It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

White House candidate Trump calls Justice Ginsburg mentally unfit

page: 19
28
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join
share:
SM2

posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: SM2

can you please provide us with the Code of Conduct for SCJs?

The memo or manual or scripture or law or whatever?


I have posted it at least two times in this thread already and have laid out how it applies to this incident and how it applies to Supreme Court Justices . i will do it again for you....

www.uscourts.gov...


Just to stop the rehash the arguments already made, No it does not specifically call out justices on the supreme court, it does however say this ......

"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. "

Those exemptions are : Part time judge, Judge Pro Tempore ,and Canon 4 is lifted for retired judges retired under 28 U.S.C. § 371(b) or § 372(a) (applicable to Article III judges), or who is subject to recall under § 178(d) (applicable to judges on the Court of Federal Claims), or who is recalled to judicial service.

So a Supreme Court Justice is an officer of the Federal Judicial system, they are authorized to perform judicial functions, they are not retired, part time or temp judges. So this code of conduct applies to them.

This code of conduct is written and updated by the Judicial Conference, first adopted in 1973, the conference was set up by Congress and is chaired by the current Chief Justice , currently Roberts. The rest of the body is filled with judges from each circuit.


She has violated Canon 2, 3 and 5.



SM2

posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: StoutBroux

Honestly?

SCOTUS members have a right to opinions.

They also have the right to factual observations.

The idea that they are human and have actual beliefs is not a shock to me, nor should it be to anyone else paying attention.



Yes they have a right to their opinions, but have no right to be publicly vocal about it They can not and should not speak on current political issues or elections.



posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

...and that just about covers it.

Politics of destruction.



posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: SM2

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: StoutBroux

Honestly?

SCOTUS members have a right to opinions.

They also have the right to factual observations.

The idea that they are human and have actual beliefs is not a shock to me, nor should it be to anyone else paying attention.



Yes they have a right to their opinions, but have no right to be publicly vocal about it They can not and should not speak on current political issues or elections.


Of course they have a right to be publicly vocal about their political beliefs, and have been. This argument is ludicrous. Their decisions are informed by their understanding of the law and the Constitution, their personal beliefs, and their political beliefs. This ad hoc fluttering righteousness over nothing simply makes one bilious.



posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: DJW001

...and that just about covers it.

Politics of destruction.


It's Weimar all over again.



posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: SM2

Per your own link in the Introduction:


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.


SCOTUS is not included in the code. If you search for a code of conduct or ethics code for the SCOTUS you will see that it has not been defined and that Congress has not voted on one.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 01:30 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Weimar, huh?

You're not the first to make the comparison, and there's some validity to it, I think. Which is truly frightening, when you consider what followed.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 02:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

Yeah sure. What ever.
That is just you deflecting again. Can't support your point change the subject.
Have a great day.


Says the person who makes a claim and will not support it with sources and refuses to accept the truth. Man, the wool is Irish sweater thick with you.
I keep waiting for you to break out "I'm just kidding everyone, no one is this willfully ignorant"

Just stop it already and post those sources for your claims.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 05:32 AM
link   
a reply to: SM2


She has violated Canon 2, 3 and 5.


Why does that make her "mentally unfit?" Is Donald "Saddam knew how to deal with terrorists" Trump now a clinical psychiatrist?


SM2

posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I never said she was mentally unfit. I am no more qualified to make that call then you are. I just said she has broken the code of ethics, and the people that want to give her a pass just because they happen to agree with her or are part of the Ginsburg fan club want to give her a pass. It's incredible really, how people refuse to understand that judges are supposed to remain impartial and stay removed from politics and above the fray .

For the record, I don't care what justice said what about who. I would feel the exact same way if the political leanings went the other way. So, let's not make this left vs right etc, this is specifically about Ginsburg and her unethical comments and her unethical behavior, such as public drunkenness and sleeping through the State of the Union, as well as her publicly opposing one candidate and endorsing another.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: SM2


I never said she was mentally unfit.


But Short-fingered Trump did. Do you think he is acting responsibly by saying that a sitting Supreme Court judge is mentally incompetent and should resign?


SM2

posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I think his comment was inappropriate. I do not agree that he should be saying such things. A SCOTUS justice should get the respect the seat gives. That being said, a reasonable person should look at her comments, heck, even the NY times agreed that she was way out of line. Several Liberals also are on record agreeing with that. Then look at her behavior, her sleeping through public events, the appearance of being drunk , past public comments and inappropriate candor, one could reasonably come to the conclusion that perhaps the time has come for her to hang up the robe.

Again, a disclaimer, even though I am a libertarian that leans right, I would say these same things if a right leaning justice said what she said. I am not partisan in this. Just like I was very disappointed when ( I think it was Roberts) had his little outburst during the State of The Union address a few years back. I was very vocal in my disagreement then, as I am now.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Again, what is the complaint here?

She was asked a question in several interviews. She didn't give a public speech condemning Trump. She certainly isn't out on the campaign trail with anyone. She hasn't instructed anyone to vote FOR or AGAINST anyone.

Further, the idea that Justices aren't known for their politics is just a damned lie. It's absurd, and I cannot honestly believe that any self-respecting person here would maintain otherwise. It's mind-boggling to me.

For example. at the current time, we have 3 Conservatives, 4 Liberals and one Moderate on the bench. Senate Majority Simpleton Mitch McConnell would have been well-advised to give Merrick AT LEAST a thumbs-up-or-down vote. Merrick is a right-leaning Moderate, has been vetted for the Federal bench and was confirmed by 97% of the Senate. There is zero precedent, while we're talking about Judicial firsts, that this Republican Senate has left so many seats open for so long INCLUDING a possible swing vote on the SCOTUS.

So don't even try to make the argument that everything to do with the Supreme Court isn't political in every way.

It just doesn't wash.


edit on 15-7-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



She was asked a question in several interviews. She didn't give a public speech condemning Trump.

Yes, an interview.

An on the record interview.

Why would anyone think that it would be seen by the public?

Well, anyone that can't stay awake for 30 consecutive minutes.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Gryphon66



She was asked a question in several interviews. She didn't give a public speech condemning Trump.

Yes, an interview.

An on the record interview.

Why would anyone think that it would be seen by the public?

Well, anyone that can't stay awake for 30 consecutive minutes.


1. Three interviews to be exact. Yes, they were published. No, they were not overt interference in an election.

2. You've never fallen asleep during a State of the Union? I have. There have been whole Presidencies I wish I'd slept through.


SM2

posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


She kind of did give a public speech condemning Trump. She condemned him in a public venue. Then she endorsed another candidate. Just because you share her opinion does not mean she was in the right to speak it. What is so effing hard to understand about that? No justice, regardless of personal political leaning should be able to publicly oppose a candidate for office or endorse one, i dont care who the justice is nor who the candidate is. Why are you so blind to the ramification of this? Or is just because you agree with her comment and it helps your candidate, that you are willing to let it go? This topic has nothing to do with the current make up of the court, or what the senate or house has done. it is specifically about Ginsburg and her comments.

The Supreme court is supposed be politically neutral, it is because we allow crap like this (and from previous justices on both sides) to continue. There is a reason that the House has the authority to bring impeachment charges on any federal officer. Maybe they should have used it a few times.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: SM2

I'm sorry to point this out again, but you keep making claims that just don't stand up to the facts.

She hasn't given a public speech regarding Donald Trump.

She hasn't endorsed any other candidates.

I'm not the issue here and my agreement or disagreement is not the issue.

I find the milquetoast use of the phrase "effing" repugnant. If you can't say the word, don't bother with the implication.

Again, she didn't endorse or oppose or promote a candidate. She spoke her mind when asked a direct question.

She stated clearly apparent facts, not opinions.

This topic has everything to do with the absurd claim that Justices aren't politically involved.

These continued idealistic platitudes about what the SCOTUS should be are just specious and inane as all flaming hell.

Ideally, our government would be different, people would be different, the world would be different.

So what? It isn't. I tend to deal in reality.


SM2

posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: SM2

I'm sorry to point this out again, but you keep making claims that just don't stand up to the facts.

She hasn't given a public speech regarding Donald Trump.

She hasn't endorsed any other candidates.

I'm not the issue here and my agreement or disagreement is not the issue.

I find the milquetoast use of the phrase "effing" repugnant. If you can't say the word, don't bother with the implication.

Again, she didn't endorse or oppose or promote a candidate. She spoke her mind when asked a direct question.

She stated clearly apparent facts, not opinions.

This topic has everything to do with the absurd claim that Justices aren't politically involved.

These continued idealistic platitudes about what the SCOTUS should be are just specious and inane as all flaming hell.

Ideally, our government would be different, people would be different, the world would be different.

So what? It isn't. I tend to deal in reality.



You are just being willfully ignorant. She stated not one single solitary fact in the portion of the interview that we are referencing and you know it. All of it was her opinion. Her political opinion, which is against code of ethics for her to say in a public venue.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



2. You've never fallen asleep during a State of the Union? I have.

Really?
You fell asleep AT the State of the Union Address?

While you were seated with 4 associate justices and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America?
Wow.
You are special.
edit on b000000312016-07-15T09:47:34-05:0009America/ChicagoFri, 15 Jul 2016 09:47:34 -0500900000016 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Gryphon66



2. You've never fallen asleep during a State of the Union? I have.

Really?
You fell asleep AT the State of the Union Address?

While you were seated with 4 associate justices and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America?
Wow.
You are special.


Yes Butch. I was sitting there in drag.

You know sometimes when you have nothing to say, it's okay to say nothing.




top topics



 
28
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join