So, she falls at the first hurdle. Nah. Why recuse? What's the go with that? What vested (or conflict of) interest does she have in that matter? She is there to be part of NINE, not just jump off the ship when she wants to. Do your job, woman!
I wonder if she will recuse when abortion comes under SCOTUS review. If she did that, then she would earn my respect.
Will she recuse when Trump attacks the election outcome? If she did that, then she would earn my respect.
She didn't recuse herself. Just didn't participate. She is new on the job and couldn't get up to speed in time to make a decision. Don't expect this to happen again. It's a bit of a non-story, IMHO.
No. She has supposedly done her apprenticeship in lower Courts and as a Professor. I am told, and I agree, there she is a very well qualified Lawyer. Yet, on day one, she is gun shy, and runs. No. She is there to do the job from day one. We were all assured she had the mettle etc. Nah. She runs. Why did she recuse? Was the legal issue too hard for her? Too complex? Jayzuz, I assume everything that gets to SCOTUS is hard and complex. Am I wrong? *Yes I am after her judicial hide, I admit. She is simply not suitable personally and this just proves me right....on day one.*
LOL! No, you haven't proven anything. She didn't "run". She got sworn in yesterday. She probably hasn't even had a chance to knock the dust off Ginsburg's old chambers yet. As to your last question, yes, you're wrong about a whole lot of things. And going after her "judicial hide" is a silly waste of time. She's got a lifetime appointment.
did you listen to the video? the court already heard evidence and didn’t grant a stay, not a great idea to jump in it after they already made a ruling on the case
I don't have to prove a thing. What she did is what she did...recuse, on the very first case that came before SCOTUS. Why did she recuse? Not up to the job? Why?
every judge has personal private moral views on subjects but i’ve seen no evidence she won’t follow the law and set aside her personal views
she can but this is being fast track. It’s very responsible for her not to get involved in a case that has already been ruled on in part
C'mon man, you're a lawyer, right? You know the difference between recusal - where the judge recognises a reason that she should not participate in a case - and just not participating. Hey - I think the Rs played dirty to get her onto SCOTUS. I think the right thing to have done would have been for Garland to have been confirmed, then Gorsuch and now her. All with significant majorities of the Senate. I don't think Kavanaugh should be there. There were too many question marks about him, and his conduct at the confirmation hearing was blatantly partisan. Awful. But I'll cut her some slack on this
Okay. Today was not a good start. So, what will she abandon? Her personal religiously covenated views, or the Law....or will she recuse as she did the first day on the job?
she’ll follow the law..as she’s done since she’s been on the bench. Not sure why today was such a bad start to your day.
I'll cut her zero slack. She is being paid to do a job. She refused, on her first case, to do her job. You blokes ought demand a refund. Why did she recuse. What was her excuse? Too hard, what?
not sure if beyond is the correct term, but the case is already been heard in part by the court. So not a wise move to jump in at this point
Why? All she has to do is read the same record every other SCOTUS Justice reads. Nah. A blot on her record is that she ran, on day ONE.