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, 05:44 AM
 
Location: My beloved Bluegrass
14,743 posts, read 10,642,419 times
Reputation: 19941

Advertisements

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
__________________
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 07-11-2016, 05:48 AM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,241 posts, read 15,321,289 times
Reputation: 4583
I don't know. Aren't SCOTUS Justices there to provide their opinions...?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2016, 05:49 AM
 
Location: My beloved Bluegrass
14,743 posts, read 10,642,419 times
Reputation: 19941
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
I don't know. Aren't SCOTUS Justices there to provide their opinions...?
Of laws, not politicians or really any individual.
__________________
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 07-11-2016, 05:49 AM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
33,921 posts, read 42,175,279 times
Reputation: 43323
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. What is your take?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg "can't imagine" what the U.S. would be with President Trump - CBS News

It's inappropriate and breaks longstanding tradition of Judges (at all levels) keeping their personal election opinions to themselves.




I can just imagine the hue and cry if Scalia (or Thomas, Roberts or others deemed "conservative") would have opined on election preferences. The demands for resignations would have been deafening.


In Ginsburg's case she'll be lionized for her "bravery" and "probity".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2016, 05:53 AM
 
Location: My beloved Bluegrass
14,743 posts, read 10,642,419 times
Reputation: 19941
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
It's inappropriate and breaks longstanding tradition of Judges (at all levels) keeping their personal election opinions to themselves.

I can just imagine the hue and cry if Scalia (or Thomas, Roberts or others deemed "conservative") would have opined on election preferences. The demands for resignations would have been deafening.

In Ginsburg's case she'll be lionized for her "bravery" and "probity".
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?
__________________
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 07-11-2016, 06:04 AM
 
66,561 posts, read 30,370,727 times
Reputation: 8688
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
That ship has sailed. SCOTUS is purely political, and isn't about protecting and defending the Constitution anymore, which is what they've actually sworn to do. Just look at the recent SCOTUS TX law ruling that violates at least 2 Amendments:

1) States license abortion doctors just like they license all other surgeons. That's their right under the 10th Amendment, and that isn't a problem. There's absolutely no reason why states shouldn't also have the 10th Amendment right to legislatively require centers that perform ambulatory surgery abortions on women to meet the same legislated medical and facilities standards that other ambulatory surgery centers in the state are required to meet.

2) Women have the same 14th Amendment right to equal protection under state laws as men, but SCOTUS just stripped women of that 14th Amendment right, ruling that women's health care can have inferior standards.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2016, 06:15 AM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,241 posts, read 15,321,289 times
Reputation: 4583
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
It's inappropriate and breaks longstanding tradition of Judges (at all levels) keeping their personal election opinions to themselves.




I can just imagine the hue and cry if Scalia (or Thomas, Roberts or others deemed "conservative") would have opined on election preferences. The demands for resignations would have been deafening.


In Ginsburg's case she'll be lionized for her "bravery" and "probity".
Well, there is this ...

Justices Thomas and Scalia Violate Judicial Ethics By Headlining Right Wing Fundraisers
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2016, 06:21 AM
 
Location: My beloved Bluegrass
14,743 posts, read 10,642,419 times
Reputation: 19941
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
I am about equally troubled by that. Two wrongs never have made a right, this is no different. What makes this so bad is that it could influence an election, Supreme Court justices should be neutral. Again, I say all this as a person who prays daily that Trump doesn't get elected, it is not about my political leanings.
__________________
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 07-11-2016, 06:32 AM
 
26,834 posts, read 9,110,419 times
Reputation: 9351
I have no problem with the SCOTUS judges speaking out on their bias.
The SCOTUS is as rigged and broken as the other branches of government. Putting people so bias as Ruth Ginsburg on the highest court where they can't possibly make a fair and impartial ruling is consistent with a rigged system.
That anyone could support the head of a criminal enterprise that is in anyway connected to a slush fund, money laundering foundation for promotion to the office of president is support for crime and criminals to govern. Supporting that kind of government when there is an alternative, any alternative, not so corrupt is a sad statement on humanity's ability to advance in a civilized manner. The very thing that government is instituted to control is now controlling the government. Anarchy and supporting it is reasonable and only possible in the unreasoned mind and indefensible. Never has there been a better case for more mental health treatment clinics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2016, 06:37 AM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
33,921 posts, read 42,175,279 times
Reputation: 43323
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob 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".
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 07:55 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