Justice Ginsburg: Trump would ruin the Supreme Court

[Ljube]

Trump will appoint someone just as bad as Ginsburg, don't be fooled, conservatives.

What we are sure of is that Clinton will appoint the worst possible people.

I didn't know Merrick Garland and Sri Srinivasan were "the worst possible people."

I think they are.

[Badger]

Not appropriate, Justice G. Not appropriate.

[Panda Express]

Clarence Thomas: "Obama Only President Because He’s What ‘Elites’ Expect ‘From A Black Person"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/03/clarence-thomas-obama_n_3210224.html

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I do not anticipate the election being settled by the court. You'd need to have it all come down to just one deciding state, which deciding margin being as narrow as Florida in 2000. The election may be close, but not that close.

[Redban]

Impartiality is important in the Supreme Court; it's the reason the founding fathers authorized lifetime appointments for justices appointed to the Supreme Court.

When a justice gives these sort of remarks, people can reasonably start doubting the legitimacy of that justice, wondering if he or she is giving rulings based on partisanship instead of logic. For the Supreme Court --- a court that gives decisions that are binding in all 50 states + D.C. --- that sort of doubt is unacceptable.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

under normal circumstances, i'd agree this remark would be out of line, but these aren't normal circumstances. the stubby-fingered rapist is a direct threat to the very foundations of civilisation, and in such a case, the normal rules go out the window.

[Joe Republic]

Impartiality is important in the Supreme Court; it's the reason the founding fathers authorized lifetime appointments for justices appointed to the Supreme Court.

When a justice gives these sort of remarks, people can reasonably start doubting the legitimacy of that justice, wondering if he or she is giving rulings based on partisanship instead of logic. For the Supreme Court --- a court that gives decisions that are binding in all 50 states + D.C. --- that sort of doubt is unacceptable.

[SteveRogers]

Impartiality is important in the Supreme Court; it's the reason the founding fathers authorized lifetime appointments for justices appointed to the Supreme Court.

When a justice gives these sort of remarks, people can reasonably start doubting the legitimacy of that justice, wondering if he or she is giving rulings based on partisanship instead of logic. For the Supreme Court --- a court that gives decisions that are binding in all 50 states + D.C. --- that sort of doubt is unacceptable.

Impartiality doesn't mean being a sociopath. Trump's run should not be treated by anyone as an ordinary political campaign.

[SWE]

Please move to New Zealand, so we can celebrate the overturning of Roe next June!!

I believe SCOTUS technically has no requirement of US residency (beyond the time needed to hear the cases of course) as long as you are a citizen?

There isn't even a citizenship requirement.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

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

Meh. I'd normally agree, but the idea that Donald Trump would make a terrible president shouldn't be a political issue. We had bipartisan consensus on this issue just a matter of months ago.

Yeah.  In other news Surpreme Court Justice says, "sky is blue."  Complete nonissue.  What she said is common sense and obvious to all thinking people of the world.  And she will suffer exactly zero repercussions for saying it.  Every single living occupant of the White House thinks Trump is terrible.  Why shouldn't Supreme Court Justices?

[Simfan34]

She's not wrong, but it was an unhelpful remark. We know Supreme Court justices lean politically to one side or the other, but we still expect them, in principle, to be non-partisan and impartial. If the latter pretense is dropped, then there's nothing stopping people from expecting who lean towards one side to quit when their side "loses", or calling for justices to be impeached (which has happened just once, early in US history, and never since). By opposing Trump, RBG runs the risk of putting herself under a "popular mandate" that she could "lose" if Trump were to win.

In the worst case scenario, people may start calling for justices to be elected, which would be truly awful, given the absurdity of the practice of electing judges in the first place. SC justices are not subject to popular mandate, nor should they be. They would then be advised to refrain from doing anything to give  impressions to the contrary. Mind you, the same can be said of Alito's "boycott" of Obama's SOTUs. That too is ill-advised.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

She's not wrong, but it was an unhelpful remark. We know Supreme Court justices lean politically to one side or the other, but we still expect them, in principle, to be non-partisan and impartial.

Her agreeing with all the living Republican presidents is not partisan.  So if she and the Bush clan and Romney, and the Clintons, and Obama, and Jimmy Carter all agree the sky is blue that is "partisan"?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Impartiality is important in the Supreme Court; it's the reason the founding fathers authorized lifetime appointments for justices appointed to the Supreme Court.

When a justice gives these sort of remarks, people can reasonably start doubting the legitimacy of that justice, wondering if he or she is giving rulings based on partisanship instead of logic. For the Supreme Court --- a court that gives decisions that are binding in all 50 states + D.C. --- that sort of doubt is unacceptable.

Impartiality doesn't mean being a sociopath. Trump's run should not be treated by anyone as an ordinary political campaign.

It's refreshing ,  if unwelcome to Trump cultists, to have someone willing to point out that the wanna-be emperor has no clothes.

[Simfan34]

She's not wrong, but it was an unhelpful remark. We know Supreme Court justices lean politically to one side or the other, but we still expect them, in principle, to be non-partisan and impartial.

Her agreeing with all the living Republican presidents is not partisan.  So if she and the Bush clan and Romney, and the Clintons, and Obama, and Jimmy Carter all agree the sky is blue that is "partisan"?

She is saying one party's candidate would be bad for the country. That is by nature a partisan statement. I think opining on the constitutionality of a candidate's proposals would be acceptable, but making categorical value-judgements is unhelpful. Staying non-partisan is by nature a burden, and this can extend to not being to say the obvious-- it comes at a cost, and if we don't want an overtly partisan Court then it's one justices will have to bear.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

She's not wrong, but it was an unhelpful remark. We know Supreme Court justices lean politically to one side or the other, but we still expect them, in principle, to be non-partisan and impartial.

Her agreeing with all the living Republican presidents is not partisan.  So if she and the Bush clan and Romney, and the Clintons, and Obama, and Jimmy Carter all agree the sky is blue that is "partisan"?

She is saying one party's candidate would be bad for the country. That is by nature a partisan statement.

Donald Trump is overweight.  Is that a partisan comment?

[ProudModerate2]

She's not wrong, but it was an unhelpful remark. We know Supreme Court justices lean politically to one side or the other, but we still expect them, in principle, to be non-partisan and impartial.

Her agreeing with all the living Republican presidents is not partisan.  So if she and the Bush clan and Romney, and the Clintons, and Obama, and Jimmy Carter all agree the sky is blue that is "partisan"?

She is saying one party's candidate would be bad for the country. That is by nature a partisan statement. I think opining on the constitutionality of a candidate's proposals would be acceptable, but making categorical value-judgements is unhelpful. Staying non-partisan is by nature a burden, and this can extend to not being to say the obvious-- it comes at a cost, and if we don't want an overtly partisan Court then it's one justices will have to bear.

I do believe that if the Democratic candidate was just as wacky, bigoted and racist like trump, that Ginsburg would have reacted and said the same.

Also, saying something about trump doesn't automatically make it "partisan."
If Ginsburg were to say something about ANY candidate, of course someone can make the argument that "she is saying something about the person's political party." But maybe ... and more than likely .... one's political party ("partisan") has nothing to do about it.

Honestly ! ..... why don't we just say that Ginsberg is "attacking" trump because he is male, and thus Ginsberg is sexist.
Because if "she is saying one party's candidate (who is male) would be bad for the country (and the other candidate is female). That is by nature a sexist statement."
Now do you see how absurd that would sound ?

[Simfan34]

I do believe that if the Democratic candidate was just as wacky, bigoted and racist like trump, that Ginsburg would have reacted and said the same.

Also, saying something about trump doesn't automatically make it "partisan."
If Ginsburg were to say something about ANY candidate, of course someone can make the argument that "she is saying something about the person's political party." But maybe ... and more than likely .... one's political party ("partisan") has nothing to do about it.

Honestly ! ..... why don't we just say that Ginsberg is "attacking" trump because he is male, and thus Ginsberg is sexist.
Because if "she is saying one party's candidate (who is male) would be bad for the country (and the other candidate is female). That is by nature a sexist statement."
Now do you see how absurd that would sound ?

And that would also be inappropriate. I mean, look, even the Washington Post agrees with me here. It is just not "saying something". It is making a value judgement on partisan grounds.

Donald Trump is overweight.  Is that a partisan comment?

Of course not, there's no political content. But saying he has small hands would. Like I said, judicial independence comes at a cost, and sometimes that means refraining from calling a spade a spade.

I mean, imagine there was a repeat of Bush v. Gore this election. RBG would almost certainly have to recuse herself. And if Trump won, she'd be pressured to recuse herself in all cases involving administration policy. That sets a bad precedent, and would lead to dysfunction.

[SteveRogers]

I mean, imagine there was a repeat of Bush v. Gore this election. RBG would almost certainly have to recuse herself. And if Trump won, she'd be pressured to recuse herself in all cases involving administration policy. That sets a bad precedent, and would lead to dysfunction.

I don't think any of this is true.

[Simfan34]

I mean, imagine there was a repeat of Bush v. Gore this election. RBG would almost certainly have to recuse herself. And if Trump won, she'd be pressured to recuse herself in all cases involving administration policy. That sets a bad precedent, and would lead to dysfunction.

I don't think any of this is true.

You don't think, after saying she'd leave the country if Trump won, that her impartiality would be sufficiently compromised to compel her to recuse herself? How not?!

[Erc]

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

Meh. I'd normally agree, but the idea that Donald Trump would make a terrible president shouldn't be a political issue. We had bipartisan consensus on this issue just a matter of months ago.

Agreed.  Just because many issues are for some reason politicized does not mean that statements of fact cannot be made impartially about them.

That Trump would be a disaster is one of them.

[ProudModerate2]

I mean, imagine there was a repeat of Bush v. Gore this election. RBG would almost certainly have to recuse herself. And if Trump won, she'd be pressured to recuse herself in all cases involving administration policy. That sets a bad precedent, and would lead to dysfunction.

I don't think any of this is true.

You don't think, after saying she'd leave the country if Trump won, that her impartiality would be sufficiently compromised to compel her to recuse herself? How not?!

Based on your logic, then Clearance Thomas should have "recused himself in all cases involving administration (Obama) policy." Why did Thomas not recuse himself ? Why was Thomas allowed to vote and decide on so many cases regarding the current administration ? Why did Republicans not demand this of Thomas, if it was so "damaging" to the Supreme Court ? Was it Thomas who initially set this "type" of precedent ?
See the following quote below, in this thread, regarding my comments .....

Clarence Thomas: "Obama Only President Because He’s What ‘Elites’ Expect ‘From A Black Person"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/03/clarence-thomas-obama_n_3210224.html

[ProudModerate2]

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

Meh. I'd normally agree, but the idea that Donald Trump would make a terrible president shouldn't be a political issue. We had bipartisan consensus on this issue just a matter of months ago.

Agreed.  Just because many issues are for some reason politicized does not mean that statements of fact cannot be made impartially about them.
That Trump would be a disaster is one of them.

EXACTLY.
That is what I am trying to say (in a round-about-way).
Why does Ginsberg's comment have to be seen as "partisan."
Or alternatively, why does Ginsburg's comment have to be seen as "sexist."
Or other "obscure" (and incorrect) assumptions, like because trump is heavy/fatter, or has smaller hands ?

Like others are saying, why argue if we all know that the "sky is blue," or if "trump would be a disaster" to the US.
Sometimes when it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, guess what .... it's just a duck !

[Simfan34]

I mean, imagine there was a repeat of Bush v. Gore this election. RBG would almost certainly have to recuse herself. And if Trump won, she'd be pressured to recuse herself in all cases involving administration policy. That sets a bad precedent, and would lead to dysfunction.

I don't think any of this is true.

You don't think, after saying she'd leave the country if Trump won, that her impartiality would be sufficiently compromised to compel her to recuse herself? How not?!

Based on your logic, then Clearance Thomas should have "recused himself in all cases involving administration (Obama) policy." Why did Thomas not recuse himself ? Why was Thomas allowed to vote and decide on so many cases regarding the current administration ? Why did Republicans not demand this of Thomas, if it was so "damaging" to the Supreme Court ? Was it Thomas who initially set this "type" of precedent ?
See the following quote below, in this thread, regarding my comments .....

Clarence Thomas: "Obama Only President Because He’s What ‘Elites’ Expect ‘From A Black Person"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/03/clarence-thomas-obama_n_3210224.html

That is different. There wasn't any kind of value judgement in Thomas' remarks, although it may have skirted the boundaries of propriety. He didn't question Obama's suitability or judgement. You could argue that the point that a candidate must win over the "elites and media" is itself hardly controversial.

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.

[ProudModerate2]

I mean, imagine there was a repeat of Bush v. Gore this election. RBG would almost certainly have to recuse herself. And if Trump won, she'd be pressured to recuse herself in all cases involving administration policy. That sets a bad precedent, and would lead to dysfunction.

I don't think any of this is true.

You don't think, after saying she'd leave the country if Trump won, that her impartiality would be sufficiently compromised to compel her to recuse herself? How not?!

Based on your logic, then Clearance Thomas should have "recused himself in all cases involving administration (Obama) policy." Why did Thomas not recuse himself ? Why was Thomas allowed to vote and decide on so many cases regarding the current administration ? Why did Republicans not demand this of Thomas, if it was so "damaging" to the Supreme Court ? Was it Thomas who initially set this "type" of precedent ?
See the following quote below, in this thread, regarding my comments .....

Clarence Thomas: "Obama Only President Because He’s What ‘Elites’ Expect ‘From A Black Person"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/03/clarence-thomas-obama_n_3210224.html

That is different ......

That's all I read in your response "That is different."
No reason to bother reading the rest of it.
Debate over.

[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.