I often mock Okrahoma in his blatantly one-sided political threads, but I’ll give him credit – this is an issue that should be give serious consideration.
Ginsburg did indeed vocalize that Trump is a clown, though in slightly nicer terms. That a substantial majority of the American people also believe this may or may not be relevant. I think there’s a substantial chance that Roberts also thinks Trump is a clown, though he has not said so.
As others have pointed out, the likelihood that Thomas, Alito, and the late Scalia had very negative opinions of Obama is very, very high. It’s almost a lock, in my opinion. And the opinions of former liberal justices about Reagan or Nixon
So the question in my mind is: are we concerned about bias only to the degree that it is spoken? That doesn’t make sense to me.
In my opinion, Ginsburg certainly opened herself up to some kind of admonishment for speaking so bluntly about a candidate in an election. I’m not sure how that admonishment would work, though. But recusal? I think that’s too extreme a step.
That’s putting the cart before the horse, though. If a theoretical justice is biased and not impartial concerning a party whose actions form the basis of the case in front of the Court but that party has never been in front of the Court before, there would be no prior opinion to point out that possible bias or prejudice. Even if there was a prior opinion, you still might not detect any bias or prejudice if that individual justice merely voted one way or another without writing a majority, concurring, or dissenting opinion.
He’s president of a nation that has pretty strong checks and balances, not God-Emperor of The Americas. One clown in office isn’t going to threaten the fate of the entire free world and it’s completely unreasonable to think otherwise.
In Justice Ginsburg’s defense I believe you exaggerated her expressed concerns.
If Ginsburg had said, “Dude, if Trump gets elected and tries to implement a Muslim travel ban I’ll enjoin that so hard!” then I could see it. Barring that, her voicing her general opinion of a candidate should not be enough to conclude bias against a particular matter before the court. General != particular.
I would guess she probably doesn’t celebrate that she made that statement, but it’s no big deal. Just because she said something out loud isn’t the criteria for which to judge bias.
I do not think Ginsburg violated the Code, and if she did in this matter it bothers me zero.
It’s not like her stating her opinion revealed any great secret. Ginsburg: *I don’t like Trump, he’s a poopy pants. * TOTALLY NEW INFORMATION! No, the act of stating something that is incredibly obvious doesn’t transform it into an ethical violation.
“(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”
At an election night 2000 party, Sandra Day O’Connor commented, “This is terrible!” when the media called Florida for Al Gore, presumably handing him the election. The meaning of the comment was apparently clear: that she did not want Gore to win the election.
Do you believe O’Connor should have recused herself from the Bush v. Gore case?
Did she do it in a public interview? If so, definitely.
As I said before, SC Justices have all kinds of opinions, all humans do. But if your opinion is so strong and so defined that you’re making it public in the media, that is crossing the line and is definitely cause for recusal. Note the “publicly” part in the Code of Conduct that I cited above.
Wait – saying something in an INTERVIEW is the test of bias? Are you fucking joking?
As in, let’s say Justice Scalia was so enraged by socialist Barack O’Bummer that he would go home each night and hold a voodoo ritual to hex the seekrit Muslim, non-American President… BUT he never gave an interview on the subject. You’re saying that Scalia would be in the clear?
Again, see the “publicly” part in the Code of Conduct for federal judges.
No, he wouldn’t be. But it would not be a violation of the Code of Conduct. It would still clearly show his inability to be objective in cases involving the individual and would be cause for recusal.
As should be the clearly expressed bias of Ginsburg toward Trump.