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 07-11-2016, 12:14 PM
 
7,185 posts, read 2,759,053 times
Reputation: 3172

Advertisements

OK, so if you don't want to know their personal opinions about stuff, then why are you so adamant that "conservative" judges be sent to the SC? Any judge, nominated by any president, is sufficient. Their role is to interpret the constitution, not promote either a liberal or conservative agenda.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-11-2016, 12:16 PM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
72,064 posts, read 83,719,346 times
Reputation: 41838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1 View Post
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?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg "can't imagine" what the U.S. would be with President Trump - CBS News
I can't really see anything wrong with her commenting but I do think it shows a lack of class and was very tacky. So, now, if he wins, let's see if she really moves to NZ.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2016, 12:20 PM
 
Location: Cape Cod
11,877 posts, read 8,276,396 times
Reputation: 20400
No a Supreme court justice should not be coming out to endorse or in this case trash a candidate. The same goes for any President who chooses to weigh in and give an opinion on police shootings before the evidence is in.

Call me old fashioned but any comments made by a politician, judge or celebrity should not be allowed. It used to be that people could take what they heard with a grain of salt and make up their own minds after carefully weighing all the facts but today people have such short attention spans that they border on stupid and are so easily swayed by a comment or a sound bite.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2016, 05:06 AM
 
2,181 posts, read 1,269,116 times
Reputation: 2496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa View Post
I don't think that worrying aloud about the possibility of a Trump victory is political in the least. On the contrary, it shows a an impartial and functioning mind.
Free speech. Except for............no, anyone has a right to give their opinion. People in high places, should have some class. I am glad she spoke out. Wonder what the big blabber mouth Trump will have to say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2016, 05:24 AM
Status: "Trump: Inept, Incompetent, Insecure" (set 11 days ago)
 
10,526 posts, read 6,214,374 times
Reputation: 7249
Here is my opinion: She should have kept her mouth shut. The reason is simple: it is within the realm of possibility that a lawsuit involving Trump the presidential candidate (think Bush v. Gore, or seating of delegates) reaches the Court on an emergency appeal. If so, Justice Ginsburg, in my opinion, would have to 'recuse' herself from the case, for she has revealed a prejudice against Mr. Trump the candidate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2016, 05:26 AM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,841 posts, read 7,339,474 times
Reputation: 13779
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
Ah yes, links from People for the American Way and Right Wing Watch. Absolutely non-partisan organizations with no apparent agenda. Why do you suppose that fundraiser was in quotes?


I keep forgetting that you describe yourself as a "Right of Center moderate".
Where it was reported doesn't change the fact that both supported right wing political causes, so Bader isn't the first sitting Supreme Court justice to openly voice her poltical thoughts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2016, 06:23 AM
 
4,022 posts, read 1,855,399 times
Reputation: 3950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
Where it was reported doesn't change the fact that both supported right wing political causes, so Bader isn't the first sitting Supreme Court justice to openly voice her poltical thoughts.
Here we have #3.

"Voicing political thoughts" eh?

Attending a "fundraiser" a week after an off year election and commenting on a current presidential nominee 4 months from election day is exactly the same thing.

You guys must stay pretty limber.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2016, 06:31 AM
 
Location: Old Hippie Heaven
18,308 posts, read 8,248,695 times
Reputation: 10685
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea View Post
Here is my opinion: She should have kept her mouth shut. The reason is simple: it is within the realm of possibility that a lawsuit involving Trump the presidential candidate (think Bush v. Gore, or seating of delegates) reaches the Court on an emergency appeal. If so, Justice Ginsburg, in my opinion, would have to 'recuse' herself from the case, for she has revealed a prejudice against Mr. Trump the candidate.
The precedent has been set. She won't recuse herself, any more than Scalia and Thomas ever did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2016, 06:32 AM
 
Location: My beloved Bluegrass
14,748 posts, read 10,645,247 times
Reputation: 19946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
Where it was reported doesn't change the fact that both supported right wing political causes, so Bader isn't the first sitting Supreme Court justice to openly voice her poltical thoughts.
There is no transcript of their speech, so we don't know whether they were just speaking about the constitution and the law or supporting a right wing cause (by the way, discussing strict adherence to the constitution is not a right wing cause but a judicial theory). However, let's say they were supporting right wing causes for argument's sake, I do disagree with them publicly doing so, but that isn't the same commenting on an actual nominee for president less than 6 months before the general election. Supreme Court justices should not attempt to sway elections. If you agree to be a Supreme Court justice you agree to never making political commentary, which is not the same as making comments about legal theory.

Seriously, I think she ought to be censured.

Did I mention I hope Donald Trump get stomped into the ground? Want to make sure everyone knows this has nothing to do with my being upset for my candidate (shudder).
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.Moderator - Arkansas & subforums, Asia, Kentucky & subforums, Military Life, and P&OC
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2016, 06:53 AM
 
4,022 posts, read 1,855,399 times
Reputation: 3950
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg View Post
The precedent has been set. She won't recuse herself, any more than Scalia and Thomas ever did.
Yes the precedent was set.

By HRC and Lynch.

Ethics are nothing more than a hassle for the left.
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 07:17 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