(bolding mine)
It is? By who?
And what exactly are the “some ethical rules” that they are expected to follow?
You mean the ones that don’t apply to her? 
Oh hey, I forgot: I was gonna post in that thread you started about Mr. Trump’s disentangling himself from all his financial and corporate affairs, so that he wouldn’t have or appear to have any conflicts of interest or to be enriching himself and his family through his office, but I can’t find it. Could you link to it for me?
Thanks!
“Expected” - by a lot of people, me included. As for which - the ones I cited are pretty good. And, as I pointed out, the Code of Conduct for federal judges, according to the Code itself, applies to the Supremes. The fact that they can safely ignore it, because there is no higher authority, doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply, it just means they ignore it.
Here’s an article discussing just how unprecedented Ginsburg’s behavior is:
The plain language of the first sub-section would seem to indicate that it would cover justices as well as any other type of federal judge and magistrate:
Though there is no enforcement mechanism and of course no higher court to appeal to about the matter. I think it’s not unreasonable to concede that given her past statements about Trump’s candidacy, someone might “reasonably question” her impartiality in any matter concerning a specific action taken by President Trump himself, such as his travel ban executive order. It would be much harder to extend this to any and all actions taken by the Trump administration writ large, though, since technically every federal criminal and civil case argued before the Court for the next few years will involve DOJ/Solicitor General attorneys from the Executive Branch headed by Trump. Trump’s own personal and official actions won’t figure into the vast, vast majority of cases before the Court in which the United States (as represented by attorneys from the Executive branch) is a party.
Realistically, she probably will not recuse herself, but will probably go the extra step of being careful and having a practiced evenness in her questioning towards any U.S. government attorney arguing on behalf of any Trump official action or policy. I imagine she will probably talk with Chief Justice Roberts and/or any dissenters to avoid being assigned to write any majority opinion that holds any Trump action unlawful or unconstitutional or any significant dissenting opinion opining the same.
Lots of people expect a lot of things. Some of those people are disappointed.
Yes, some people actually (foolishly) expect SC Justices to be ethical. Too bad these people will most probably be disappointed, in the case of Justice Ginsburg.
Yeah, it would be nice if they were ethical. Too bad none of them are.
Why will they be disappointed? Do they not know that the ethics rules don’t apply to her?
So when you said “some ethical rules” you really meant “all of the ethical rules”? Is that right? Or would you like to clarify further?
Did you raise similar objections over other possible SCOTUS ethics lapses, or is this the first time you’ve felt the transgression deserved to be called out?
Also, could you please post that link to your other thread (mentioned in my previous post) so I can post in it? Thanks!
You’re right, most cases in front of the SC will involve Trump only tangentially, if at all. But some (such as the immigration executive order case) are pretty direct. Those are the ones from which Ginsburg should, ethically, recuse herself.
What if a Justice said “There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well. One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them.” and “I’m just not impressed by the fact the University of Texas may have fewer blacks. Maybe it ought to have fewer.”? Would that opinion require a Justice to recuse himself from cases involving black students?
I won’t play gotcha. These were statements made by Justice Scalia during oral arguments for Fisher v. University of Texas in 2015.
She did not express any personal bias. She expressed grave, unspeakable fear for the future of our nation, to say nothing of human civilization itself, should Trump become President. It’s a perfectly logical response that any rational, reasonable person would have.
Well, I’m sure Justice Ginsburg just cries herself to sleep at night over your disapproval.
I always wonder why the forum that is called “Great Debates” allows stupid snark like that.
I imagine Justice Thomas has some rather unpleasant thoughts about the Klu Klux Klan. Does this mean he should recuse himself from cases regarding the group?
Could this be an excuse for an impeachment if she fails to recuse herself?
Why, that’d be like saying a judge of Mexican descent shouldn’t be able to rule on immigration issues! Who the heck would say that in public?
Seems to me that to justify recusal, one would have to demonstrate that the supposed prejudices of the justice(s) has actually affected a Supreme Court ruling in some way. Since Justices generally write lengthy individual opinions on their rulings, it should be pretty easy to demonstrate such a prejudicial attitude, if it exists.
The OP is therefore welcome to provide an example of a Court ruling where the supposed prejudice of Ms. Ginsburg toward Mr. Trump is on display, if there is one.
Judges have opinions about politics and people – that alone doesn’t require someone to recuse him/herself. Ginsburg’s opinion about Trump was presumably in reference to his ability to perform as president and not about the assumption of his conduct in a case that is pending before the court. If Ginsburg were still doing interviews and saying things like “Well, he’s violating the Constitution left and right and Congress ought to impeach him” then that’s a different situation altogether.
That being said, in this partisan environment, I wouldn’t put anything past the GOP. I wouldn’t be surprised if they start impeaching left-leaning judges.
Really? You want to use statements made during the hearing of an actual case to decide if someone needs to recuse himself? What about statements they make in the actual written decision? Once a SCOTUS justice rules on a subject, he must recuse himself from all future cases regarding that subject?
Plus, that’s a particularly poor example of something that might cause a justice to recuse himself since he is talking about hypothetical people and what they might think. Heaven forbid that a judge look at two different sides of an issue!
Scalia didn’t recuse himself from Cheney v. United States District Court despite going duck hunting with Cheney while the case was going through the lower courts. Clarence Thomas’s wife worked for a group that opposed healthcare reform yet refused to recuse himself from any constitutional challenges to PPACA. Comparatively, Ginsberg offering a negative opinion about Trump during the campaign is very small fry indeed.
But color me surprised that Republicans are suddenly all outraged about this terrible, terrible liberal judge.