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.

 

How can Ginsburg participate in Travel Order case ?

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 11:16 AM
link   
With the trump Travel Ban EO case possibly being "Herd" in the Supreme Court, at least one Justice must come to grips about "past statements" made about "people close to the case".

Supreme Kangaroo Justice Ruth Bader Gin-borg made numerous critical "opinionated" statements about Donald J Trump, and now she will surely want to get in on the firestorm of the Travel Ban EO.

The lower courts have cited all kinds of "negative" statements about Muslims and apparently made their rulings based on talk.

Just-ice Ruth must recuse herself. No question about it.


All kinds of quotes in the story ....
How can Ginsburg participate in Travel Order case after her *campaign* statements about Trump?


One of the Justices already has expressed a view on Trump’s credibility. In July 2016, Justice Ruth Bader Ginbsburg was quoted in a CNN interview deriding Trump as “a faker”:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s well-known candor was on display in her chambers late Monday, when she declined to retreat from her earlier criticism of Donald Trump and even elaborated on it.

“He is a faker,” she said of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, going point by point, as if presenting a legal brief. “He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. … How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.” ….
“At first I thought it was funny,” she said of Trump’s early candidacy. “To think that there’s a possibility that he could be president … ” Her voice trailed off gloomily.
“I think he has gotten so much free publicity,” she added, drawing a contrast between what she believes is tougher media treatment of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and returning to an overriding complaint: “Every other presidential candidate has turned over tax returns.”





edit on Jun-03-2017 by xuenchen because: vodka




posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Good point! She crossed the line during the campaign, and would not be fair in her ruling. Who in government has the guts to ask Ruth to bow out?

p.s. Don't cha just hate that "?" never shows up in the title until the thread is opened?
edit on 6/3/2017 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 12:03 PM
link   
She has to recuse herself. Anything else might severely damage the credibility of the Supreme Court.



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Interesting notion and one I've forgotten about.



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   
"I think she has every right to her own opinions". And so do I Damn IT !"



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
She has to recuse herself. Anything else might severely damage the credibility of the Supreme Court.

The SCOTUS lost their credibility when they issued the ruling on the ACA, with the tax vs penalty thing.
IMO.



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Nice try, guys - in your attempts to have the Supreme Court slanted in favor of conservatives by kicking out one of the liberals. Nice try.



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 12:26 PM
link   


How can Ginsburg participate in Travel Order case ?


It won't matter...

The Constitution and 1952 Immigration Act are clear -- the President can ban any group for any reason.

My prediction: America wins 6 - 3.



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Nice try, guys - in your attempts to have the Supreme Court slanted in favor of conservatives by kicking out one of the liberals. Nice try.


Is it true or false that a Judge should recuse herself if there appears to be a conflict of interest?



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

There's always some conflict of interest. Scalia had been known to say some things about Obama that were... less than glowing. The liberal justices tend to rule in favor of the Democrats' viewpoints and the conservative justices tend to rule in favor of the Republicans' viewpoints. Have you never noticed that?



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Nice try, guys - in your attempts to have the Supreme Court slanted in favor of conservatives by kicking out one of the liberals. Nice try.


The Supreme Court is already majority conservative (on paper anyway).

Kennedy was appointed by Reagan, Thomas by Bush 41, Chief Justice Roberts and Samuel Alito by Bush 43, and Neil Gorsuch by President Trump.

Whether Ginsberg is there or not, the Court will still be majority conservative.

The good news is, it's very likely that President Trump will leave this right-of-center nation with a 7 - 2 Court before he's done.



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

There's always some conflict of interest. Scalia had been known to say some things about Obama that were... less than glowing. The liberal justices tend to rule in favor of the Democrats' viewpoints and the conservative justices tend to rule in favor of the Republicans' viewpoints. Have you never noticed that?


Im not sure if there is always conflict of interest, but in this instance, there clearly is. According to every ethical constraint, she should recuse herself.



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

Kennedy is a very moderate conservative. He goes either way, depending on the issue.



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

According to that logic, Scalia should have recused himself many times. Didn't happen then, not gonna happen now.



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Her personal opinions towards Trump have nothing to do with this case. It is her job to decide the constitutionality of the case in front of her.

If she would have made public statements with her opinion on the EO itself, that would be a conflict of interest.

But as it stands now, no. I don't see a conflict.


edit on 3-6-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Maybe she could use the recusal model created by Sessions and Nunes... "recuse" herself from the case, then stay involved up to her eyeballs.

Or does that rule only apply to "special" people?



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
Her personal opinions towards Trump have nothing to do with this case. It is her job to decide the constitutionality of the case in front of her.

If she would have have made public statements with her opinion on the EO itself, that would be a conflict of interest.

But as it stands now, no. I don't see a conflict.



The law regarding recusal makes it quite clear that she should recuse herself.

Even the appearance of a conflict of interest, whether there is one or not, is grounds for recusal.



(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.


Source



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

And did you read the rest of your link? The only example that comes in any way close is item #1, but it still doesn't count in this case, because Trump is not the subject of the ruling. The subject of the ruling is the Executive Order. Has she publicly stated any personal opinion about this Executive Order?



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

And did you read the rest of your link? The only example that comes in any way close is item #1, but it still doesn't count in this case, because Trump is not the subject of the ruling. The subject of the ruling is the Executive Order. Has she publicly stated any personal opinion about this Executive Order?


It doesn't matter if it counts or not. Even the appearance of impartiality is grounds for recusal.



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



The law regarding recusal makes it quite clear that she should recuse herself.


No. That is not very clear. It says "impartiality might reasonably be questioned".

Reasonable to whom? Me...you?

She has stated her personal opinions about Trump candidacy, which is within her right. The EO she is potentially going to rule on does not directly affect Trump as an individual.

She's ruling on the EO, not Trump.

So I do not see how her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join