Oh, I agree about the non-hypocritical person standard, but the law is actually worded differently. And Ginsburg, unlike Thomas, left zero doubt about her partiality.
She’ll probably just shrug and give up, everybody knows Jews hate to argue.
But to use ACA as an example, if Ginsburg had said, “I think health care is a right and that it’s more important than technical legal details like the commerce clause or the 10th amendment.” then that would be recusal-worthy. In the end, she did rule that government could force you to buy health insurance, and she did rule that states could be forced to expand Medicaid, but we don’t know if that’s due to bias or her actual legal reasoning. Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan were with the conservatives on the Medicaid issue.
The Code of Conduct isn’t law. It doesn’t apply to SCOTUS. And it doesn’t mean what you think it means.
The appearance that you do not like the political beliefs of the party before you is not a basis for recusal, nor is partiality as to the policy outcomes of your decision.
I’m no legal expert, but CNN’s legal experts seem pretty unanimous that she must recuse.
I realize she doesn’t HAVE to under the law, but she should.
Stephen Gillers was my ethics professor. He would never have offered such a categorical opinion in a classroom instead of on cable TV.
The whole ballgame with recusal under 28 USC 455 is whether the appearance of partiality is reasonable. Generally, comments about policy preferences do not qualify.
The better argument would be that this showed personal animus toward Trump. But even then, it’s a high bar. See, e.g., Cheney v United States Dist. Court, 541 U.S. 913 (2004) (holding that recusal was not required when U.S. Supreme Court Justice attended duck-hunting trip with Vice President of United States, who was defendant in official-capacity suit); People Helpers Found. v. City of Richmond, 12 F.3d 132 (4th Cir. 1993) (finding that while judge’s statements showed disapproval of City’s actions, they were not indicative of personal bias).
You can disagree with what Obama said, but to call it a lie is absurd. Obama was stating an opinion.
Just mark her down along with all of those celebrities that threaten to leave the US if a Republican becomes President then pussies out when it happens.
Then it’s a good thing that all Alito said was “not true”, which is still not a political statement. It’s just a disagreement between two law experts over constitutional law.
Way I see it, it was billed as Obama talking. That’s what it was about, people coming to hear Obama talk to them. Didn’t see anything that said “President Obama and Justice Alito talking”. Kinda like that guy in the theater yells “Don’t open that door, fool!”. He’s not really part of the movie.
I find it hilarious that Trump is complaining and clutching his pearls because Ginsburg made an inappropriate comment.
He is the fucking king of inappropriate comments. He and his fans revel in the fact that he “speaks what’s on his mind, political correctness be damned”.
Trump and his fans have to shut the hell up about other people’s “inappropriate comments”
Rational people, can of course point out that what Ginsburg did was inappropriate. And I think it was. But Trump and his cronies have no leg to stand on if they think they can complain about this.
Make them. Start with Roberts and work your way down.
It’s hilarious that the right loves Trump for ‘talking straight’, ‘telling it like it is’, ‘not afraid to speak his mind’, etc, etc. But turn into swooning pearl clutchers when anyone else does it.
No one minded when Scalia was outspoken on his opinions.
The hypocracy of the right has reached such heights now, it’s like their ‘crying wolf’ problem, with each new manufactured ‘scandal’. They think everyone is listening, but it’s really just those who’ve already drunk the Koolaid. Everyone else has long since just tuned it out, because it is just more blatant hypocracy and the unending outrage they seem to thrive upon.
(Ninja’d!)
I would argue that it’s inadvisable for her to continue thrusting herself into the media spotlight – she’s guilty of poor judgment in that respect.
But the outrage over her comments is an over the top manufactured controversy. Ginsburg would do well to realize that she’s being played by the media for soundbytes and lower her profile some – I won’t disagree with that. But this notion that the Supreme Court is this sacred apolitical tribunal is just nonsense. Justices have political leanings that are often just barely veiled, and sometimes not at all. Justice Scalia compared gays to child molesters and was just not at all shy about voicing his disapproval for Obama’s policies on the bench. He also went on freaking hunting trips with Dick Cheney fer cryin out loud – but we’re supposed to believe that comments about a presidential candidate have the potential to weaken the court’s legitimacy more than fraternization? As Justice Scalia might say, “Gimme a break.”
No one is talking about “making them” do anything. No one is suggesting a new law be passed, or even that the Judicial Code of Conduct be extended to the Supreme Court Justices.
They should do it on their own, out of a sense of decorum. And common sense.
Justice Ginsburg is inching towards Helen Thomas territory, in the sense that she’s got the attitude of “I’m old, I’ve been around forever, I can say whatever I want.”
I am. I’m saying if you’re so concerned about their conduct, put rules in place to enforce it.
I’m also saying, start with the real poisonous stuff (e.g. obvious financial interests in cases before the SC) and leave the tone policing for later.
Decorum has jack to do with whether they’re good justices or not. Which is what I’d call common sense.
Supreme Court justices going political is nothing new. I mean, for pete’s sake, Sandra Day O’Connor was at an election party where she announced that Al Gore’s victory was terrible. Then she cast a vote to make sure his election was overturned.
RBG expressing disgust in Donald Trump is nothing out of line, and frankly, like I said before, more people should be doing it. Everyone’s worried about Trump being a slippery slope to Hitler? Ridiculous. I’m more worried about this being the slippery slope toward President Camacho. Just as terrifying, much more likely.
Not quite. What RGB did was ethically wrong*, something someone in her position should not have done. Granted, she’s not technically obliged to follow the ethics code we’ve been discussing for all other judges, but she should be leading by example.
Trump has certainly said a bunch of horrible things, but can you point to some code of ethics related to a candidate for the executive branch that he violated? His is a violate of decorum and “dignity of an aspired officeholder”, which just isn’t the same thing.
Or, at least, the argument is that what she did was ethically wrong.
RBG seems to have finally realized that she screwed up when she began playing politics.
*Justice Ginsburg Says She Regrets Making Comments About Trump
by Greg Stohr
July 14, 2016 — 9:13 AM CDT
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she regretted her recent criticisms of Donald Trump, calling them “ill-advised” and vowing to be “more circumspect” in the future.
In a statement issued by the court Thursday, she said that judges “should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office.”*
She apologized. I’m sure Trump will accept her apology and state the matter is now closed as far as he is concerned.