|
Post by peano on Jul 13, 2016 17:28:44 GMT
RE: Justice Ginsburg's comments about Donald Trump. Sorry, my iPad is being a PIA and won't let me link. Editorial title is Donald Trump is Right About Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. For the record, I agree with the editorial too.
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Jul 13, 2016 17:40:07 GMT
well, maybe not the wisest choice..but we all have free speech and I think she felt so strongly she felt she should say something.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 21:30:38 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 17:47:20 GMT
I do not think she should have said anything and I think it's fine of the NYT to editorialize for or against her comments. HOWEVER, calling her the "Notorious RBG" - no. That's Buzzfeed, not NYT. ETA: WHOOPS, it was the AP, not NYT, that called her that. SORRY.
|
|
|
Post by mom on Jul 13, 2016 18:46:07 GMT
What she did, I think, is inexcusable. She shouldn't have crossed the line.
To be a Supreme Court Judge (and well, any judge) you keep your opinions on current politics and issues to yourself, in the event they come before you in court. She is now tainted and cannot possibly give a ruling without looking like she is playing favorites, etc. There is no way she can be objective now - and even if she is objective, no one will believe her.
She is held to a higher standard (re: free speech). She crossed a line.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 21:30:38 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 19:01:41 GMT
I do not think she should have said anything and I think it's fine of the NYT to editorialize for or against her comments. HOWEVER, calling her the "Notorious RBG" - no. That's Buzzfeed, not NYT. ETA: WHOOPS, it was the AP, not NYT, that called her that. SORRY. I thought the press had been calling her Notorious RBG because of that book. But I do agree that journalists ought to knock it off with the pop culture speak. And as much as I agree with her opinion of Donald Trump, and think I like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I do wish she hadn't aired her views on the presidential election. I just don't think SC Justices ought to be making political commentary. I wasn't a fan when Scalia publicized his political views, and I don't think other Justices should do it either.
|
|
|
Post by gailoh on Jul 13, 2016 19:02:47 GMT
She crossed the line
|
|
|
Post by mom on Jul 13, 2016 19:22:27 GMT
@ilovecookies @busypea The notorious RBG isn't a new thing, and yes. In the past, Conservatives and Liberals alike have called her that, in response to the book name.
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Jul 13, 2016 19:41:58 GMT
I think she's great, and I basically agree with her all over the place with what she said about Trump. But I think she crossed a line. I don't think she should have spoken to the press about him. I thought that the Justices were supposed to remain impartial and withhold making comments about politics? That way they can give unbiased rulings on court cases? If I'm incorrect please correct my thinking!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 21:30:38 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 19:49:09 GMT
I know Notorious RBG isn't new, but I still don't think it has any place in real journalism. @ilovecookies momI agree with her, for the record, but think she was wrong to say what she did publicly.
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Jul 13, 2016 19:52:48 GMT
I'm conflicted on this one. She knows better and she should not have said anything. Yet, she is so concerned she feels it's imperative her opinions should be known.
She has to know her feelings can carry some weight, rather than high ranking Republicans who want a seat in the administration or are desperately trying to keep the party together.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 21:30:38 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 20:05:09 GMT
I know Notorious RBG isn't new, but I still don't think it has any place in real journalism. @ilovecookies mom I agree with her, for the record, but think she was wrong to say what she did publicly. ITA
|
|
|
Post by cmpeter on Jul 13, 2016 21:19:25 GMT
I get why she wanted to speak out. But, I agree...I wish she hadn't. I hate the thought of justices appearing impartial and the long term impact should she now need to recuse herself from future cases.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Jul 13, 2016 21:34:21 GMT
I'm conflicted on this one. She knows better and she should not have said anything. Yet, she is so concerned she feels it's imperative her opinions should be known. She has to know her feelings can carry some weight, rather than high ranking Republicans who want a seat in the administration or are desperately trying to keep the party together. I agree.
I feel she was out of line.
I also agree with what she said, and her frustration that it's not being said enough.
I don't know enough about how the SC works, but I hear parties talking about appointments by the President so I assume they are affiliated with a party when they're appointed. Are they allowed to keep their affiliation, or are they considered to be bipartisan?
|
|
scrapnnana
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,175
Jun 29, 2014 18:58:47 GMT
|
Post by scrapnnana on Jul 13, 2016 21:38:01 GMT
She crossed the line.
FWIW, I can't stand Trump (or Clinton), but once in awhile he says something I actually agree with.
Even a broken clock will be right twice a day. With Trump it's not nearly that often, but it can happen surprisingly enough.
|
|
|
Post by anonrefugee on Jul 13, 2016 21:58:46 GMT
Since she'll be headed to New Zealand if Yrump's elected, we don't have to worry about her recusing herself.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Jul 13, 2016 22:48:34 GMT
I found this article to be helpful.
Washington Post
I also feel he crosses the line here:
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 21:30:38 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 23:07:11 GMT
Crossed a line.
This isn't about free speech. Journalists, too, have free speech but their jobs require them to try to strive for neutrality in their reporting. (Whether they do it or not is up to your judgment. I'm just saying the unbiased standard is in place here.)
Supreme Court justices have that same standard. They may have opinions, but their responsibility is to try to be neutral in both public and private life. Jumping into politics and campaigning for one side is NOT responsible.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jul 13, 2016 23:19:06 GMT
I think she's great, and I basically agree with her all over the place with what she said about Trump. But I think she crossed a line. I don't think she should have spoken to the press about him. I thought that the Justices were supposed to remain impartial and withhold making comments about politics? That way they can give unbiased rulings on court cases? If I'm incorrect please correct my thinking! You're not incorrect. This isn't a matter of "first amendment" rights. This is a matter of behaving in accordance with the norms and expectations of your position. This is a court. The court is supposed to be impartial. All she's done is shown that she cannot put her prejudices aside to deal impartially with litigants if Trump is one of them.
|
|
lindas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,168
Jun 26, 2014 5:46:37 GMT
|
Post by lindas on Jul 13, 2016 23:23:13 GMT
She certainly didn't do the democrats any favors if this election hangs on a swing state like Bush/Gore in 2000. She would have no choice but to recuse herself.
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Jul 13, 2016 23:28:02 GMT
She certainly didn't do the democrats any favors if this election hangs on a swing state like Bush/Gore in 2000. She would have no choice but to recuse herself. The latest poll I saw, Trump would win electoral votes and she would win popular vote. The numbers were very close.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 21:30:38 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 23:28:39 GMT
She's just one more of millions of people whose personal political opinions don't interest me - but I knew she had them. Let's face it - many people in the public eye think they have something to say that we all need to hear. Our culture seems to be rather outspoken in this regard.
I think her objectivity is probably fine, as some of the other people on the court who I believed to be morons have turned out reasonable decisions and written opinions (I've checked a few times and been fairly satisfied that they were actually doing their jobs, but I am not a lawyer). I'm going to continue to believe that the weight of those positions is taken very seriously by people who are highly trained to apply the law and not the whims of their own opinions.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jul 13, 2016 23:48:21 GMT
She certainly didn't do the democrats any favors if this election hangs on a swing state like Bush/Gore in 2000. She would have no choice but to recuse herself. The latest poll I saw, Trump would win electoral votes and she would win popular vote. The numbers were very close. And this goes to show that whoever wins, it's no mandate. Half of the country will have voted for the "other guy".
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jul 14, 2016 17:29:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 14, 2016 17:46:59 GMT
well, maybe not the wisest choice..but we all have free speech and I think she felt so strongly she felt she should say something. And she can damn well recuse herself every time a case involving the Trump OR Clinton administration comes before the court. Since she felt the need to quite publicly announce that she is not without bias.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 14, 2016 17:55:00 GMT
I'm conflicted on this one. She knows better and she should not have said anything. Yet, she is so concerned she feels it's imperative her opinions should be known. She has to know her feelings can carry some weight, rather than high ranking Republicans who want a seat in the administration or are desperately trying to keep the party together. Her opinions shape every highly disbuted law before the Supreme Court. That was her choice, to be a Supreme Court Justice. That's it. Now she has undeniably tainted her objectivity as a Judge. Her opinion as a SC justice is now only fit to line the bird cage and NOT to rule on any case brought that involves either Clinton or Trump.
|
|
oh yvonne
Prolific Pea
Posts: 8,009
Jun 26, 2014 0:45:23 GMT
|
Post by oh yvonne on Jul 14, 2016 18:01:11 GMT
ITA with pretty much everyone here. I don't like Trump either, but holy cow, lady.
Well, so she regrets it, but too late, you can't un-ring that bell. This whole thing is just sad. Sad. Sad. Sad.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 14, 2016 18:01:48 GMT
I think she's great, and I basically agree with her all over the place with what she said about Trump. But I think she crossed a line. I don't think she should have spoken to the press about him. I thought that the Justices were supposed to remain impartial and withhold making comments about politics? That way they can give unbiased rulings on court cases? If I'm incorrect please correct my thinking! You're not incorrect. This isn't a matter of "first amendment" rights. This is a matter of behaving in accordance with the norms and expectations of your position. This is a court. The court is supposed to be impartial. All she's done is shown that she cannot put her prejudices aside to deal impartially with litigants if Trump is one of them. I think that also applies to Clinton. Afterall.... we are free now to conjecture that she wants Hillary to win so badly she's willing to violate her neutrality to comment on Hillary's opponent. Same bias.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Jul 14, 2016 18:34:42 GMT
You're not incorrect. This isn't a matter of "first amendment" rights. This is a matter of behaving in accordance with the norms and expectations of your position. This is a court. The court is supposed to be impartial. All she's done is shown that she cannot put her prejudices aside to deal impartially with litigants if Trump is one of them. I think that also applies to Clinton. Afterall.... we are free now to conjecture that she wants Hillary to win so badly she's willing to violate her neutrality to comment on Hillary's opponent. Same bias. Not necessarily. It's possible, of course, but unless I missed something she said, Hillary was not mentioned in her comments. (please correct me if I'm wrong here)
I'm not a Hillary fan, but I feel pretty strongly that Trump is unfit to lead our nation.
My feelings about Trump have nothing to do with my feelings about Hillary, even though I realize that the result of speaking out against Trump can make it appear that I am.
|
|
cycworker
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,376
Jun 26, 2014 0:42:38 GMT
|
Post by cycworker on Jul 14, 2016 18:41:39 GMT
Well in this case, the NYT is wrong. Good on RBG for speaking the truth. She wasn't speaking on behalf the court. She was speaking for herself while off duty. And she wasn't saying one political party of the other was better - she was pointing out the reality that Donald Trump is a dangerous lunatic who doesn't belong anywhere near the office of the President.
|
|
lindas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,168
Jun 26, 2014 5:46:37 GMT
|
Post by lindas on Jul 14, 2016 18:47:55 GMT
Well in this case, the NYT is wrong. Good on RBG for speaking the truth. She wasn't speaking on behalf the court. She was speaking for herself while off duty. Well tell that to the deputy sheriff that just got fired for speaking out about Balck Lives Matter on Facebook. He wasn't speaking for the department, he was speaking for himself off duty.
|
|