Ruth Bader Ginsburg crossed a very important line

[bozack]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-ginsburg-just-crossed-a-very-important-line/

And if he wins will she step down and retire? she should given her comments as it will forever cast doubt on her judgements

 

[Artdeco]

She needs to step down now.

She may well be 100% right, but she should pay attention to the polls and understand a Trump win is very unlikely, and keep her mouth shut

83 years old, time to go, I suspect she'll get quite a bit of pressure to retire now.

 

[compuwiz1]

She's out of line. Problem is she forgets that she has to work with whoever gets elected.

 

[blackangst1]

She never said she would retire. Or did I miss it?

 

[Phynaz]

DNC wrote a big check for that gift.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't one of the current guys shout "You lie" to Obama about Citizen's United. Again I may be wrong.

 

[glenn1]

Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't one of the current guys shout "You lie" to Obama about Citizen's United. Again I may be wrong.

That was a Congressman not a member of the Supreme Court.

 

[lopri]

I admire her dearly but her remarks were not only inappropriate but also disqualifying in a hypothetical Trump v. Clinton case. I suppose she does not believe such a case will arise and arrive at her court, but it is still troubling to hear a sitting justice take on politics so blatantly.

 

[Jaskalas]

She's out of line. Problem is she forgets that she has to work with whoever gets elected.

Work with?
As another branch of government they are adversarial, are they not?

 

[glenn1]

I admire her dearly but her remarks were not only inappropriate but also disqualifying in a hypothetical Trump v. Clinton case. I suppose she does not believe such a case will arise and arrive at her court, but it is still troubling to hear a sitting justice take on politics so blatantly.

If she doesn't have the discretion to not comment on candidates now I don't think she will have the discretion or integrity to recuse herself in the event of that hypothetical Clinton v. Trump case.

 

[AreaAffect]

If she doesn't have the discretion to not comment on candidates now I don't think she will have the discretion or integrity to recuse herself in the event of that hypothetical Clinton v. Trump case.

I think Trump is a narcissistic egomaniac at his best, but I have to agree. The Supreme Court *should* be above this and agree, it would taint possible cases and rulings with regards to Trump in the future. I don't think she should necessarily quit right now - but if Trump were elected then she should step down to maintain the integrity of the court.

 

[master_shake_]

jesus christ almighty.

it looks like they tried to glue skin on to skeletor!

 

[Atreus21]

Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't one of the current guys shout "You lie" to Obama about Citizen's United. Again I may be wrong.

I think you're referring to when Alito mouthed "not true" in response to a claim that Obama made about...was it Citizens United? during a previous SOTU.

 

[guachi]

Hypothetical Trump v. Clinton.

Yeah, like my hypothetical love tryst with Jennifer Lawrence.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I think you're referring to when Alito mouthed "not true" in response to a claim that Obama made about...was it Citizens United? during a previous SOTU.

Yes, that was it!

 

[Jhhnn]

More crying towels for the Trumpsters.

Ginsberg has the right to speak out, just like everybody else. It would be inappropriate to speak out against a sitting president, I think, but Trump isn't that & likely never will be.

She said a lot of other stuff in the interview that should leave Repubs clutching at their pearls-

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/u...an-of-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.html

 

[preCRT]

I love RBG

 

[agent00f]

I can sort of understand why liberals disapprove of such comments, but aren't conservatives these days all about keeping it real?

 

[brycejones]

We probably need some congressional hearings about this......

 

[Victorian Gray]

We probably need some congressional hearings about this......

5 or 6 years worth maybe?

 

[brycejones]

5 or 6 years worth maybe?

Maybe a special prosecutor as well to make sure nothing else was said that wasn't reported.

 

[glenn1]

I can sort of understand why liberals disapprove of such comments, but aren't conservatives these days all about keeping it real?

She can keep it real as she wants and she still has 2a rights. However since a key element of the job is both the appearance of and actual impartiality it's troubling for a judge to do so unless she wants that impartiality questioned later.

 

[brycejones]

She can keep it real as she wants and she still has 2a rights. However since a key element of the job is both the appearance of and actual impartiality it's troubling for a judge to do so unless she wants that impartiality questioned later.

I have no idea what this has to do with her 2a rights....

 

[Jaskalas]

She can keep it real as she wants and she still has 2a rights. However since a key element of the job is both the appearance of and actual impartiality it's troubling for a judge to do so unless she wants that impartiality questioned later.

With the modern world we live in... instant communications... social media networks...

The entire concept of judicial impartiality is a fantasy of a bygone era when news from around the country took weeks / months to travel, and a bunch of old legal scholars could hold themselves up in study of the law and spend their time isolated from the political battles in the halls of Congress.

Today it is of the utmost impossibility for our SCOTUS not to be political. Impossible for them not to be in the literal thick of social upheaval. And for there to be just 9 of them means a GREAT deal of pressure is placed onto them, from all sides. All day, every day.

Our founder's concept for the Judicial branch has long since been dead, gone, and buried.

 

[preCRT]

What about the founders rule about advise & consent? When is the Senate going to do its damn job to get us back to 9 members of SCOTUS?