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

a reply to: marg6043

What exactly is not true? That congress demanded her recusal? That she overstepped? That she could be impeached? What are you saying is untrue?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: roadgravel

What they're not allowed to do is oversee a case where a defendant or witness is someone they've openly supported or disparaged.

By 1911, these specific statues were joined by vaguer guidelines ubder28 U.S.C. § 144, which entitles a party to secure recusal of a judge by supplying an affidavit that the judge has “a personal bias or prejudice” against the affiant or for the opposing party.

a reply to: Dfairlite

She will not be impeached for exercising her rights to freedom of speech.

Now, because she is a supreme court judge becoming vocal against Trump as a presidential candidate put her in a very precarious position.

As I researched more on activist judges base on political favoritism, she will actually have to recuse herself for the previous comments she made against who is now the president of the US.

She will resign soon after and that is my prediction.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Dfairlite

She will not be impeached for exercising her rights to freedom of speech.

Now, because she is a supreme court judge becoming vocal against Trump as a presidential candidate put her in a very precarious position.

As I researched more on activist judges base on political favoritism, she will actually have to recuse herself for the previous comments she made against who is now the president of the US.

She will resign soon after and that is my prediction.

Well, according to THIS there have been 90 recusals for various purposes since only 2005. If RBG can't recuse herself for this then I'd say she needs to go!


Check that link, it's a good read.

Laird vs Tatum

The petitioner will rest.

originally posted by: flatbush71
Laird vs Tatum

The petitioner will rest.

You wanna summarize?

a reply to: marg6043

I agree, she won't be impeached. But I had to throw that out there for the impeach trump crowd.

a reply to: flatbush71

That's a weak argument. Rhenquist never personally disparaged the defendant or a testimony being used, which is exactly what RBG has done.

originally posted by: roadgravel

It's about travel not Trump.

The problem is the previous Judges flat out said their ruling was about Trump, not the merits of the EO.