Justice Ginsburg: Trump would ruin the Supreme Court

[SteveRogers]

That is your loss. Did you also only read the article headline, too? Thomas's tone was rather different than what the click-baity title would have you assume.

You are one of the good guys, here. But despite Trump, we should, and indeed must, remain a society based on rules and norms. We shouldn't throw them out the window. That is exactly want Trump wants.

It's funny though how people only seem to create new "rules" for Supreme Court justices that they disagree with. Did you react with the same concern when all of the conservative justices started boycotting Obama's State of the Union addresses?

[Simfan34]

That is your loss. Did you also only read the article headline, too? Thomas's tone was rather different than what the click-baity title would have you assume.

You are one of the good guys, here. But despite Trump, we should, and indeed must, remain a society based on rules and norms. We shouldn't throw them out the window. That is exactly want Trump wants.

It's funny though how people only seem to create new "rules" for Supreme Court justices that they disagree with. Did you react with the same concern when all of the conservative justices started boycotting Obama's State of the Union addresses?

I could be more abrasive but I'll leave it at this:

She's not wrong, but it was an unhelpful remark. [...] Mind you, the same can be said of Alito's "boycott" of Obama's SOTUs. That too is ill-advised.

[SteveRogers]

That is your loss. Did you also only read the article headline, too? Thomas's tone was rather different than what the click-baity title would have you assume.

You are one of the good guys, here. But despite Trump, we should, and indeed must, remain a society based on rules and norms. We shouldn't throw them out the window. That is exactly want Trump wants.

It's funny though how people only seem to create new "rules" for Supreme Court justices that they disagree with. Did you react with the same concern when all of the conservative justices started boycotting Obama's State of the Union addresses?

I could be more abrasive but I'll leave it at this:

She's not wrong, but it was an unhelpful remark. [...] Mind you, the same can be said of Alito's "boycott" of Obama's SOTUs. That too is ill-advised.

Touche. I missed that bit.

[SillyAmerican]

What RBG said, however, clearly went far beyond any such boundaries. She categorically stated her opposition to a presidential candidate.

It's also dangerous to think that the Trump campaign, as an "extraordinary phenomenon", justifies any kind of "extraordinary measures" or behaviour that would normally be seen as inappropriate. Such actions erode the body politic, potentially undermine the rule of law, and ultimately ensures that Trump's campaign will have a lasting impact on American society and political culture. They would prove counter-productive in the long run. The best way to counter Trump is by holding fast to norms and standards, rather than implicitly endorsing his disregard for them, by transgressing their boundaries yourself.

Yes.

I agree with Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School, who made the following comments while on the July 12th edition of the Kelly File when asked about Ginsburg's comments to the press:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

That is your loss. Did you also only read the article headline, too? Thomas's tone was rather different than what the click-baity title would have you assume.

You are one of the good guys, here. But despite Trump, we should, and indeed must, remain a society based on rules and norms. We shouldn't throw them out the window. That is exactly want Trump wants.

What rule or norm says that it's wrong to correctly label a hateful and ignorant con-man?

[Lincoln Republican]

Time for Ruth to pack it in.

Falling asleep during court sessions, now a Supreme Court Judge who has extremely inappropriately and very stupidly thrown herself into the Presidential campaign, playing right into Trump's hands.

She's completely lost it.

Resign, resign, resign before you embarrass yourself further.

And by the way, with Judges like Ginsburg, the Supreme Court has already been ruined.

[SillyAmerican]

That is your loss. Did you also only read the article headline, too? Thomas's tone was rather different than what the click-baity title would have you assume.

You are one of the good guys, here. But despite Trump, we should, and indeed must, remain a society based on rules and norms. We shouldn't throw them out the window. That is exactly want Trump wants.

What rule or norm says that it's wrong to correctly label a hateful and ignorant con-man?

Per my post, the rule/norm you're looking for is that specified in Canon 5 of the Judicial Code.

[SteveRogers]

That is your loss. Did you also only read the article headline, too? Thomas's tone was rather different than what the click-baity title would have you assume.

You are one of the good guys, here. But despite Trump, we should, and indeed must, remain a society based on rules and norms. We shouldn't throw them out the window. That is exactly want Trump wants.

What rule or norm says that it's wrong to correctly label a hateful and ignorant con-man?

Per my post, the rule/norm you're looking for is that specified in Canon 5 of the Judicial Code.

Those actually don't apply to Supreme Court Justices

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

[Californiadreaming]

While I agree with her sentiments, it's inappropriate for a Justice to comment on electoral politics.

Eeh, she's retiring next year anyway.  The Notorious RBG can throw all the shade she wants.

The problem now is that if we get Trump v. Clinton this December, she will probably be impeached if she doesn't recuse, and if she recuses, it's probably an automatic 4/3 ruling for Trump. 

Yes, but if we get Trump v. Clinton this December, then Clinton certainly must have done something wrong before the election.

[President Johnson]

Such an attack on a presidential candidate you have differences with is disgusting for a sitting Supreme Court justice. She should immediately resign.

[Ljube]

Time for Ruth to pack it in.

Falling asleep during court sessions, now a Supreme Court Judge who has extremely inappropriately and very stupidly thrown herself into the Presidential campaign, playing right into Trump's hands.

She's completely lost it.

Resign, resign, resign before you embarrass yourself further.

And by the way, with Judges like Ginsburg, the Supreme Court has already been ruined.

Are you still against Trump, or have you reconsidered, given what Hillary would do to the Supreme Court?

[Lincoln Republican]

Time for Ruth to pack it in.

Falling asleep during court sessions, now a Supreme Court Judge who has extremely inappropriately and very stupidly thrown herself into the Presidential campaign, playing right into Trump's hands.

She's completely lost it.

Resign, resign, resign before you embarrass yourself further.

And by the way, with Judges like Ginsburg, the Supreme Court has already been ruined.

Are you still against Trump, or have you reconsidered, given what Hillary would do to the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court issue is of paramount importance.  The next President could shape the face of the Supreme Court for possibly the next 30 years.

As you are no doubt aware, Trump has submitted a list of potential Supreme Court nominees, a list acceptable to those who want to have justices who respect the constitution, not who legislate from the bench.

The problem I have with this is that I am doubtful that Trump can be trusted to actually go through with his promise to appoint these types of judges to the bench.

To me, as I have believed for some time now, the Supreme Court issue is about the only issue where Trump is more acceptable than Clinton, but as stated above, I do not know whether Trump can be trusted to fulfill this promise.   

[Ljube]

Time for Ruth to pack it in.

Falling asleep during court sessions, now a Supreme Court Judge who has extremely inappropriately and very stupidly thrown herself into the Presidential campaign, playing right into Trump's hands.

She's completely lost it.

Resign, resign, resign before you embarrass yourself further.

And by the way, with Judges like Ginsburg, the Supreme Court has already been ruined.

Are you still against Trump, or have you reconsidered, given what Hillary would do to the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court issue is of paramount importance.  The next President could shape the face of the Supreme Court for possibly the next 30 years.

As you are no doubt aware, Trump has submitted a list of potential Supreme Court nominees, a list acceptable to those who want to have justices who respect the constitution, not who legislate from the bench.

The problem I have with this is that I am doubtful that Trump can be trusted to actually go through with his promise to appoint these types of judges to the bench.

To me, as I have believed for some time now, the Supreme Court issue is about the only issue where Trump is more acceptable than Clinton, but as stated above, I do not know whether Trump can be trusted to fulfill this promise.   

But what you must know is that Hillary will fulfill her promise.

[IceSpear]

LOL at people trying to act like Ginsberg's comments were any worse than the hackery of Scalia/Thomas/Alito.

[Ljube]

LOL at people trying to act like Ginsberg's comments were any worse than the hackery of Scalia/Thomas/Alito.

If the emails had such strong results (though I hoped for stronger ), I wonder what the results of Ginsburg will be.

[ProudModerate2]

GOP leaders are not with trump on demanding that Ginsburg resign.
trump is so full of bulls**t, that once again, people within "his" party rebuke his childish and clownish rhetoric.
LOL.

Story link: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-reaction/index.html

[Ljube]

GOP leaders are not with trump on demanding that Ginsburg resign.
trump is so full of bulls**t, that once again, people within "his" party rebuke his childish and clownish rhetoric.
LOL.

Story link: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-reaction/index.html

They are spineless.
Demanding her resignation is the right thing to do.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

I don't mind Justice's saying who they plan to vote for.

[ProudModerate2]

GOP leaders are not with trump on demanding that Ginsburg resign.
trump is so full of bulls**t, that once again, people within "his" party rebuke his childish and clownish rhetoric.
LOL.

Story link: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-reaction/index.html

They are spineless.
Demanding her resignation is the right thing to do.

After Little-Hands-Drumpf-Fuhrer loses in November, you (Ljube) and trump both should consider joining the circus as clowns. I hear the little car stuffed with many red-nosed-jesters has at least room for two more.
;-)

[SillyAmerican]

I don't mind Justice's saying who they plan to vote for.

Yeah, but this wasn't Justice Ginsburg making comments at a dinner party, this is her making political statements to a member of the press. This is inappropriate: a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court should know better than to drag the High Court to this level.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

LOL at people trying to act like Ginsberg's comments were any worse than the hackery of Scalia/Thomas/Alito.

I would feel the same if Alito came out and said Clinton would ruin the SC. But I don't think he's done that.

[Virginiá]

While I understand the issue here and agree Ginsburg shouldn't have commented, it is fascinating how the only difference here is that she actually mentioned what she thinks, whereas other justices have mostly just kept quiet about it while still holding their own strong opinions. Literally the difference between right and wrong here is not saying anything vs saying something. It's not like all the justices don't have an opinion on the candidates and the election in general. We're all sort of supposed to just pretend that they don't.

Anyway, maybe worth mentioning:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/ruth-bader-ginsburg-donald-trump-supreme-court-politics-history-214044

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[SteveRogers]

LOL at people trying to act like Ginsberg's comments were any worse than the hackery of Scalia/Thomas/Alito.

I would feel the same if Alito came out and said Clinton would ruin the SC. But I don't think he's done that.

He's organized a boycott of Obama's state of the union for years, and yet no one would ever call on him to resign or suggest that he must recuse himself from cases involving the Obama administration because that would be silly.

[IceSpear]

LOL at people trying to act like Ginsberg's comments were any worse than the hackery of Scalia/Thomas/Alito.

I would feel the same if Alito came out and said Clinton would ruin the SC. But I don't think he's done that.

He's organized a boycott of Obama's state of the union for years, and yet no one would ever call on him to resign or suggest that he must recuse himself from cases involving the Obama administration because that would be silly.

And Scalia went hunting with Dick Cheney, while Thomas basically said Obama was an affirmative action president.

[SillyAmerican]

While I understand the issue here and agree Ginsburg shouldn't have commented, it is fascinating how the only difference here is that she actually mentioned what she thinks, whereas other justices have mostly just kept quiet about it while still holding their own strong opinions. Literally the difference between right and wrong here is not saying anything vs saying something. It's not like all the justices don't have an opinion on the candidates and the election in general. We're all sort of supposed to just pretend that they don't.

Well, yes, that's precisely where she stepped over the line. The fact that the justices have opinions about political issues or presidential candidates is not the problem. The problem shows up when they decide to broadcast those views via the mainstream media. That was a very dumb move on her part, and those sitting on the Court should know better. And I'm fairly sure that many from both sides of the aisle recognize this as being a problem...