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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
I would think it’s more expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
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.
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?
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)?
Rogue.
Congress could impeach and remove the justice from the Supreme Court. Not that it will ever happen (or should happen in this case).
So any of the judges that like Trump should also recuse themselves?
Those that publicly endorsed his candidacy for President, definitely.
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?
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?
This is such a stupid argument…
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?
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?
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?
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.
What “punishment” do you think I am advocating for Ginsburg?