On a message board that is 70% liberal or so, the fact that 70% of people in this thread voted “Yes, Ginsburg’s words indicated opposition to Trump” is good enough. Can’t put expectations too high.
Your fellow SDMBers. Of liberal persuasion.
30% saying that white is black is way too high.
If you had been here longer you’d understand why I find that so amusing.
It depends on what your question is.
In your title, you asked if it seemed she was opposed to Trump. I would agree with that, for the most part, if you want to consider opposition to trump being that she would rather see someone else be elected. As every justice probably has some sort of opinion on the matter, in order to satisfy your idea of recusal, you would actually need to poll them on what candidates they are for or against, and make them recuse themselves whenever the one that they polled against is up. So, absent doing that, then them simply voicing their opinion, even if a bit unwise is certainly not anything to cause them to no longer be able to adjudicate fairly.
But, in your poll, you asked if she were opposed to trump’s candidacy, in and of that she disapproved that he was allowed and eligible to run for president, and I don’t see that at all. That would be my position, and I should probably recuse myself if I find myself adjudicating any disputes involving him.
Two completely different questions.
So, in this thread or the other, you said that if a justice took a secret oath, that they would not need to recuse themselves, unless the oath got leaked and became public, in which case they should. So, I ask the opposite…
You have indicated that if a justice keeps their opinion to himself, then they don’t need to recuse himself, so, if a justice expresses their dislike for a candidate in private, but that private conversation gets leaked, should they need (by your, not the legal standards) to recuse themselves?
Huh?
No. “Opposed to Trump’s candidacy” means the opposite of “endorsed Trump’s candidacy”. How do you think I should have phrased it so it would be the opposite of “endorsed Trump’s candidacy”?
That’s only correct in terms of opposing or endorsing a candidate - that, by definition, has to be public (you can’t privately endorse).
If the judge viscerally dislikes one of the parties, even if it is privately, and he doesn’t tell anyone about it, he is still obliged to recuse himself from the case. Problem in that is, if the judge is not ethical enough to do that, you have no way of knowing it.
I’m betting it is:
**Can we please create a new forum to consolidate all the threads on Trump and Ginsburg? And can we please embed pictures in those posts? **
All hail Okrahoma’s truth! Anyone who denies His truth is a heretic!
Thank God someone had the guts to call that hippie out. For far too long he’s been sticking his uninformed Liberal views into gun threads and the like.
Again, I didn’t mean you’re liberal. But if you prefer to take it that way, go ahead.