Question answered!
Tom Brady’s last shot: Taking Deflategate to the Supreme Court
She certainly isn’t obligated, but such a blatantly partisan decision on her part would be used against any future liberal justice nominated. “Liberal justices don’t care about the law, they only care about outcomes!” would have much more resonance with the public if she was the deciding vote in Clinton v. Trump. It would pretty much give Republicans carte blanche to block all liberal justices and the voters would be cool with that.
So, before this they simply weren’t acting on nominations, but now they’ll block them? Wow.
So what you’re saying is - Democrats currently have carte blance to block all conservative justices and the voters are cool with it?
I think Ginsburg is a smart cookie and I’m disappointed about this. I think calls for her to retire over it are a complete overreaction and largely partisan. I also think that justices shouldn’t go there.
He did not. Worcester v Georgia was about the constitutionality of a Georgia law that said non-Cherokee couldn’t go on Cherokee land without a permit from the state. Samuel Worcester, a missionary, was arrested for doing so. The court ruled that Georgia didn’t have the power to legislate in Cherokee territory.
Agreed with all of this. I like RBG a great deal, and while I do actually agree with what she said about Trump, I would rather that she (or any SC Justice) not go there publicly.
Conservative justices haven’t publicly announced opposition to any candidates and then decided cases where those candidates were involved.
Agreed. But the question is still open as to which cases, in a Trump administration, she should reuse herself from. Let’s keep in mind that she didn’t just say: Oh, I think Hillary would make a better president. She said she’d flee the country if Trump were elected.
Did you manage to understand the larger point, i.e., the Justices of the Supreme Court should hold themselves to at least the same, if not higher standards than the rest of the judiciary?
Yes, they should. And if they do not, the correct response is “Tsk! Tsk!”. Leaping upon it like a starving dog on a Bolton is, well, unseemly.
Manufactured baggage is 100% correct. But it’s her and hubby Bubby who have manufactured it over decades of corruption and believing they are above the law, unlike all of us peons. Amazingly like the fictional Underwood couple, who were clearly modeled after the Clintons. Go ahead and rationalize/justify your vote for the lying liar who lies about everything, both important and inconsequential.
Ahem.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Jokes That She’ll Move to New Zealand If Trump Is Elected
If she were to flee, what’s to stop Il Douche from nominating Chris Christie?
In what part of a Supreme Court ruling were here remarks about Trump found?
I hear she doesn’t like buttered toast as well. Lord help anyone from the Buttered Toast lobby who happens to happens to end up before the Supreme Court, eh?
*Welcome to Ginsburg’s Supreme Court of the United States. All you sons of bitches who voted for Trump know you’re guilty of whatever the other side says you’re guilty of. We’ve only agreed to hear this case because we’re bored. Our opinion has already been written and is only waiting for your summation before we publish it. Thanks for playing.
- R.B. Ginsburg*
[/QUOTE]
That’s a real terrible thing she’s said there. In some notional future that hasn’t happened yet. And except for the fact that it’s something you just made up. But other than that, that’s a real terrible thing she said there.
Still Berning over his loss, huh? Get over it. Or don’t, I really don’t care.
Why?
I never saw Scalia recuse himself from decisions regarding abortion or capital punishment after he had already made clear declarations of his feelings on those topics. And I never saw anyone call on him to recuse himself, despite having given a priori declarations of his beliefs, even though no arguments had yet been presented when he made his statements.
Didn’t he recuse himself on the Pledge of Allegiance case, after commenting on it?
Stating that she doesn’t want Trump to win is not taking a position on the outcome of a particular case. Recusal is unwarranted unless the fact she is asked to decide is whether Trump would be a wise President.
So, are you are voting for Johnson or Stein, (since your caustic comment means that you could not possibly be voting for the Mendax Turpis leading the GOP)?
Samuel Alito called Barack Obama a liar during one of the State of the Unions. Of course, Obama wasn’t a candidate at that point. Has Alito recused himself from any of the lawsuits involving Obama?
But your remark, to which I was responding was - "“Liberal justices don’t care about the law, they only care about outcomes!” would have much more resonance with the public if she was the deciding vote in Clinton v. Trump. It would pretty much give Republicans carte blanche to block all liberal justices and the voters would be cool with that. "
My point is that a bunch of known conservatives were the deciding vote in Bush v. Gore and the Democrats didn’t take it as carte blanche to block all conservative justices (just the opposite, in fact).
The Supreme Court has been political for decades. The conservatives on the court haven’t been shy about voicing their opinions of liberal policies and liberal politicians. Getting the vapours because someone on the court dares to say the truth about Donald Trump … is pretty standard Republican behavior, I guess. Carry on!