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.
originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: jimmyx
And there are people that will research the hell out of what HE has done, yet turn a blind eye to the exponentially greater evil their own party candidate has done. They go bat-sh*t crazy over the splinter in Trump while ignoring the rafter in Hillary.
originally posted by: bknapple32
originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: bknapple32
Of course. Their job is to uphold the constitution impartially.
Good. Glad to hear it. Don't mind me if I double check your posting history to see if you ever once called out Scalia for political bias.
originally posted by: mOjOm
originally posted by: CynConcepts
The difference is Trump is expected to speak up about political issues with a bias. Supreme Court judges, Attorney Generals, and FBI Directors all have personal biases but you are not to share them publicly with authority for it may cloud your judgement or how others view such judgements in the course of your tenure.
She should have politely declined to comment.
Really???? I would think as a possible president Trump would be expected to act like one.
Call me crazy.
originally posted by: BlueAjah
originally posted by: bknapple32
originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: bknapple32
Of course. Their job is to uphold the constitution impartially.
Good. Glad to hear it. Don't mind me if I double check your posting history to see if you ever once called out Scalia for political bias.
So, how are you coming along with that? You will find that I have not commented one way or the other. It has not come up in threads that I have been interested in.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
I really want to say something about trump supporters and college but I want to remain unbiased myself.
Outraged About Ginsburg's Comments? Supreme Court Justices Have Always Voiced Political Opinions
And besides: The Constitution does not prohibit Supreme Court Justices from expressing personal opinions.
Bloomberg‘s Noah Feldman offers Chief Justice John Marshall, who served as John Adams’s secretary of state while he was a chief justice, as proof that America’s founding generation was not “obsessed with the idea that justices have to be outside the reach of politics.”
Marshall, a loyalist of the Federalist Party, was understood to retain his beliefs while serving as chief justice subsequently.
Two of his most revered opinions, Marbury v. Madison and McCulloch v. Maryland, are historically incomprehensible except through the lens of partisan politics. In the first, he went to great lengths to embarrass the Jefferson administration by insisting that Marbury had a right to a justice-of-the-peace commission granted by Adams, before tacking back and holding that the law that would have allowed the court to force the delivery of the commission was unconstitutional.
In the second, he upheld the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, originally such a fundamental partisan issue that it helped drive the creation of his Federalist and Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican parties.
Maybe conservatives shouldn’t argue about the integrity of the Court while in their fourth month of refusing to give it a ninth justice.
originally posted by: UnBreakable
originally posted by: Sillyolme
I really want to say something about trump supporters and college but I want to remain unbiased myself.
And I want to say something about Clinton supporters and their complete ignoring of ethics.
Some of her asinine remarks were directly related to the bench.