lindas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,168 
Member is Online
|
Post by lindas on Jul 15, 2016 17:09:27 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? Bush/Gore 2000. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 22:25:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 17:18:38 GMT
leftturnonly, I do think it's entirely possible that RBG could/would rule against something Clinton did/signed/whatever in her administration. It's totally conceivable that someone could be very liberal, have even voted for a President, but be opposed to the legalities of something that President was doing/attempting to do. I voted for Obama. I was not a fan of every decision he made or policy that he implemented. If someone like me (  ) could separate political bent from legality on particular issues/legislation, I am confident that someone at the level of Supreme Court Justice could. She spoke out of turn, but I really don't think she's seriously gone rogue.
|
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 15, 2016 17:27:15 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). Maybe you've mistaken what I've said and thought I said something more like what Trump has said. I never said she should step down. I said that she now must recuse herself before any case involving a Trump OR Clinton administration comes before the Supremes. A good lawyer - say, Ted Cruz - could easily argue that she was willing to lose any credibility of impartiality because she believes in Clinton so much that she would comment disparagingly about one of the two presidential candidates just before the presidential election. That's different than just relying on their well-established voting patterns and political persuasions. |
|
|
|
Post by Really Red on Jul 15, 2016 17:30:35 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!  ITA. I agree with everything she said about Trump, but she should NEVER have said anything. No Supreme Court Justice should EVER EVER weigh in on things like that. I am disappointed. It was a very bad decision. |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 15, 2016 17:35:18 GMT
leftturnonly , I do think it's entirely possible that RBG could/would rule against something Clinton did/signed/whatever in her administration. It's totally conceivable that someone could be very liberal, have even voted for a President, but be opposed to the legalities of something that President was doing/attempting to do. I voted for Obama. I was not a fan of every decision he made or policy that he implemented. If someone like me ( ) could separate political bent from legality on particular issues/legislation, I am confident that someone at the level of Supreme Court Justice could. She spoke out of turn, but I really don't think she's seriously gone rogue. You might be willing to give her that benefit of the doubt, but it's pretty well gone for me now. This is the kind of thing that could set off some real unrest throughout the country. It's bad enough the Director of the FBI laid out a case for prosecution against Clinton before declaring that no case should be prosecuted. If any of this mess actually comes before the Supreme Court and Ginsberg is allowed to rule? As if Trump, his supporters and everyone who is disgusted by Clinton's Teflon coating will just meekly accept the outcome. SMH. |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 15, 2016 17:45:41 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. Cyc - She was WRONG. She has a position that requires her to refrain from making public statements such as this. If she wants to tell the American people the truth as she sees it, she may resign from her position and become a TV, Radio, Print or Internet commentator. She's perfectly free and within her rights to do so. There's a reason that Lady Justice is always presented as being blindfolded.  |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 15, 2016 18:00:38 GMT
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.
The Supreme Court has a record of justices typically voting along political lines. Ruth Bader Ginsburg - a quick bio & voting record This belief in particular is different from a conservative Republican belief in adhering to the original intent of the Constitution. It's part of the basis for her opinions that differ from many Republicans. From that same site: Yeah. Not endorsing Clinton my ass. |
|
cycworker
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,376
|
Post by cycworker on Jul 15, 2016 18:25:43 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. Trump doesn't care about civics. You would be right were it not for that. Trump is a dictator. He is just as bad as the crazies in North Korea, as Qaddaffi, as Hussein. He will NOT listen to advisors. He'll do what he wants and he'll start World War III as a result and we will all be dead. |
|
cycworker
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,376
|
Post by cycworker on Jul 15, 2016 18:35:04 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. Cyc - She was WRONG. She has a position that requires her to refrain from making public statements such as this. If she wants to tell the American people the truth as she sees it, she may resign from her position and become a TV, Radio, Print or Internet commentator. She's perfectly free and within her rights to do so. There's a reason that Lady Justice is always presented as being blindfolded. Again - I would agree with you if we were talking about politics. We're not. We're talking about national security. Public safety. We're talking about the reincarnation of Hitler. The alarms need to be sounded. |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 15, 2016 18:57:38 GMT
Again - I would agree with you if we were talking about politics. We're not. This is ALL about politics. I'm not sure where you got the idea it wasn't.  |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 22:25:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 18:58:28 GMT
He is just as bad as the crazies in North Korea, as Qaddaffi, as Hussein. He will NOT listen to advisors. He'll do what he wants and he'll start World War III as a result and we will all be dead. Given to hyperbole, are you? |
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Jul 15, 2016 19:17:30 GMT
I have no idea how she would rule. Does she have a history of partisan rulings? I'm not familiar with her specifics.
The Supreme Court has a record of justices typically voting along political lines. Ruth Bader Ginsburg - a quick bio & voting record This belief in particular is different from a conservative Republican belief in adhering to the original intent of the Constitution. It's part of the basis for her opinions that differ from many Republicans. From that same site: Yeah. Not endorsing Clinton my ass. This helps me to see your perspective, thank you for sharing it. I don't care for what she said on July 8th, either. |
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Jul 15, 2016 19:19:24 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? Bush/Gore 2000. Thanks. I don't think I remember that. I had a 4 yr old & a baby and didn't pay much attention.
Oh wait - was it the hanging chad thing?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 22:25:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 19:21:25 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). Maybe you've mistaken what I've said and thought I said something more like what Trump has said. I never said she should step down. I said that she now must recuse herself before any case involving a Trump OR Clinton administration comes before the Supremes. A good lawyer - say, Ted Cruz - could easily argue that she was willing to lose any credibility of impartiality because she believes in Clinton so much that she would comment disparagingly about one of the two presidential candidates just before the presidential election. That's different than just relying on their well-established voting patterns and political persuasions. I probably did misunderstand what you said re: her stepping down vs. recusing herself on some potential cases. I just think how much you can't stand Clinton factors into your opinion of anyone who might not feel as strongly about her. Which is understandable. I get it-I think any public figure, politician, official, etc.* who endorses Trump must be as unhinged and dangerous as he is. I know I have a bias there. I just think RBG is enough of a professional to be able to do her job even if Clinton is President. (except a ruling on the election, and very few other instances). We don't have to agree on that. I'm not mad/criticizing you personally at all. And given how divisive of a figure Clinton is, this is why I am so disappointed in the Democratic Party as an entity right now. Instead of being pragmatic about how Clinton is perceived (right or wrong though it may be) and working to give our country a less polarizing candidate, they did the exact same thing that I hate about the GOP: putting political cronyism and game playing above what this country actually needs in a leader. I don't think Hillary is the devil like so many seem to, but I think she's far from the best choice as a candidate in our current political climate. Even more so when someone like Trump is the only other choice. If Trump wins, IMO, there's just as much blame to lay at the feet of the Democratic Party. I'm tired of both parties, because they're really just two sides of the same horrible coin. *I am NOT calling anyone who votes for him unhinged or dangerous, though. While I might strongly disagree with someone thinking that Trump could EVER be a preferable choice over another candidate, I completely get that others might not agree and that they can/should vote how their conscience compels them. |
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jul 16, 2016 0:23:39 GMT
 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. Okay, if we're talking about the SC deciding an election, that could be a horse of a different political color (not that I hold up the 2000 court as any damn paragon of neutral horsies...). Before, you were arguing that Justice Ginsburg should recuse herself in any case involving the future administration. ETA!!!! ...she now must recuse herself before any case involving a Trump OR Clinton administration comes before the Supremes. But now you're back to the recuse-in-all-administration-cases argument!!!! I'm getting dizzy; I need vapors. A good lawyer could easily argue that she was willing to lose any credibility of impartiality because she believes in Clinton so much that she would comment disparagingly about one of the two presidential candidates... Oy! That's it. We're never practicing law together. Cancel the stationary order. |
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jul 16, 2016 0:33:34 GMT
From that same site: Yeah. Not endorsing Clinton my ass. Just to cement the dissolution of our partnership, I'm gong to throw this out there: Did you know that Ms. Ginsburg regularly switches between female and male pronouns in both her writing and speech? In fact, she has a habit of assigning one or the other gender to whole categories of peeps (e.g. judges and litigants are always one gender; defendants and counsel are the other gender). She consistently refers to ALL judges as "she" and "her," even though they are historically men. It's assumed this choice is very pointed on her part. Ergo (that's fancy lawyer talk ), it could be linguistically consistent that she would make an effort to refer to the executive as female. You know...THE executive. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 22:25:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2016 0:41:43 GMT
He'll do what he wants and he'll start World War III as a result and we will all be dead. Sweet baby Jesus. You might as well kiss your ass goodbye right now then if that's how you feel. |
|
|
|
Post by peano on Jul 16, 2016 1:01:13 GMT
He'll do what he wants and he'll start World War III as a result and we will all be dead. Sweet baby Jesus. You might as well kiss your ass goodbye right now then if that's how you feel. Just as many on the right were certain Obama's election signaled the end times, (and look, here we be, LOL) many of us on the left fear Trump's narcissism and grandiosity, superficiality, lack of filters, ignorance of the Constitution, ignorance of other world countries, general ignorance, bigotry, misogyny, etc. etc. etc., leave us in a precarious place both here and abroad. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 22:25:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2016 1:02:39 GMT
Sweet baby Jesus. You might as well kiss your ass goodbye right now then if that's how you feel. Just as many on the right were certain Obama's election signaled the end times, (and look, here we be, LOL) many of us on the left fear Trump's narcissism and grandiosity, superficiality, lack of filters, ignorance of the Constitution, ignorance of other world countries, general ignorance, bigotry, misogyny, etc. etc. etc., leave us in a precarious place both here and abroad. That's fair enough, but to say with that sort of certainty that we are all going to DIE is not even on the same level. |
|
|
|
Post by peano on Jul 16, 2016 1:07:33 GMT
Just as many on the right were certain Obama's election signaled the end times, (and look, here we be, LOL) many of us on the left fear Trump's narcissism and grandiosity, superficiality, lack of filters, ignorance of the Constitution, ignorance of other world countries, general ignorance, bigotry, misogyny, etc. etc. etc., leave us in a precarious place both here and abroad. That's fair enough, but to say with that sort of certainty that we are all going to DIE is not even on the same level. Well, my tiny little pea brain can't even comprehend all of us dying from Trump's actions (I find my fingers are crossed somehow) but I'm gonna have to give cycworker a break, because he brings out the hyperbole in me as well. I just have to sit on my hands a lot to keep from posting it.  |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 16, 2016 1:11:14 GMT
Oy! That's it. We're never practicing law together. Cancel the stationary order. But but but.... it's so pretty.  Maybe every case by either administration is too much. I guess it would have to be on a case by case basis. I was mainly thinking of election results and any charges that may be brought against Clinton or Trump. Each of them seem to have/had some questionable legal issues that aren't fully resolved. |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 16, 2016 1:16:59 GMT
She consistently refers to ALL judges as "she" and "her," even though they are historically men. I did NOT know that. That's different then.  |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 16, 2016 1:21:30 GMT
...he brings out the hyperbole in me as well. I just have to sit on my hands a lot... I wonder if there's an ointment for that.  |
|
|
|
Post by peano on Jul 16, 2016 1:29:34 GMT
...he brings out the hyperbole in me as well. I just have to sit on my hands a lot... I wonder if there's an ointment for that. I believe it's called gin and tonic. |
|
|
|
Post by sillyrabbit on Jul 16, 2016 4:53:09 GMT
As an accountant, the appearance of independence is very important especially in auditing. If you have a real or even perceived bias, you must recuse yourself from work with that client. It's a professional standard that exists in my line of work, and I would think that same standard would be applicable to the legal professions. We're all human and are allowed to have our opinions (and honestly, we pretty much know each Justice's political leanings from their votes), but it is beneath the dignity of a Supreme Court Justice to comment publically on a particular politician. I don't think she has to resign or anything that drastic, but she should definitely not have made that statement and will appear to lack neutrality when it comes to potential cases in the future involving Trump (and possibly even Clinton). That's my opinion anyway.
|
|
cycworker
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,376
|
Post by cycworker on Jul 16, 2016 7:17:21 GMT
That's fair enough, but to say with that sort of certainty that we are all going to DIE is not even on the same level. Well, my tiny little pea brain can't even comprehend all of us dying from Trump's actions (I find my fingers are crossed somehow) but I'm gonna have to give cycworker a break, because he brings out the hyperbole in me as well. I just have to sit on my hands a lot to keep from posting it. Frightening thing to me is that in this case, I`m not trying to be hyperbolic or anything. I honest-to-God AM that scared of this monster. He terrifies me. I truly believe he`s Hitler reincarnated, and folks are being blinded by him. |
|
|
|
Post by blondiec47 on Jul 16, 2016 11:25:03 GMT
Well, my tiny little pea brain can't even comprehend all of us dying from Trump's actions (I find my fingers are crossed somehow) but I'm gonna have to give cycworker a break, because he brings out the hyperbole in me as well. I just have to sit on my hands a lot to keep from posting it. Frightening thing to me is that in this case, I`m not trying to be hyperbolic or anything. I honest-to-God AM that scared of this monster. He terrifies me. I truly believe he`s Hitler reincarnated, and folks are being blinded by him. And there are just as many that really thought the same for Obama (heck they are still thinking he will enact martial law before the election) yet here we are 7+ years later. happens every 4 years |
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Jul 16, 2016 11:45:55 GMT
She consistently refers to ALL judges as "she" and "her," even though they are historically men. I did NOT know that. That's different then. Welllll....it just goes to show you, it's always something...if it ain't one thing, it's another... *so says Ms. Anxious who lives in a naive world where she still feels that while perhaps there aren't chiseled in stone rules of conduct for the top judges, they are held to higher a higher standard than the rest of us plebeian unwashed. I do understand it has been done before, and I wasn't fond of it then either. |
|
) could separate political bent from legality on particular issues/legislation, I am confident that someone at the level of Supreme Court Justice could. She spoke out of turn, but I really don't think she's seriously gone rogue. 
