Mine too. A long time ago…
I admire your sense of humor. 
Good for her. That’s the best way to get this behind us so we can more easily move on to the next scandal.
She won’t need to recuse herself from anything. She will have to resign - you can’t sit on the Supreme Court from New Zealand.
We can add a question to be asked of any future nominees -
Senator on the Judiciary Committee: “Do you intend to abide by the judicial code of conduct? What do you think should be done if you or a colleague on the court violates that code?”
Supreme Court nominee: “It depends - which party are we talking about?”
Regards,
Shodan
Thanks for that link Happy Lendervedder. That answers my question. Than you all.
“What should be done?” is kind of a silly question. And I’m sure 23 years ago when she was appointed she had no intention of someday slamming a Presidential candidate.
I’m not seeing that an off-hand comment in a private setting, like a party, is comparable to discussing presidential preferences for publication in international media. YMMV.
The Supreme Court makes their own rules. They are a co-equal branch of government.
The Justices already routinely recuse themselves in such cases. Although the SCOTUS doesn’t publically announce the reason for recusals, court watchers such as scotusblog have educated guesses when they do.
So if Justice X has a financial interest in Corporation Y, and Corporation Y has a case before the Court, Justice X will recuse him or herself.
“Justice X took no part in the consideration or decision of this case” is what they put in the ruling.
Likewise, Justice Kagan recuses herself from cases she previously worked on as Solicitor General.
None of this should be new information.
All things considered, President Camacho was a pretty good president, don’t you think? I mean he realized that there were problems, and tried to find the smartest guy around to fix them. He didn’t make it worse at least!
I’d vote for him over Trump easily.
It seems Trump is listening to professional advice now sometimes and might actually drop it, though surely his natural inclination would be not to.
As to the apology, goes to show how you get the limb sawed off underneath you if you go all ballistic about this controversy as 'just the ‘hypocrisy of the right’, and ‘another fake scandal’… then the person ‘on your team’ has the good sense to apologize for what was obviously an inappropriate set of comments, especially to be repeated and amplified in more than one major media interview.
Everyone already knew from previous in and outside the court comments how hard left Ginsburg is, just like they knew from similar comments by her intellectual nemesis, but apparently good friend, Scalia how far he was in the other direction. But he never made comments like she just did. She never did before herself either.
Is it your assertion that none of the Justices who heard Bush v. Gore had any opinion about who they would rather have as president? Did none of them vote in that election?
I agree that what she did was bad form, but I don’t think the fact that she had a preference for president makes her any different than any of her colleagues. Its just that they didn’t express them out loud.
Donald Trump is involved in an issue appearing before the Supreme Court?
[Yoda]
He will be. He will be.
[/Yoda]
I’m not appalled by it at all. This whole “independent and impartial” judiciary thing has been a polite fiction for many years.
I’ve said it in other threads, but if the justices are going to rule like partisan legislators, then they should air their opinions in the media and be voted upon by the public.
It’s good that she apologized.
For me, the issue all along was not whether what she did was inappropriate (it was), but whether Trump or any of his supporters were in any position to criticize it.
Trump said of Ginsburg: “has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements”
Ha!
He could be talking about himself (“Mexico sends all their rapists and criminals to the US”)
It’s like someone who masturbates in public and being proud of doing that, and proud of not conforming to puritanical rules, and all his supporters are also proud of the fact that their candidate does not bow to the pressure of puritanical rules, and then someone else starts masturbating in public, and the original person starts complaining about all the masturbation in public.
Yes, the rest of the people can complain about the second person’s public masturbation, but the original person and his fans have no say in the matter.
What she did was probably not advisable, but it wasn’t unethical as you assert. It is unlikely that she will be deciding the outcome of a case over hanging chads – it could happen but it’s unlikely. And even if that happens, as others have already pointed out, you have Sandra Day O’Connor who was attending an election party and remarked about how bad it would be that Gore appeared to have won the election. And to top it off you have O’Connor and the outspoken and one of the most activist judges in Scalia asserting Court power, basically throwing a freaking presidential election to Bush. Nothing Ginsburg says will EVER outdo that. It’s a manufactured outrage, and I’m tired of having republicans blatantly violate decorum, ethics, and laws and then turn around and prosecuting progressives for the very same things that they do – often to a lesser degree. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has every right to be partisan if she wants to be. Again, whether it’s wise in terms of our political interests and hers is another matter.
Precisely.
The Supreme Court doesn’t have a judicial code of conduct.
You’re really reaching if you’re calling this misconduct or unethical. Fraternizing, going on a hunting trip with the Vice President and the subject of a case being decided by a Court, is actual conduct. Not just inflammatory speech, but conduct.
RBG has expressed “regret” over her comments for the reasons that I thought she ultimately would: she realized that they were unwise and brought undue public scrutiny and pressure upon the Court, which affects all justices on the bench, not just her. But the actions of people like Scalia and Clarence Thomas (and his wife) have had similar effects, and were demonstrably worse than someone spouting off about current events and a public figure. She also probably got a phone call from Clinton and other friends from the DNC reminding her that it’s probably best not to make trump look like a victim when he is so easily cast in the role of a villain.
That never happened.
Little more detail, please. That was how I remembered the controversy. Can you explain why the description is wrong?
In my opinion, Ginsburg should have “non-apologized” for her statements. “I should not have called Trump a faker. It was wrong for me to say he is inept and incompetent. A Supreme Court Justice should avoid calling idiots out and should not expose fools for their folly. It was wrong of me to let people know how stupid he was.” etc.