so - if they keep these very strong negative opinions to themselves, thats ok?
Both of these are terrible analogies.
But for what it’s worth, I’d say I’m skeptical of the cases that might cone before the court that test the justices’ like or dislike for a President, as opposed to testing the effect of a set of facts with the relevant law applied.
Put another way, Okrahoma: what case do you imagine that RBG might hear in which you honestly feel her opinion about bad Trump is as a political choice might sway her ruling?
Some of you guys are being a little silly downplaying what Ginsberg did. Making such negative public remarks was pretty outrageous and is sure as shit different than casting a ballot at election time. Recusal is just as much about public perception as an actual concern of prejudice and Ginsberg made this public.
I still think recusing herself from any Admin involved case is a vast overreaction. I’m basically on the same page as ganthet on this.
The upcoming immigration executive order case. AFAIR, an opinion was expressed by several lawyers/judges reviewing the case in the press that the EO would be fine if Clinton or Obama issued it, but not when Trump did.
I won’t downplay what she said – it was a big mistake, and worthy of a good apology, which she gave.
We have a secret vote for a reason. Even in the unlikely event that a justice had a candidate’s bumper sticker or a yard sign does not mean that it would be reasonable to question their impartiality in a case where the opponent one, since there is no outward sign of a bias against that particular opposing candidate directly. There are probably too many cases to count before a given judge or justice involving the actions of a political figure that they did not vote for.
You most definitely downplayed it. “Vague sarcasm”? Give me a break.
You claimed her statement was merely “vague sarcasm”. And in the poll I put up you asking “Were the statements a clear indication that Ginsburg was opposed to Trump’s candidacy?” you’re the lone “No, obviously” vote.
If that’s not downplaying it, I don’t know what is.
oh - so we have an opinion of some folks of a ‘what if’ - yeah - that makes all the difference in the world.
I submit that had Obama or Clinton issued the same order(s) with the same backgruond on it as Trump (with declarations prior to election of what he intended to do) - that they would also shoot ths EO down. -just like they shot several other EOs by Obama down.
That’s because Clinton and Obama have not publicly expressed bigotry toward Muslims.
Ginsburg took no view on whether that happened or whether it’s legally relevant. So you’re essentially arguing that having a general negative disposition toward Trump is enough. I don’t think so. Justices having a general negative (or positive) disposition toward certain issues or litigants has not generally been seen as a sufficient reason to recuse, categorically.
It’s worth correcting the misapprehension elsewhere in this thread that the Supreme Court are subject to the Code of Judicial Conduct. They are not. That’s why, for example, Scalia was not compelled to recuse from cases in which Dick Cheney was a party despite their personal friendship and substantial gifts from the Cheneys to Scalia.
They are, by the clear reading of the Code of Judicial Conduct, since it spells out to whom it applies. There are no exclusions in it for the Supreme Court justices. They definitely can safely ignore it. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply to them.
nm
Two things: first, the canons of judicial ethics override the First Amendment as far as questions of recusal go.
Second, any bias implicit in Ginsburg’s words is about Trump, not about the Trump Administration. If Trump appears before her as a party, then she should recuse herself. However, given that the Trump University case settled and there is no other litigation personally involving Trump which seems likely to come before SCOTUS (not that the Trump University case was likely to), that’s irrelevant. In the cases that will come before the Court - including the “Muslim ban” - Trump is not a party. It’s simply not practicable to require Ginsburg to recuse herself from every case in which the federal government is a party because of any perceived or actual animus toward Trump personally.
Okay, it’s really three things, because I didn’t see the following post until after I started writing this one:
She didn’t, because she’s not bound by it. The Code of Conduct for United States Judges only applies to lower federal judges (as explained by Chief Justice Roberts here). Supreme Court justices are only bound by the Constitution and their personal ethical obligations. So Ginsburg only has to recuse herself if she feels like it.
ETA: I see this has already been addressed. But to rebut your claim about exceptions, the relevant language is:
Note who’s missing.
Page 14.
No, that’s factually incorrect.
The code expressly applies to “United States circuit judges, district judges, Court of International Trade judges, Court of Federal Claims judges, bankruptcy judges, and magistrate judges.”
As Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “That reflects a fundamental difference between the Supreme Court and the other federal courts. Article III of the Constitution creates only one court, the Supreme Court of the United States, but it empowers Congress to establish additional lower federal courts that the Framers knew the country would need. Congress instituted the Judicial Conference for the benefit of the courts it had created. Because the Judicial Conference is an instrument for the management of the lower federal courts, its committees have no mandate to prescribe rules or standards for any other body.”
“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.
He also wrote: "Some observers have suggested that, because the Judicial Conference’s Code of Conduct applies only to the lower federal courts, the Supreme Court is exempt from the ethical principles that lower courts observe. That observation rests on misconceptions about both the Supreme Court and the Code. "
I guess you won’t acknowledge your error. But perhaps you’ll at least acknowledge that no one on the Supreme Court agrees with your idiosyncratic reading of the Code?
Justice Roberts says that the Supreme Court is not exempt from the ethical principles that the lower courts have to observe.
Yes. Perhaps you want to continue reading Roberts, as he patiently explains why you’re wrong to think the Code applies?
Here’s what he says:
In lower courts, it is appropriate to withdraw because of an appearance of impropriety. On the Supreme Court, the reasons for recusal are narrower.