Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg intensifies criticism of Trump:

I concur but federal judges do fall under the Code of Conduct for United States Judges

 

Trumps story is he attacks them BACK

Notice he did not FIRST attack Ginsburg.

He won't whine about unfairness were they to stop being unfair.

As most know, I hope, my first choice was Scott Walker. But the left wing media trashed him. Then I wanted Kasich. But the left wing trashed him. I was concerned the media was offering us all Trump on a silver platter. Well, my worry came home to roost.

Seems the more Trump gets trashed, the higher up his poll numbers go.

 

No real clear politics takes all recent polls into account....not just the ones you like. Lol

- - - Updated - - -

So when is he going to start winning? Lol

 

Who said they didn't? She generally does better in the older polls of average, and worse in the most recent one. What do you make of that?

 

She should resign.

 

In this context, branches is obviously meant to refer to the other two branches of government, particularly members of congress and potentially the president.

 

The fair and impartial high court of the land.

 

Supreme Court Justice should have recused herself prior to the Bush v Gore Supreme Court ruling because she made it known her political preferences for President. But conservatives and Republicans defended her. It is the same old story, do as I say and not as I do argument.

 

You might want to think Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who prior to the Bush v Gore case, made statements of what her preferences were of who the next President should be, and it was not Al Gore. Should have Justice Sandra Day O'Connor recuse herself? No.

What is happening here is that conservatives are making a conscious effort to silence free speech by an unelected justice when she was asked in an interview of what she thought of Donald Trump. And this is showing that conservatives are no longer concerned for freedom of speech and showing their true colors of being more aligned with Joseph Stalin. And that is the sad truth.

 

Whether she answered it or not is her choice and no one else. At the same time, what she said was not lying or untruthful, nor was she specifically endorsing a candidate. And she is doing nothing different than what Sandra Day O'Connor did in 2000.

 

She has not violated any of those rules unless you think giving an opinion in an interview constitutes making speeches for a political organization or publicly endorsing a candidate. There is a difference you know.

 

It has always been a political forum. If you have read your history, Supreme court justices were advocating for someone named John Adams as President when he ran for president. And the ink was not even dry then. throughout the years, supreme court justices have advocated their opinions on various issues. Scalia has offered his opinion prior and after some of the most politicized cases in his tenure.

 

Actually there is no contradiction, depending on voter turnout and what many would consider taking the lesser of two evils, it is quite possible for Trump to be elected, even though a majority (51% +) might not think it's a good thing.

Secondly, you don't know much about "liberals" LOL. You've issued a generalization that is like all generalizations - loaded with stupid partisan rhetoric with no substance. Thanks for the response and, nice user name - it suits you.

 

I think you missed this part of the clause:

Do you disagree that she publicly opposed a candidate?

 

Quit picking on Ruth. She was just fine in 'The Wizard Of Oz' with those flying monkeys.

 

1. Nonsense. Majorities in politics are determined by people who vote, not by your, my or anyone else's wishful thinking.

2. Ginsburg has apologized for her remarks admitting that they were ill-advised and inappropriate, she promised not to do it again.... Which makes folks like you defending these remarks look rather silly and intellectually dishonest.

 

That comparison is totally bogus. O'Connor's remarks weren't made directly to the press to influence public opinion & she made no remarks directly attacking a candidates character. RBG has, twice. She's a disgrace.

 

Man, RBG is awesome. Cons aren't so upset that she's talking about the idiocy that is Trump, it's that she's right.

 

It will be funny, if this election gets challenged and goes before SCOTUS. RBG will now have to recuse herself.

 

Ginsburg has shocked the media and the public .

 

Maybe we should take the opinion of an esteemed jurist over your own..

Oh snap.

 

1. Nonsense - you completely missed my point re: voter turnout. That is okay though, you have a meme and it won't be changed.

2. Nonsense, I did not defend her remarks, show me where I defended her remarks. I think if you look hard enough you'll see that I said she should have kept her thoughts to herself and that she crossed the line. Quit lying about me defending RBG......it looks silly and intellectually dishonest.

 

1. voter turnout is how majorities are determined in democracies. There are no other ways. Anything else is wishful thinking. If Trump (or Hillary) wins in November, claiming that the majority of those who did not vote were against the outcome would be beyond silly.

2. You did offer some underhanded defense of Ginsburg, stating that she broke no hard rules (strawman) and calculated what she was doing. You could have instead said - her actions are not acceptable.

 

The matter of Ginsburg not coming under the UCMJ may be relevant to her getting away with politicizing but she did take an oath to defend the constitution, which she has attacked verbally. That seems to be a violation of her oath to up hold the constitution.

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES - - Wednesday, July 13, 2016




ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s disdain for the political process parallels her contempt for the U.S. Constitution (“Donald Trump on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: ‘Her mind is shot — resign,’” Web, July 13). In 2012, as the Egyptians were writing a new constitution, Justice Ginsburg counseled Egypt “to not look to the U.S. Constitution…” Justice Ginsburg opined that the constitutional documents of South Africa and the European Union were superior to ours.

Jurisprudential progressives such as Justice Ginsburg are distressingly devoid of constitutional anchorage and endeavor to circumvent the Constitution’s principles by melding Darwinian social sciences and case law to render preferred judgments.

Justice Ginsburg further decreed that logic, constitutional text and structure are not extremely imperative for guaranteeing rights. For that she surmised that the task is better accomplished by skillfully drafted document barriers and powerful judges. Of course, she would.


TONY FAVERO
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/13/letter-to-the-editor-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-constitu/

 

We must have a language barrier:

1. Voter turnout is NOT how majorities are determined in democracies, vote COUNT decides who wins, loses etc. My entire point was a majority of voters is NOT currently in favor of a Trump presidency. According to the latest CBS News /NYT poll 40% of registered voters would vote for Trump - meaning 60% wouldn't as of now. This doesn't allow for those ineligible to vote (for whatever reason). My point is even though a majority would not be in favor of Trump, if they don't actually vote, their worst nightmare may well happen.

2. What part of "she crossed the line" don't you get - a post I made yesterday.

"If her best buddy on the court, Justice Scalia, was still alive he probably would have advised her to say nothing. As it is, she did weigh in on Trump and really only stated what the majority of the nation is coming to realize - Trump could actually become President........and this would not be a good thing. Did she break any hard law - no. Did she cross a line, yes - I agree with the notion that she crossed the line. She is a sharp, feisty woman though (I think one of the reasons Scalia liked her a lot, along with opera) she calculated the pros & cons of what she was doing and went ahead anyway."

And this one from this morning:

"No, RBG should not resign. SCOTUS has a history of being 'political'. I agree she should have kept her comments to herself but resign....no way. I do wonder though if she isn't getting ready to retire - depending on the outcome of the election."
Right back at ya - strawman.