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.

 

Congress Demands Justice Ginsberg's Recusal on Trump Travel Ban Case

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Congress had demanded the recusal of Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the trump travel ban case. This letter has been hand delivered to RBG. They have a point, she obviously overstepped.

Now will she recuse? Or will congress finally get to impeach someone!?

imgur.com...
edit on 26-6-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Congress had demanded the recusal of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. This letter has been hand delivered to RBG. They have a point, she obviously overstepped.

Now will she recuse? Or will congress finally get to impeach someone!?

imgur.com...


Lol impeach who?



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

RBG



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Xtrozero

RBG


Has never happened... I hate how everyone throws around that word on both sides.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Who were the congressmen that signed this request?

It appears to be incomplete.

Nevermind. It appears 58 republicans signed it.
edit on 26-6-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Haven't had a judge defy congress.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Those statements are what it takes? So members of the SCOTUS are gong to now be asked to bow out case by case based on there like or dislike of a politician. Half the country might agree with her words.

It's about travel not Trump.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

We won't know until it is publicly released.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: introvert

We won't know until it is publicly released.


It's been released.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

Absolutely. The rules for judges are to not comment on political campaigns or politicians. How can one be viewed as impartial after disparaging a president personally?



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

There you go. That one has the signatures.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Someone will have to remind the poor old dear who Trump is, first.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

She had better do the right thing and recuse on this case.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: roadgravel

Absolutely. The rules for judges are to not comment on political campaigns or politicians. How can one be viewed as impartial after disparaging a president personally?


What about any other subject. Any could become a decision sent to the court. There HAS to be a bias, not just someone's perception.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   
What about the other side?

If a judge is very pro religion, maybe there is a bias there. It's a touchy line to start going down.
edit on 6/26/2017 by roadgravel because: typo



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   
edit error
edit on 6/26/2017 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
She should just retire already, have Trump fill her seat, that would be justice.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

Yes, and RBG has proven she's biased against trump. This is a travel ban put in place by him, where the defense is trying to use his campaign rhetoric as evidence.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

This not true, the Supreme court usually rules by the interpretation of the constitution, they do not make laws.

The law is clear and all she can do if she doesn't agree is not give a vote.

Still she is getting senile.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

A judge's view on an issue is not something that requires recusal. They're allowed their views. What they're not allowed to do is oversee a case where a defendant or witness is someone they've openly supported or disparaged. Nor should they comment on a case that they may be seated to judge, else they'll need to recuse themselves.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join