# Should Ginsburg recuse herself from cases involving Trump administration? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 6, 2017, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237 "2017-06-06T01:36:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/121 "2017-06-06T22:03:54Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Neutral judges ignored the plain meaning of Obama’s and his administration’s statements that the health care mandate was not a tax, and ruled that it is a tax. I will actually wholly agree that the courts have the right and obligation to take all statements made by, well, everyone with a grain of salt. On the other hand, this does not mean that they HAVE to ignore the fact that the ignorant orange loser fuckhead is announcing that he is, in fact, trying to push through a muslim ban. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/122 "2017-06-06T22:07:36Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Neutral judges ignored the plain meaning of Obama’s and his administration’s statements that the health care mandate was not a tax, and ruled that it is a tax. Was The ACA passed as an EO, or was it passed through legislation? Is it possible that the fact that the body that was not responsible for actually crafting and passing the bill may have more leniency in explaining the bill incorrectly than the sole person responsible for it? ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/123 "2017-06-06T22:08:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure – but as a general rule, the Supreme Court isn’t a finder of fact. The factual record is already made when a case reaches their eyes. So it would seem much less of an issue to learn the RBG thinks Trump is a disaster as President when she’s not being asked to judge his fitness as president. Sure, but an appellate judge attempting to determine the “intent” behind a statute (or executive order) and asking whether it “drips” with any particular motive is, fundamentally, engaging in fact finding (whether we want to call it that or not). I cannot imagine an opinion striking down the immigration order that does not delve into what Trump said (before and after he was President); what he meant; what he really meant by the order; and generally do the type of factual/credibility determination that is more typical for trial judges. That’s not often going to be the case in appeals, but it is here. I don’t think there’s much argument that she should recuse for all cases involving the government, but I think the immigration order case is a much closer call. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/124 "2017-06-06T22:15:22Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > So what? Obama being wrong on what constitutes a “tax” is hardly the same thing as a public announced intent. His often-stated intent was that it would be a penalty. The neutral judges ignored it (you said they couldn’t ignore the plain meaning of his statements, right?) and said it isn’t. Just like a neutral judge can ignore Trump’s statements, look at the executive order, and say that it isn’t a “muslim ban” since it clearly isn’t. It’s a ban on immigration from several muslim countries (and not from other much bigger muslim countries). ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/125 "2017-06-06T22:20:17Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Of course they are “effectively aspirational” - because they can ignore them at will. Doesn’t mean they don’t apply. > > She falls under (and I quote) > “Anyone who is an officer of the federal judicial system authorized to perform judicial functions is a judge for the purpose of this Code. All judges should comply with this Code except as provided below.” > > what’s provided below does not exclude Supreme Court Justices. You know, I actually thought you had the right of the argument with iiiandyiii, but you’re being ridiculous here. The code exhaustively lists the types of covered judicial officers to which it applies and Supreme Court justices are not included. _Generalia specialibus non derogant_. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/126 "2017-06-06T22:21:39Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > His often-stated intent was that it would be a penalty. The neutral judges ignored it (you said they couldn’t ignore the plain meaning of his statements, right?) and said it isn’t. > > Just like a neutral judge can ignore Trump’s statements, look at the executive order, and say that it isn’t a “muslim ban” since it clearly isn’t. It’s a ban on immigration from several muslim countries (and not from other much bigger muslim countries). Consider the two statements: “I’m going to kill that guy” & “Killing someone who kicks my dog is self defense” A judge is going to hear both those statements but one is a statement of intent and one is simply wrong. You can ignore a wrong interpretation of the law, you can’t ignore publicly stated intentions. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/127 "2017-06-06T22:27:52Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > His often-stated intent was that it would be a penalty. The neutral judges ignored it (you said they couldn’t ignore the plain meaning of his statements, right?) and said it isn’t. > > Just like a neutral judge can ignore Trump’s statements, look at the executive order, and say that it isn’t a “muslim ban” since it clearly isn’t. It’s a ban on immigration from several muslim countries (and not from other much bigger muslim countries). No sane person is claiming that judges are locked into the excluded middle of having to either unconditionally believe anything a person says or ignore it entirely. The fact that a judge once decided to disagree with Obama doesn’t in any non-gibberly-insane way imply that no judge ever may listen to anyone else again. (Even Trump.) This is not a reasonable argument to even tiptoe around, because it’s so staggeringly stupid. Also, a ban that bans only muslim countries but doesn’t quite ban them all (this time) sounds a lot like a muslim ban to me. Even if one or two non-muslim countries were included as well, it still would! (Perhaps Sweden. Yeah, let’s ban Sweden.) My opinions on this come from those mass firings that are “random” but just happen to randomly include everyone over fifty. Though those usually also take care to also fire enough young pups to dissuade the courts from nailing them for discrimination. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/128 "2017-06-06T22:49:45Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > You know, I actually thought you had the right of the argument with iiiandyiii, but you’re being ridiculous here. The code exhaustively lists the types of covered judicial officers to which it applies and Supreme Court justices are not included. _Generalia specialibus non derogant_. I would think it’s more _expressio unius est exclusio alterius._ ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/129 "2017-06-06T23:02:11Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > His often-stated intent was that it would be a penalty. The neutral judges ignored it (you said they couldn’t ignore the plain meaning of his statements, right?) and said it isn’t. > > Just like a neutral judge can ignore Trump’s statements, look at the executive order, and say that it isn’t a “muslim ban” since it clearly isn’t. It’s a ban on immigration from several muslim countries (and not from other much bigger muslim countries). Right. So if someone publicly announced “I’m going to kill that guy” and the next day he runs the guy over, a neutral judge would ignore that statement. Because we expect our judges to be utter simpletons. ---
**Author:** ![Silver\_lining](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aca169/32.png) [@Silver\_lining](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silver_lining)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/130 "2017-06-06T23:06:53Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > From the Code of Conduct: > > “(A) General Prohibitions. A judge should not: > … > (2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office” She should consider stepping down. But she won’t. I’m sure it Ginsberg will vote against Trump, but she’d better do it with her mouth shut. I’m not sure who censures the Supreme Court. Is there mention in the constitution if a Judge breaks the rules and goes rouge? ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/131 "2017-06-06T23:10:26Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Right. So if someone publicly announced “I’m going to kill that guy” and the next day he runs the guy over, a neutral judge would ignore that statement. Because we expect our judges to be utter simpletons. Bad analogy. Again, a “muslim ban” would ban muslims from immigrating. The EO was not a “muslim ban” no matter what Trump said, since it didn’t do that. And claiming that Trump is “islamophobic” is a bit ridiculous, considering the foreign trip he just concluded where he got on pretty well with rulers of countries that are self-proclaimed Islamic. Do you think the judges should take that into account as well (I don’t)? ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/132 "2017-06-06T23:11:48Z")
> [@Silver\_lining](#): > > She should consider stepping down. > > But she won’t. I’m sure it Ginsberg will vote against Trump, but she’d better do it with her mouth shut. > > I’m not sure who censures the Supreme Court. Is there mention in the constitution if a Judge breaks the rules and goes rouge? Rogue. Congress could impeach and remove the justice from the Supreme Court. Not that it will ever happen (or should happen in this case). ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2017, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/133 "2017-06-07T00:56:48Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > … because she’s human. That’s why judges recuse themselves. It’s not an announcement that they would deliberately rule against people they dislike. It’s an acknowledgement that they are human and, being human, having a visceral dislike against one of the parties in the case may color their judgement. So any of the judges that like Trump should also recuse themselves? ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2017, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/134 "2017-06-07T00:59:18Z")
> [@simster](#): > > So any of the judges that like Trump should also recuse themselves? Those that publicly endorsed his candidacy for President, definitely. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2017, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/135 "2017-06-07T01:00:01Z")
> [@Silver\_lining](#): > > Is there mention in the constitution if a Judge breaks the rules and goes rouge? Sarah Palin? Is there anyone in this thread who believes that **Okrahoma** has any other intent than to tilt the outcome of court cases in Trump’s favor? Anyone? Anyone at all? ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2017, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/136 "2017-06-07T01:58:40Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Those that publicly endorsed his candidacy for President, definitely. So you’re still hung up on the ‘publicly’ aspect of it - - what if they kept it secret but swore an oath that they wold always vote the way Trump wanted them to? ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2017, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/137 "2017-06-07T02:37:29Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Sarah Palin? > > Is there anyone in this thread who believes that **Okrahoma** has any other intent than to tilt the outcome of court cases in Trump’s favor? > > Anyone? > > Anyone at all? This is such a stupid argument… 1. It would only be valid if there was a possibility that the thread here on this SDMB will influence Ginsburg to recuse. Do you really think there is such a possibility? 2. It can be applied to you. From seeing your posts, you really dislike Trump and wish his administration would lose those court cases. Does that invalidate every argument you would post on this thread? ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2017, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/138 "2017-06-07T02:39:39Z")
> [@simster](#): > > So you’re still hung up on the ‘publicly’ aspect of it - - what if they kept it secret but swore an oath that they wold always vote the way Trump wanted them to? If we know about that oath, then it’s **public** , isn’t it? Then the oath would definitely be grounds for recusal. If it is not public, then how do you know about that oath? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2017, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/139 "2017-06-07T02:55:26Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > This is such a stupid argument… > > 1. It would only be valid if there was a possibility that the thread here on this SDMB will influence Ginsburg to recuse. Do you really think there is such a possibility? > > 2. It can be applied to you. From seeing your posts, you really dislike Trump and wish his administration would lose those court cases. Does that invalidate every argument you would post on this thread? Who found a case in which a circuit court judge broke the same rules as Ginsburg seemed to do? You did. Who is arguing that Ginsburg should be subject to harsher punishment than the circuit court judge was subject to? You. Why would you first cite an example of a judge being sanctioned for breaking the same rule in a pretty similar - but in some aspects an even more inflammatory - way, and then argue that someone else who did the same thing should not be allowed to participate in cases relating to your political ally? The only reason for this inconsistency I can imagine is partisanship. Had the circuit court judge had a tougher punishment, I would be willing to say that Ginsburg deserves similar treatment. That is not partisanship, that’s fairness. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2017, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/140 "2017-06-07T02:57:25Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Who found a case in which a circuit court judge broke the same rules as Ginsburg seemed to do? You did. > > Who is arguing that Ginsburg should be subject to harsher punishment than the circuit court judge was subject to? You. What “punishment” do you think I am advocating for Ginsburg? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237.md?page=8)