White House candidate Trump calls Justice Ginsburg mentally unfit

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Someone show me in Article III the part that says Justices can't have opinions?

Thanks.

I think it says Justices can't have opinions about Trump.

I could be wrong though.

Well done.

a reply to: bknapple32

An Opinion is one Thing , but being in a Position to Effect the Outcome of a Presidential Race Expressing them Publicly at this Time is Another . I Think she just Burned Her Last Bridge . She Will be Gone from the SCOTUS by the End of this Year .

Not sure what everyone is going on about Ginsburg "not being able to have an opinion", which isn't the issue at all (straw man). The issue is the appearance of impartiality and integrity of the judiciary. The Code of Conduct for United States Judges makes the matter a little more explicit for you.

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.

Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity

(A) General Prohibitions. A judge should not:

(1) act as a leader or hold any office in a political organization;

(2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office; or

(3) solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution to a political organization or candidate, or attend or purchase a ticket for a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization or candidate.

(B) Resignation upon Candidacy. A judge should resign the judicial office if the judge becomes a candidate in a primary or general election for any office.

(C) Other Political Activity. A judge should not engage in any other political activity. This provision does not prevent a judge from engaging in activities described in Canon 4.

COMMENTARY

The term “political organization” refers to a political party, a group affiliated with a political party or candidate for public office, or an entity whose principal purpose is to advocate for or against political candidates or parties in connection with elections for public office.

So unless you disagree with these ethics, and unless you disagree that "A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved", then you really have no argument. But I wouldn't expect much less from people without standards.

a reply to: mOjOm


Sorry, but there's been far more of your 'slander' from the left media than any that Trump has retaliated with. As far as granny goes, She didn't 'accept' the interview without being fully aware and likely intending to use the 'opportunity' to spread her agenda.


Last time I checked the SCOTUS is to adhere to
the Constitution and it's interpretation. Simply put, non-political. We know where these guys rest their laurels, politically, yet when's the last time this kind of rhetoric has come out of a Supreme Court member?

Besides she's been 'unfit', Constitutionally speaking, from the get go, IMO...

a reply to: nwtrucker

Of course you think the left slanders more. And the left thinks the right slanders more..

And around and around we go.

It always comes up over some partisan issue of the moment, but realistically, everyone else is forced to retire at some point. There is absolutely no reason someone over the age of ~75 should be holding such an important office.

A supreme court justice should be able to do much of their work themselves; Ginsberg isn't the only one so old as to be relying heavily on college aged law clerks.

While not against the rules per se, this IS a significant breach of unwritten rules. How are intelligent people supposed to pretend that they are making decisions based on law rather than politics if they go around commenting about their politics?

Both Ginsburg and Trump made mistakes in making their comments.
Ginsburg's mistake is her comment shows bias that may or may not reflect in her court proceedings, but will call into question her impartiality, which further decreases faith in our system of law.
Trump's mistake is the way he responded to Ginsburg's comments, he should have either ignored the comment thereby making it a non-issue, or responded that she's entitled to her opinion and that he and his millions of supporters disagree with it.

originally posted by: 11andrew34
It always comes up over some partisan issue of the moment, but realistically, everyone else is forced to retire at some point. There is absolutely no reason someone over the age of ~75 should be holding such an important office.

A supreme court justice should be able to do much of their work themselves; Ginsberg isn't the only one so old as to be relying heavily on college aged law clerks.

While not against the rules per se, this IS a significant breach of unwritten rules. How are intelligent people supposed to pretend that they are making decisions based on law rather than politics if they go around commenting about their politics?

It is Not so Much what She is , but What She Represents . The POWER She Holds in Any Decision Asked of Her as a Supreme Court Justice can Effect the Nation in Many Harmful Ways If Abused .....

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Seems pretty clear.

I just read that the NYT and WaPo came out with editorials criticizing Ginsburg for this.
Not conservative newspapers...those.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Except it doesn't mention the Supreme Court in who that set of ethics applies to???

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.

The Judicial Conference has authorized its Committee on Codes of Conduct to render advisory opinions about this Code only when requested by a judge to whom this Code applies.

Same Link as Yours

There isn't currently a Code of Ethics written for the SCOTUS.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Correct. They are not obliged to obey them.

originally posted by: LockNLoad
Both Ginsburg and Trump made mistakes in making their comments.
Ginsburg's mistake is her comment shows bias that may or may not reflect in her court proceedings, but will call into question her impartiality, which further decreases faith in our system of law.
Trump's mistake is the way he responded to Ginsburg's comments, he should have either ignored the comment thereby making it a non-issue, or responded that she's entitled to her opinion and that he and his millions of supporters disagree with it.

Why beat around the bush?

"Her mind is shot - resign."

There's the light. Shine it where it needs to be exposed.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: AboveBoard

Correct. They are not obliged to obey them.

A set of standards.
Apparently some people expect higher judges to have lower standards, eh?

a reply to: butcherguy

A set of standards.
Apparently some people expect higher judges to have lower standards, eh?

Double standards seem to be the going rate.

a reply to: neo96

do they give up their right to free speech when appointed? You say they are supposed to be impartial, but to what? party lines or the law?

why should they be impartial?

If that were truly the case why won't the Repubs vote on Pres. Obamas nominee. They want somebody "impartial" in their favor.

Link to Washington Post editorial: link.[/u rl]
Link to [url=http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/opinion/donald-trump-is-right-about-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg.html]NYT article

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Exactly.

You question the ethics of Ms. Ginsburg - I get that. But she is not bound to follow these rules. She's 83, she has opinions and she stated them. Scalia stated his opinions all the time. Did you make sure to censure him too??

a reply to: tinner07

Certain country clerks do.

Why is Ginsburg different?

a reply to: nwtrucker

So now you're going to compare "The Left" and what they allegedly say to "Trump" and what he says??? Totally valid comparison and one that is obviously going to based upon fact and not just your personal opinion correct???

Please......


I enjoy the leaps you people go to in defending you're puppeteer and cult leader Trump. You people are hitching yourselves to a sinking trash barge filled with piles of burning sh*t.