts with political views and philosophies. The Justices are not subject to external rules on ethics, and are responsible for policing themselves when it comes to the appearance of bias or impropriety.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bentlebee
NO! they should not utter their personal opinion. They should be above that to show they are bi-partisan and uphold the law but now we see how important it is to vote even if that means the nominee is not your cup of tea as it is the party or side they stand for.
You can't like everyone but there is ore at stake and to say "anyone but Trump" to me is already too much.
Anyone but Hilliary wouldn't make any sense to me either. As it is not just the person but also what their party stands for!
JMO!
Justices are not bi-partisan--they are non-partisan legal experts. But they are also people, and I don't think that this type of obliquely shared opinion in response to an interview question is bad. And I don't think it's fair to say they should not utter a personal opinion--that's just too broad.
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.
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.
