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: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

All of them have the appearance of impartiality to some degree. Like I said, some of them have liberal views, some of them have conservative views. We know this about them. Is anyone surprised that Scalia wasn't too fond of Obama and his more liberal policies? Is anyone surprised that Ginsburg isn't too fond of Trump and his refusal to turn over his taxes? Knowing her background and history of rulings, Is this really shocking to you? What does it have to do with this particular E.O.?




posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

All of them have the appearance of impartiality to some degree. Like I said, some of them have liberal views, some of them have conservative views. We know this about them. Is anyone surprised that Scalia wasn't too fond of Obama and his more liberal policies? Is anyone surprised that Ginsburg isn't too fond of Trump and his refusal to turn over his taxes? Knowing her background and history of rulings, Is this really shocking to you? What does it have to do with this particular E.O.?


Her comments cast her impartiality into doubt. She isn't, as a Supreme Court justice, required to recuse herself, but if she cares about ethics she should care about how the highest court in the land is viewed by the people. I'm not aware of the remarks Scalia made, but if he did make such remarks, he should have recused himself as well. At the very least she should express that her remarks will have no bearing on this case.



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Here is what Supreme Court justices do in preparation for a ruling: they look at the Constitution and interpret it to the best of their ability in order to apply their ruling to the case. This what Scalia did and this is what Ginsburg does. Do they interpret the Constitution through their personal viewpoints (conservative/liberal)? Realistically, of course they do. Nevertheless, rest assured, Ginsburg will be using the Constitution to justify her ruling.
edit on 3-6-2017 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Here is what Supreme Court justices do in preparation for a ruling: they look at the Constitution and interpret it to the best of their ability in order to apply their ruling to the case. This what Scalia did and this is what Ginsburg does. Do they interpret the Constitution through their personal viewpoints (conservative/liberal)? Realistically, of course they do. Nevertheless, rest assured, Ginsburg will be using the Constitution to justify her ruling.


But again, recusal is for the purpose of avoiding the appearance of impartiality. It's to avoid the very questioning of an unfair proceeding.



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: SBMcG

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


Kennedy usually votes with the conservatives -- and has quite recently ruled in favor of presidential powers over immigration matters in the (originally Zivotofsky v. Rice, then Zivotofsky v. Clinton) Zivotofsky v. Kerry.

Kennedy also has family and personal ties to the Trump's...

Kennedy shares a close relationship with the Trump family

Stare decisis will without a doubt come into play in this case because there is already established law (Immigration Act 1952) and numerous legal precedents granting the POTUS powers to ban immigration by any group for any reason.

That's why I think the Trump Administration will win this one 6 - 3. Breyer is a stare decisis fanatic and I think he'll vote with the conservative majority in this matter.
edit on 3-6-2017 by SBMcG because: Correction

edit on 3-6-2017 by SBMcG because: Correction 2



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG


Kennedy also has family and personal ties to the Trump's...



Aha! Conflict of interest! Needs to recuse himself!!!!



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Re: London, 03 June 2017, Moslem terror attack...

Well, it looks like Trump is going to get his "Moslem ban" after all.



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG
Re: London, 03 June 2017, Moslem terror attack...

Well, it looks like Trump is going to get his "Moslem ban" after all.


GCHQ is on our side afterall !



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I just heard some of the things Ruth Ginsburg said during the Presidential campaign.

"If he wins, we should all move to New Zealand".

"If Trump wins, it will be four years for America. For the Supreme Court it will seem like an eternity!"

Those statements are way out of line for a Supreme Court Judge aren't they?



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I definitely think Ginsburg's comments were out of line for a Supreme Court justice. She's entitled to her opinion, but there's absolutely no justification for a sitting justice becoming a partisan attack dog during an election cycle.

Frankly I think she should resign, precisely because the appearance of partiality will follow her on every case she hears.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan


Good thoughts Andy. At the very least, she should recuse herself from anything related to Trump... like AG Jeff Sessions recused himself from Russia matters.

Very unlikely though. Her character and integrity aren't that high, obviously.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   

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

I think she should. She has displayed publicly that she has a problem with him, how can she be impartial?



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

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

I think she should. She has displayed publicly that she has a problem with him, how can she be impartial?


I think we'll hear more calls for her self-recusal...but when? Only a few media outlets will even mention the possibility.

They're all in a "Will Trump prevent Comey from testifying?" hysteria this week.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust




Asked to elaborate on those remarks during an appearance at George Washington University, Ginsburg responded with a twist on Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan. “I meant that we are not as mindful of what makes America great,” Ginsburg said. One example is “the right to speak one’s mind.” Another, she said, is “the idea of our nation being receptive to all people, welcoming of all people.” That includes “the notion that in our nation we are many and yet we are one.” Ginsburg said that sentiment is reflected in the words inscribed at the base of the Statue of Liberty, which reads: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

www.gopusa.com...

When she has made statements like this that are directly related to the EO in question she needs to recuse herself.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG
Re: London, 03 June 2017, Moslem terror attack...

Well, it looks like Trump is going to get his "Moslem ban" after all.


So, we should add England to the list of countries where people are banned from coming to the US?
edit on 5-6-2017 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 12:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: carewemust




Asked to elaborate on those remarks during an appearance at George Washington University, Ginsburg responded with a twist on Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan. “I meant that we are not as mindful of what makes America great,” Ginsburg said. One example is “the right to speak one’s mind.” Another, she said, is “the idea of our nation being receptive to all people, welcoming of all people.” That includes “the notion that in our nation we are many and yet we are one.” Ginsburg said that sentiment is reflected in the words inscribed at the base of the Statue of Liberty, which reads: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

www.gopusa.com...

When she has made statements like this that are directly related to the EO in question she needs to recuse herself.


Looks like the pressure is finally starting to build on Justice Ginsburg to disqualify herself..

"Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote that a judge should extinguish all politics in public comments when elevated to the Bench.

Because Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg failed to heed those words, she should disqualify herself from the U.S. Supreme Court’s review of President Trump’s revised travel ban. 

In a series of interviews last July, she leveled disparaging comments about then-candidate Trump that were stunning and unprecedented for a sitting high court justice.

Continued Here: www.foxnews.com...



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 12:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
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.


Stunning mental gymnastics on display here. I am awarding this a 9.9.




posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 12:59 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Appointed for life? Why is that?

Why not a 12 year term or something?


edit on 6-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: SBMcG
Re: London, 03 June 2017, Moslem terror attack...

Well, it looks like Trump is going to get his "Moslem ban" after all.


So, we should add England to the list of countries where people are banned from coming to the US?


Get sarcasm much...?



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust




The rules demanding disqualification are set forth very clearly by federal statute, 28 USC 455: Any justice…shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. He shall also disqualify himself…where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.”

from your source

The word "shall" is pretty powerful when used in usc. The statements she made "reasonably" call her impartiality into question regarding trump. She also showed a personal bias by the statements she made.
I think the law is pretty clear based on what rbg did. She needs to sit this one out.




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join