White House candidate Trump calls Justice Ginsburg mentally unfit

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: chuck258

You're so worried about what she's saying and nothing about what Trump has been saying for months now so I'm finding hard to care.

Trump, who might be President is apparently allowed to say anything no matter how outlandish, rude, or even false and nobody cares. Or worse they say he's just saying it like it is. While losing no credibility at all.

Yet anyone who says something against him is immediately pounced upon.

So, ya, I don't care.

Does that mean I'm in the right. No, I admit that. But, I don't care. We all have our worthless opinions on this issue which don't change anything and that's mine.

I seriously hope you're not implying that Trump's words are free from criticism. I seem to remember just a couple weeks ago he was attacked by Progressives for what they claimed was a mockery of the Star of David. Trump is attacked at every turn. Besides that, ultimately, a President Trump does not have the final say when it comes to laws governing this country. If a hypothetical Donald Trump executes a political move that someone thinks is unconstitutional, they have the courts to go to for multiple chances at having a favorable outcome. But Badger is the end of that road because she is a Supreme court judge that has an 11% stake in the highest legal interpretation in this country.

Imagine how BORING the ATS political discussions would be if it were Jeb Bush vs Hillary Clinton...Yawn.

Especially now that Bernie Sanders called it quits, and climbed in bed with the devi.. sorry! With Hillary Clinton.

a reply to: chuck258

So it's better then that she stay silent and just use her position to act against Trump in secret then???

Or are you saying that we should only have Supreme Court Judges who openly admire and agree with sitting Presidents???

Or do we trust that they are capable of doing what they've been selected to do and be impartial when doing their job???

Just because she doesn't like Trump doesn't mean she can't still do her job. I can promise you that every Judge has an opinion about Trump or Obama or Clinton already even though you may not know what it is. In fact, I'm pretty sure we could have all guessed that her opinion of Trump was a negative one before she made it public so nothing has changed other than now you know for sure.

Apparently Trump thinks anyone who dislikes him must also be incapable of doing their job too. This makes two judges so far in fact. However, there is no reason why not liking him means they cannot follow the law and make a sound judgement.

You're making assumptions that aren't backed up by anything but your own fear of people not agreeing with everything you agree with. Well, that's just how it works. Not everyone will always agree with you but it doesn't mean they will allow their bias to do something unjust or illegal or against what they know is right by their profession.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Valuable info, and I appreciate the time taken to write it.

Nonetheless, let's not misrepresent each other's arguments. I'm not sure where anyone said the Supreme Court up until now has been free of partisan politics. My own argument was that it should be, that it is unethical to do or say otherwise, for the exact same reasons as written in the code of conducts for the other United States judges, whom have to abide by those standards. To hold the Supreme Court, the higher court, to a lesser standards than the lower courts, is nonsensical.

Nor should we appeal to tradition.

But it's tiring bringing up such fallacies and pointing out incorrect thinking, isn't it? The standards of disputation are too elitist and snobbish.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So, you're taking the position of idealism rather than analyzing what is and has been?

I have no issue with that. The SCOTUS should be free of partisan politics.

The Congress SHOULD work together for the good of their constituents and the entire nation.

The President SHOULD be able to promote a political agenda (as evidenced by the people who voted for them) without being accused of being a tyrant.

Politics is full of should.

The idea that Bader Ginsburg is any different or worse or unethical because of a few spare comments that are all true ... nonsensical.

a reply to: UnBreakable

I guess if you don't look you'll never know.

Hint....I never make stuff up. Everything I post is always verifiable. But if you're unwilling to expend the effort you're left with what you believe instead of what really is. Not my problem and I really could not care less whether you believe me or not your opinion of me means less than nothing to me.

a reply to: Gryphon66

to the best of my knowledge, Ginsburg is the only justice that endorsed one candidate and opposed another, publicly while still on the bench. I have already laid out the argument why that is a breach of ethics and conduct according to the Official Code of Conduct for all United States Judges .

This Code was put in place in 1973 by the SCOTUS . So yes, Ginsburg is in fact unethical according to the code of conduct. Several violations as I laid out previously, one could make a case that she has violated this code numerous times before and is an habitual offender.

originally posted by: SM2
a reply to: Gryphon66

to the best of my knowledge, Ginsburg is the only justice that endorsed one candidate and opposed another, publicly while still on the bench. I have already laid out the argument why that is a breach of ethics and conduct according to the Official Code of Conduct for all United States Judges .

This Code was put in place in 1973 by the SCOTUS . So yes, Ginsburg is in fact unethical according to the code of conduct. Several violations as I laid out previously, one could make a case that she has violated this code numerous times before and is an habitual offender.

Yes, and if the New York Times is agreeing with Donald Trump about this.... it would seem that GINsburg is in the wrong here.

Now she's backpedaling. Well we know how she really feels.

a reply to: butcherguy

Not wrong. Just imprudent. She's absolutely correct in her assessment. I know that much.

a reply to: SM2

I encouraged you to check the "Introduction" of that Code if you recall. SCOTUS Justices are not included in the scope of that document. If you had done that, you could have saved yourself several mistakes in your post:

The Code of Conduct for United States Judges was initially adopted by the Judicial Conference on April 5, 1973, and was known as the "Code of Judicial Conduct for United States Judges." See: JCUS-APR 73, pp. 9-11.

So, error one, the Judicial Conference of the United States is not the Supreme Court as you suggested, but is a body set up by Congress to establish judicial procedures for US Federal Courts.

Error Two, the Justices are not included in the jurisdictions of the Code Canons:

This Code applies to United States circuit judges, district judges, Court of International Trade judges, Court of Federal Claims judges, bankruptcy judges, and magistrate judges. Certain provisions of this Code apply to special masters and commissioners as indicated in the “Compliance” section. The Tax Court, Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces have adopted this Code.

Citations above from Code of Conduct for United States Judges

As the ultimate decision-making body regarding the Constitutionality of acts of the Legislature, the Executive and even State and local governments, it is ABSURD to make the claim that the Supreme Court will be free of political matters. Indeed SCOTUS is the endpoint of the political process in this country.

Third, Ginsburg is not the only Justice to make clear their personal opinions on political issues, which is the supposed point of such contention here in this discussion. She did not instruct anyone to vote for or against anyone. 90% of what she said are simple factual statements.

I find it amazing all of the people making assessments about others mental health. To my knowledge, Trump is not a doctor, has had no training in psychology and has never sit and been a doctor to anyone. Yet he would make a judgement call on another. And the same can be stated for those who would make claims about Trump.

The only way to tell would be to ask that she undergo a session, but the same can be said about Trump as well and the details and records released out to the public.

a reply to: Gryphon66

ok, so no, the Judicial Conference of The United States, is not the SCOTUS. You are right there, but tell me...who heads and makes up the conference? Yup thats right, the Chief Justice is it's head. Currently that would be John Roberts. Congress has nothing to do with it, they set it up, the entire body of the group is Federal judges.

Now, what you want to call error 2. No, SCOTUS justices are not specified, however if you read further and get to the compliance section....

."Compliance with the Code of Conduct

Anyone who is an officer of the federal judicial system authorized to perform judicial functions is a judge for the purpose of this Code. All judges should comply with this Code except as provided below.

Part-time Judge
Judge Pro Tempore
Retired Judge "

So, tell me, Are Supreme Court Justices part time judges? Are they temporary Judges? Are they retired?

Ok, no to all of those right? Ok, next batch of questions.... Are they officers of the Federal Judicial system? Are they authorized to perform judicial functions? yes to both of those, so that means clear as day, they are judges for the purpose of the code.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she regrets her "ill-advised" public criticism of Donald Trump

Ginsburg says in a statement issued by the court on Thursday that judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. She promises to be more circumspect in the future.

hosted.ap.org...

originally posted by: neo96

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she regrets her "ill-advised" public criticism of Donald Trump

Ginsburg says in a statement issued by the court on Thursday that judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. She promises to be more circumspect in the future.

hosted.ap.org...

Ole Ginny must regret it because it was such an acceptable thing to do, eh?

a reply to: Gryphon66

It's a position of ethics, yes.

I googled around to verify whether the supreme court justices sometimes do follow the Code of Conduct as a formality, and it appears yes they do, as stated by Justice Roberts in his 2011 year end report, and it echoes exactly what I've been arguing:

All Members of the Court do in fact consult the Code of Conduct in assessing their ethical obligations. In this way, the Code plays the same role for the Justices as it does for other federal judges since, as the commentary accompanying Canon 1 of the Code explains, the Code “is designed to provide guidance to judges.” It serves the same purpose as the 1924 Canons that Chief Justice Taft helped to develop, and Justices today use the Code for precisely that purpose. Each does so for the same compelling practical reason: Every Justice seeks to follow high ethical standards, and the Judicial Conference’s Code of Conduct provides a current and uniform source of guidance designed with specific reference to the needs and obligations of the federal judiciary.

2011 Report on the Federal Judiciary

Whether they actually do follow the code of conduct or not is definitely in question, especially after Scalia and Ginsberg's political comments.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

Not wrong. Just imprudent. She's absolutely correct in her assessment. I know that much.

Yep, she is so damn imprudent (just what we want in a judge, right???) that the court issued a statement that judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for a public office.


Wow, I hope that Ginsburg's statement has put this to rest.

a reply to: butcherguy

Ginsburg must have seen this poll.

White House Watch: Trump 44%, Clinton 37%

I think SCJ Ruth Ginsberg apologized for publically sleeping during the state-of-the-union too. Doesn't matter. As usual, when someone goofy denigrates Donald Trump, his poll numbers increase. That happened again yesterday.

a reply to: butcherguy

So ... from this point on, we can expect you to accept the New York Times as completely trustworthy?

Good gravy.