As a Congressman, Paul Ryan isn’t actually blocking the nomination. That is happening in the Senate.
I actually don’t have a problem with Ginsburg or any other justice speaking out, but if it comes down to another BUsh vs. Gore, she’s going to have to recuse herself.
Why? It’s not like there will be a court case answering “who would be a better president?”, it would be a question of what laws and principles apply to allowing some recount or voting method. I assume the Justices all vote, so every one of them has a President preference.
Well, that settles it then!!
Oh, please. There are lots and lost of folks on the left who are not happy with this. Is it too much to ask whether something is right or wrong without getting into “but they do it, too!!”
So, now that you’ve vented, are you OK with SCOTUS justices endorsing presidential candidates?
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has recently gotten into a public spat with Donald Trump. Does anyone else think it’s really inappropriate?
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/12/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-has-crossed-way-way-over-the-line/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/12/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-has-crossed-way-way-over-the-
line/)
Apparently the NYT Editorial Board didn’t like it either. I wonder if Ginsburg reads the NYT.
The link you gave us to the editorial about the subject doesn’t seem to work, but here is a link to a news article in the same paper about the subject.
I’m not “happy” with it, either. Ideally, justices would always avoid making partisan comments. (Hah! Thank you very much, Mr. Scalia. Among others.)
I just don’t think it’s such a huge big deal, either. Calls for her to resign or be impeached or whatever are ludicrous. And I don’t agree that these comments mean she should recuse herself from another Bush v. Gore type case, should that happen.
Ridiculous. That’s not what’s happened here. She made an off-hand, dismissive remark in a interview. Big deal.
Nature of the offense. Is this a “caught embezzling millions from a non-profit”-level offense? Or a “caught jaywalking in Brooklyn”-level offense? I’m of the opinion it’s the latter.
Ongoing thread on this:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=798141
Answer: yes, it does trouble some people. Though most of the feeling is “Republicans are hypocrites!”
It would, if it were anybody other than Trump. He’s so beyond unqualified that we’re not under standard operating procedures.
It’s absolutely inappropriate. SC Justices are supposed to be above politics. Granted, one can get a pretty good idea of their personal political beliefs from observing their votes and opinions, but they should never comment on presidential (or congressional or local, for that matter) elections or candidates.
She has made exactly One publicly less than appropriate comment concerning Donald Trump.
Donald Trump has made HUNDREDS.
A member of the SCOTUS can arguably have (now) at best 1/24th of the power of the government of the US { (1/3) ÷ 8 }.
The President of the US can arguably have 1/3 of the power of the government of the US.
#Priorities
We’ve been discussing this very issue over here.
Honestly, it troubles me that more people aren’t speaking out about the sheer madness of the Trump campaign and the disgusting obnoxious nature of the man himself. It’s absolutely mind-blowing that anyone with an ounce of sanity or character is publicly (or even privately) supporting this buffoon.
One more reason for me to like the RBG, protocol be damned.
I’m pretty sure it’s been more than one inappropriate comment now, but which one, in particular, are you thinking of (so that I can go find the rest and ask you if you think they were appropriate)?
Ah, I see that more such comments appeared from Ms. Ginsburg. Yes, she should knock it off. Never cede the moral high ground to a vapid, unethical scumbag like Trump.
But I still don’t agree that this is such a big deal. Calls for her to knock it off, sure. Calls for her to resign or be impeached? That’s just a grotesque overreaction.
Then senile ol’ Ginsburg should move to South Africa and you can have her appointed your new equivalent of a Supreme Court Justice. That would render moot ol’ Ruthie’s failure at political impartiality in this country.
That’s true. However, as a former VP candidate and current Speaker of the House - I suspect he may have just a tiny smidge of influence in the overall Republican strategy on this. But I could be wrong . . . .
The bottom line is that Republicans are trying to have it both ways. On the one hand they are actively injecting politics into the Supreme Court by refusing to even hold hearings. On the other hand, they are decrying the existence of politics in the Supreme Court.
Not that it matters - but I too wish she hadn’t made the comments. At least I’m not simultaneously pushing the Supreme Court further into the political realm.
I’m going to combine the two threads. Wish me luck, I don’t do it often!
Hmmm. If a Supreme Court Justice can’t exercise her Constitutional right to free speech, who can?