|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 14, 2016 18:50:21 GMT
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.
This isn't an election with a candidate of one. There are two candidates. By openly criticizing the one, she is endorsing the other. The odds are very high that something about a Clinton administration would come before the Supreme Court. Do *you* believe Ginsberg would ever rule against her?
|
|
|
Post by rebelyelle on Jul 14, 2016 18:56:25 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. Did you feel the same way about Scalia and his blatant outspoken conservative views?
|
|
cycworker
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,376
Jun 26, 2014 0:42:38 GMT
|
Post by cycworker on Jul 14, 2016 19:15:32 GMT
Disappointed she backed down. She was right. Again - she was NOT saying that REPUBLICANS are unfit to hold the office of President. She wasn't voicing an opinion of one party vs the other. All she did was speak the truth - TRUMP the PERSON is a lunatic who is unfit to be the President & the country will not be safe in his hands. That's not being political; it's telling the American people the truth. This isn't about one election. It's about the world still existing 4 years from now.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 3, 2024 4:22:06 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2016 19:22:16 GMT
While. I wish she hadn't commented it's ridiculous to claim she's for Clinton just BC she criticized Trump. No one freaked out and called for Scalia to recuse himself the MULTIPLE times he was outspoken about his political views.
So much needless drama. The media is so ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by rebelyelle on Jul 14, 2016 19:42:19 GMT
While. I wish she hadn't commented it's ridiculous to claim she's for Clinton just BC she criticized Trump. No one freaked out and called for Scalia to recuse himself the MULTIPLE times he was outspoken about his political views. So much needless drama. The media is so ridiculous. This is why I can't get upset about this. Scalia expressed his conservative politics and religious views many, many times outside the courtroom and there was never a fuss. She has not yet proven herself impartial, just as he didn't. She simply proved herself human.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 3, 2024 4:22:06 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2016 19:52:12 GMT
Totally agree, rebelyelle Scalia was a total big-mouth with his views so many times and he shouldn't have been. I never once saw this kind of nutty furor and people claiming that he wasn't fit to rule on cases. If the pundits aren't going to sit down and shut up, we all need to start ignoring them. It's beyond ridiculous. The double standard from BOTH sides is mind-boggling. She's not unfit. She didn't endorse Clinton. She expressed a personal opinion on Trump's character. Maybe not the wisest move, but dang, it's gotten out of hand. People need to put down the pitchforks.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jul 14, 2016 20:58:41 GMT
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. Of course. Any of us is free to conjecture. Doesn't make it logical or factual to draw a solid line between condemnation of one candidate and support of another candidate. Makes it conjecture. There are two candidates. By openly criticizing the one, she is endorsing the other.
No, she really isn't. Again: conjecture, as you said yourself. I wouldn't even go so far as to say inference or deduction. So you believe it's unassailable to conclude that she's showing support of Ms. Clinton? What would you think if she condemned one candidate in a three-person race? Then would you believe she's simply doing what her words say: condemning one candidate?
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jul 14, 2016 21:28:01 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. I wish people had even a basic understanding of how the law and the government works before they spout ridiculous, inaccurate opinions. Whether what she said about Trump is true or untrue is irrelevant. It is a statement based in politics about a political candidate. A judge should not ever makes comments. There is no "off-duty". Come on folks; basic civics. Basic.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 14, 2016 21:36:00 GMT
Clarence Thomas and his wife are also frequently attending and speaking at fundraisers for conservative causes. Where is the outrage?
I'm fairly certain RBG has a "basic understanding of how the law and government works."
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jul 14, 2016 21:48:18 GMT
Well, then she just doesn't care;which is even worse.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jul 14, 2016 21:48:51 GMT
Well, then she just doesn't care;which is even worse. However, I wasn't referring to RBG's comments. I'm addressing the comments here. Like, you know, someone who can't distinguish between a judge speaking at an event and a judge making outrageous negative comments about a current presidential candidate who may appear before her in the future.. As I said, a basic understanding of civics is a good thing. It's a shame so many adults in this country have no such understanding. Like Ruth, they spout off nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 14, 2016 22:00:39 GMT
Well, then she just doesn't care;which is even worse. Like Clarence Thomas doesn't care? Like Scalia didn't care? ETA: I don't see a meaningful difference between speaking at a fundraiser and speaking off the cuff. Both are public statements of opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 3, 2024 4:22:06 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2016 22:45:36 GMT
I agree with RBG-Trump is a big mouth. However-all judges should refrain from getting in the political fray. That takes away any idea of impartiality whatsoever. As to the difference between what Scalia and Thomas do compared to RBG, here's my thinking. Scalia and Thomas espose conservative causes but I don't recall them espousing particular candidates. RBG did. If Scalia and Thomas spoke out in favor or or against candidates, I'm sure someone will correct me.
|
|
|
Post by lisacharlotte on Jul 14, 2016 22:57:17 GMT
I see the problem not the espousing of ideology but a particular person who is running for president. All the justices have positions on the law based on their ideology. However she has made the issue an individual that may be in a position that she would have influence over. That's the problem. Now it's personal.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 14, 2016 23:41:01 GMT
I see the problem not the espousing of ideology but a particular person who is running for president. All the justices have positions on the law based on their ideology. However she has made the issue an individual that may be in a position that she would have influence over. That's the problem. Now it's personal. I see your point, but in the current political climate, I think the difference is largely academic. Everyone is so partisan that speaking out against a party's ideology is tantamount to speaking out against the party's members/leaders. But if you want to make the "personal" argument, when Thomas spoke out specifically against Obamacare at political events, I think that was personal - attacking the pet legislation of a sitting president WITH a case pending about it in the court. Both personal and highly inappropriate, considering the pending case.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 3, 2024 4:22:06 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2016 23:58:39 GMT
But if you want to make the "personal" argument, when Thomas spoke out specifically against Obamacare at political events, I think that was personal - attacking the pet legislation of a sitting president WITH a case pending about it in the court. Both personal and highly inappropriate, considering the pending case. I don't agree. If he'd spoken out against Obama, that wouldn't be right. The legislation is open for discussion.
|
|
twinsmomfla99
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,992
Jun 26, 2014 13:42:47 GMT
|
Post by twinsmomfla99 on Jul 15, 2016 0:15:34 GMT
But if you want to make the "personal" argument, when Thomas spoke out specifically against Obamacare at political events, I think that was personal - attacking the pet legislation of a sitting president WITH a case pending about it in the court. Both personal and highly inappropriate, considering the pending case. I don't agree. If he'd spoken out against Obama, that wouldn't be right. The legislation is open for discussion. Not when there is pending litigation (or the threat of litigation) that he knew he would likely be hearing in his court.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jul 15, 2016 0:55:38 GMT
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. Did you feel the same way about Scalia and his blatant outspoken conservative views? I would he spoke about a candidate. I have no problem with RBG having liberal views or expressing those views. Heck every decision she makes is based on those liberal views. Making negative comments about a candidate; beyond the pale. Even she recognizes her error and has stated it was a bad move. Had it been a conservative judge, you'd have been berating him non-stop.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 3, 2024 4:22:06 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 1:22:47 GMT
Oh, well in that case, the jury will disregard that last statement. Save
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 15, 2016 1:44:47 GMT
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. Did you feel the same way about Scalia and his blatant outspoken conservative views? If Scalia disparaged one of the two presidential candidates, basically endorsing the other candidate, & at least one of these candidates had legal issues that could still see a suit being brought against them in the future, then I'd say that he would need to recuse himself if he a suit was brought before him. That's a whole different issue than just being blatantly conservative or liberal. Ginsberg has been blatantly liberal and I've never said anything about her before.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 15, 2016 1:47:53 GMT
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. Of course. Any of us is free to conjecture. Doesn't make it logical or factual to draw a solid line between condemnation of one candidate and support of another candidate. Makes it conjecture. There are two candidates. By openly criticizing the one, she is endorsing the other.
No, she really isn't. Again: conjecture, as you said yourself. I wouldn't even go so far as to say inference or deduction. So you believe it's unassailable to conclude that she's showing support of Ms. Clinton? What would you think if she condemned one candidate in a three-person race? Then would you believe she's simply doing what her words say: condemning one candidate? This isn't a 3 person race at this point. It's 2 people. When you take one out, that leaves 1 person. In this case, basic math prevails. 2-1 = 1
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 15, 2016 2:06:59 GMT
Totally agree, rebelyelle Scalia was a total big-mouth with his views so many times and he shouldn't have been. I never once saw this kind of nutty furor and people claiming that he wasn't fit to rule on cases. If the pundits aren't going to sit down and shut up, we all need to start ignoring them. It's beyond ridiculous. The double standard from BOTH sides is mind-boggling. She's not unfit. She didn't endorse Clinton. She expressed a personal opinion on Trump's character. Maybe not the wisest move, but dang, it's gotten out of hand. People need to put down the pitchforks. I feel the same way. "Supreme Court justices are not subject to any specific code of conduct. But parties to a case before the court can make a formal request that a justice recuse herself from a case if they believe a conflict of interest exists" Look at the shit he's said about her. Think he's going to apologize or "regret it"? Nope. He can get away with calling her "unfit" make inference to her age, says she is a disgrace to the court, says she's an embarrassment to the courts/everyone, "her mind is shot"... Shit look at the crap he said about the "Mexican judge". overseeing a case of his-- I find it ironic that he's going after her for this when he does exactly the same thing DAILY, x100!!!
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 15, 2016 3:39:17 GMT
Totally agree, rebelyelle Scalia was a total big-mouth with his views so many times and he shouldn't have been. I never once saw this kind of nutty furor and people claiming that he wasn't fit to rule on cases. If the pundits aren't going to sit down and shut up, we all need to start ignoring them. It's beyond ridiculous. The double standard from BOTH sides is mind-boggling. She's not unfit. She didn't endorse Clinton. She expressed a personal opinion on Trump's character. Maybe not the wisest move, but dang, it's gotten out of hand. People need to put down the pitchforks. I feel the same way. "Supreme Court justices are not subject to any specific code of conduct. But parties to a case before the court can make a formal request that a justice recuse herself from a case if they believe a conflict of interest exists" Look at the shit he's said about her. Think he's going to apologize or "regret it"? Nope. He can get away with calling her "unfit" make inference to her age, says she is a disgrace to the court, says she's an embarrassment to the courts/everyone, "her mind is shot"... Shit look at the crap he said about the "Mexican judge". overseeing a case of his-- I find it ironic that he's going after her for this when he does exactly the same thing DAILY, x100!!! Trump won't be making any legal rulings on cases involving her that are brought before him in a judicial court. Do *I* wish he didn't call people names like this? YES! Does it have anything to do with statements about a potential person a judge may be required to rule on? NO!
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 15, 2016 3:52:05 GMT
I feel the same way. "Supreme Court justices are not subject to any specific code of conduct. But parties to a case before the court can make a formal request that a justice recuse herself from a case if they believe a conflict of interest exists" Look at the shit he's said about her. Think he's going to apologize or "regret it"? Nope. He can get away with calling her "unfit" make inference to her age, says she is a disgrace to the court, says she's an embarrassment to the courts/everyone, "her mind is shot"... Shit look at the crap he said about the "Mexican judge". overseeing a case of his-- I find it ironic that he's going after her for this when he does exactly the same thing DAILY, x100!!! Trump won't be making any legal rulings on cases involving her that are brought before him in a judicial court. Do *I* wish he didn't call people names like this? YES! Does it have anything to do with statements about a potential person a judge may be required to rule on? NO! Both your comments were covered in my post: 1. She could recuse herself. I was agreeing that she just showed her "human" side. 2. I just said it was ironic. I didn't say one had anything to do with the other. On another note--she verbalized her thoughts about him out loud. We all know that each of the justices have their own opinions of people--while most don't outwardly voice them, they still have them nevertheless.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jul 15, 2016 4:18:16 GMT
So you believe it's unassailable to conclude that she's showing support of Ms. Clinton? What would you think if she condemned one candidate in a three-person race? Then would you believe she's simply doing what her words say: condemning one candidate? This isn't a 3 person race at this point. It's 2 people. When you take one out, that leaves 1 person. In this case, basic math prevails. 2-1 = 1 Math is most definitely not my thing, but yes, I understand your calculation. I was asking a hypothetical question. I would think that demanding recusals (during a future Clinton non-Trump administration) based solely on Justice Ginsburg's past criticism of a Mr. Trump-who-lost-and-happened-to-have-one-opponent would be fraught - just as fraught as asking for recusals based on criticism of a Mr. Trump-who-lost-and-happened-to-have-two-opponents. In either case, the source criticism of Mr. Trump would be word-for-word exactly the same and the support for another candidate would be phantom. I was trying to determine whether/why your interpretation would change. And since I still don't know - and since you threw math at me - your punishment is that I'll blather on: There are plenty of people on this very forum who post that they think (pick one) Donald Trump/Hillary Clinton is a baddie. I can not use that language to infer tacit endorsement of (pick the other) Hillary Clinton/Donald Trump. Can't do it with a RefuPea; can't do it with a supreme court justice. We can criticize Ms. Ginsburg's ethics...prudence. We can criticize her for what she actually said about a candidate. But I don't see how we can structure an argument (linguistic, logical, legal) based on what she did NOT say about another candidate, no matter how many candidates exist. In my mind, that's an especially slick slope, but perhaps there are lawyers here who can weigh in on either side of our interpretations.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 15, 2016 16:09:02 GMT
And since I still don't know - and since you threw math at me - your punishment is that I'll blather on: Let's put it this way: Supreme Court Justice X openly criticizes a candidate just before the Presidential Election. Supreme Court then must decide who won the Presidential Election. If you think the last time we had a similar scenario with a fully seated Supreme Court was hard on the country, think about what would happen now while the whole country is on edge. Ginsberg's vote would be for Clinton and she has spoken out against Trump. You don't think that would be taken extremely badly? Ha! That's almost funny, in a desperately macabre way.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 3, 2024 4:22:06 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 16:33:05 GMT
Choice 1: Trump Choice 2: Clinton Choice 3: Stay the Hell home 3 - 1 = 2 Just my opinion! ETA: Reminding me of the classic Clue scenes when they are counting bullets.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Jul 15, 2016 16:37:17 GMT
I was not aware that the Court could potentially have to decide the race. In that case, yes I do feel it to be a conflict of interest.
When did it happen before?
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Jul 15, 2016 16:56:20 GMT
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.
This isn't an election with a candidate of one. There are two candidates. By openly criticizing the one, she is endorsing the other. The odds are very high that something about a Clinton administration would come before the Supreme Court. Do *you* believe Ginsberg would ever rule against her?
I have no idea how she would rule. Does she have a history of partisan rulings? I'm not familiar with her specifics.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 3, 2024 4:22:06 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 17:06:19 GMT
I do see some of what you're saying, Lauren and Lefty, and I don't completely disagree with parts. I don't like that she spoke out about a candidate and wish she hadn't done it. It was not a prudent thing to do. I guess if the election results do end up in front of the Supreme Court, I'd agree with her needing to recuse herself on that one.
I do think that all the calls for her to resign/step down are a bit much. Like Lauren said, every justice has a known political bent, and they rule on all kinds of cases. How many of us who are not happy with either candidate have said that their vote will likely be a hold the nose situation while thinking of the SC appointments in the next four+ years? If Thomas and Scalia weren't pressured to step-down/resign for their outspokenness, I don't think it's fair to demand that Ginsburg do that. I do think it could be a sticky situation on needing to recuse herself from a very few cases (like the election results).
|
|