White House candidate Trump calls Justice Ginsburg mentally unfit

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Gryphon66

You got all that from FoxNews, didn't you? C'mon, admit it. I'll still love ya, man.

thank you. It just seems obvious to me, and has for a very long time.

I try to watch Fox. I do. I agree that we should expose ourselves to all opinions.

I try to watch MSNBC. The really funny reality here is which one I was watching when I actually threw a shoe at the screen.

BS is BS. We're better than simply parroting what they want us to think.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Every Court has a recognized "flavour" as regards the political issues of the time (partisanship), and this fact is true to the current day, in which every Court decision is described in terms of the way that the "the liberal and conservative (and moderate)" Justices ruled, sometimes together, sometimes in opposition to expectations.

However, the claim that the Supreme Court is or ever has been free of "partisan political concerns" is nonsensical on its face.

Awesome post.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Yes, as a matter of fact many of us do. Try reading some of 'em.

Personally, I get a little, no make that a lot, tired of FoxNews, and CNN being portrayed as the evil fonts of misinformation...

It really is time for some of you to grow the Hell up. Seriously. I watch both, rather regularly. ...and both disagree, and agree from time to time.

Nothing is "spoon fed" to me. I make up my own damned mind, thank you. So, too, do most of us here. You disagree? Fine, feel free, but stop accusing people of being "spoon fed" when they happen to disagree with you. Few, if any of us, are 10 years old any more. We have our opinions and our biases...

...Just Like You.

If, as a previous poster said, no one has said she doesn't have to be impartial all the time, why is this a news story? If you aren't spoon-fed news, why does this matter to you or anyone at all? An elderly woman who happens to be rather liberal and a Supreme Court Justice expressed her concerns about Donald Trump, and the first several pages of this thread are outraged conservatives calling for her impeachment. On what grounds, and from where was their opinion formed?

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

It, in a non-existent ideal world, wouldn't matter. It shouldn't matter.

In that same ideal world the opinion could be stated, no matter how strongly, because that justice would, as necessary, recuse themselves from listening to the case.

I'm betwixt and between on this issue. Certainly she's welcome to state her opinion of Trump, the fact that I share her opinion matters not, even if I disagreed with it, I'd still say she has the right.

Where the between and betwixt comes in is here... Was it a good idea? I think that it wasn't necessarily the best idea she's ever had.

I confuse easily...

originally posted by: Gryphon66


BS is BS.

I can surely imagine the vicious outcry if Clarence Thomas were
to come out vocally against Hillary Clinton concerning her
pathological lies, and other undesirable character traits.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: carewemust

Ruth GINsberg is getting old and drinks too much.

You wouldn't drink too much if you had to sit in her chair and decide such things as she does?

So are you saying that each Supreme Court Justice partakes in one mind-altering drug or another, in order to make their job tolerable?

a reply to: carewemust

So are you saying that each Supreme Court Justice partakes in one mind-altering drug or another, in order to make their job tolerable?

Ermmmmm.....no. I'm not "saying that." I didn't say that.

I asked if you thought that you could be a Supreme Court Justice without drinking too much.

sigh



forget it.
Saint Care

a reply to: carewemust

Mind altering drugs is what you are going to call wine at a dinner?

a reply to: Gryphon66


If anything, Ruth "alky" GIN-sberg's comments will HELP Donald Trump. So far, all the people and news media who have publically chastised Mr. Trump have been unlikable in their own right. Perhaps that's why with each slam of Trump, he becomes stronger in the polls.

a reply to: carewemust

Ohhh!!! Okay.

So, wait, so...are you , like, twelve?

Just wondering. Your posts just seem really "takes one to know one!" kind of immature.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: carewemust

Mind altering drugs is what you are going to call wine at a dinner?

If your mind is frail and/or old enough, it can be "altered" fairly easily. Ginsberg SLEPT IT OFF through part of the 2015 State of the Union address. Remember This?-- www.usatoday.com...

And she was YOUNGER then!

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: carewemust

Ohhh!!! Okay.

So, wait, so...are you , like, twelve?

Just wondering. Your posts just seem really "takes one to know one!" kind of immature.

IMO, you need to be more understanding of the wide array of people that God created, BuzzyWigs. Say what you will. It doesn't offend me, because the advice I just gave you is what I follow in daily life. Good luck with opening your mind.

I found this to be a pretty balanced article.

What Is Ruth Bader Ginsburg Thinking?! Here’s What.

My favorite line from it: " it’s not as if Justice Antonin Scalia took his completely mysterious views about President Barack Obama to the grave."

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

You wouldn't drink too much if you had to sit in her chair and decide such things as she does?

Sounds like a classic excuse for failure.

a reply to: ~Lucidity


You're right, Lucidity. That article was fairly balanced. It reminds us that Supreme Court Justices are not mere robots, but are humans with emotions, and love America.

Since we're now going through a totally different kind of Presidential election cycle, unusual high-profile comments and even violence, is to be expected. So be it. May the candidate who is disliked the least, win on November 8th.

I have not read this entire thread, so please forgive me if this point has been brought up already.


Seeing as though Ginsburg, verbally criticized Trump then made her comment about The next president, whoever SHE may be. That was essentially endorsing Hillary for the office, especially if you take the entire interview .So this was in fact, Ginsburg engaging in political activity. Which break Cannon 5 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

"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. "

www.uscourts.gov...

Also, it could be debated that she Also broke Canon 1

Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

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. "


Furthermore, if Trump should win the presidency, She would be under huge pressure to recuse herself from any and all cases that have anything to do with the possible Trump administration, as she has shown a clear and demonstrable bias concerning Mr. Trump. which is :

Canon 3 (c) (1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:

(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; "


So, this is enough to at least force her to recuse herself in future cases involving Trump, and possibly enough to debate the possibility of impeachment proceedings

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Gryphon66


BS is BS.

I can surely imagine the vicious outcry if Clarence Thomas were
to come out vocally against Hillary Clinton concerning her
pathological lies, and other undesirable character traits.

He'd have to actually speak to do that.

I'll take my chances.

a reply to: SM2

You should perhaps read the introduction to the Code.

Also, Article III, COTUS.

I've been alive on this planet for 60 years, and I have NEVER seen or heard of a supreme court justice giving an opinion of a person running for office. IMO, that is an impeachable offense. I'm no fan of Trump, but I'll be danged if I will sit still for SCJs telegraphing their prejudicial opinions in the national press. It's completely corrupt. And shows how far gone our Supreme Court has gone, from the respected institution of my youth.

Shame on Ginsburg. It's bad enough she has stated that she thinks the US Constitution is outdated. How can a SJC who thinks that, SIT on the supreme court? Why did she LIE when she was being vetted by Congress? Because there is NO WAY, as corrupt as Congress is and has been, that they would EVER okay a SJC who claimed the Constitution was a dead document.

a reply to: SM2

Excellent post. But I think it goes beyond just 'recusing' herself. It shows a COMPLETE lack of integrity for the office to come out and say something like this. In all my 60 years I have NEVER heard of a SJC doing this.

She should just resign, because her comments have damaged the court, IMO. How can anyone think a SJC decision is fair and balanced when they come out with comments like this?

Our gov't is SUCH A FREAKING JOKE THESE DAYS. It's beyond shameful.