Ruth Bader Ginsburg crossed a very important line

[umbrella39]

It's fun to watch the bottom scrapers wave the Constitution with one hand when it suits their agenda then watching them wipe their ass with it when someone they don't like exercises their rights...

 

[michal1980]

Or just do the right thing, which is try to fill the vacancy as quickly & as reasonably as possible for the good of the institution of the SCOTUS and the People. Be reasonable in the process in an attempt to insure success. Get all that shoved back in your face by people whose main purpose in life has been to do just that since 2008. Repubs have never questioned Garland's suitability but rather Obama's right to make the pick at all. It's just one more spiteful act in a long string of them.

The best thing Hillary can do about it is to affirm Garland & Obama's right to name him, then watch McConnell eat crow. If Repubs won't do it that way, re-nominate Garland her first day in office.

That would affirm the Constitution

Because we all know that's what democrats do. Its not like they sat on a supreme court nomination to get them to quit. Or had meetings planning to do exactly what the repbs are doing now if something similar happened under bush.

no the democrats are perfect pure angles. /s

 

[michal1980]

It's fun to watch the bottom scrapers wave the Constitution with one hand when it suits their agenda then watching them wipe their ass with it when someone they don't like exercises their rights...

So talking about both parties right?


no? well then its time to re-up your partisan hack membership.

 

[glenn1]

It's fun to watch the bottom scrapers wave the Constitution with one hand when it suits their agenda then watching them wipe their ass with it when someone they don't like exercises their rights...

She can exercise her rights all she wants. What would be appropriate and yet unlikely to happen is for her to take the consequences of exercising that right and recusing herself from any hypothetical cases where that speech correctly calls her impartiality into question. Even slate.com said she acted "unethically." My problem is that she'll almost certainly act unethically again should circumstances arise where a more honest person would recuse themself.

 

[feralkid]

She can exercise her rights all she wants. What would be appropriate and yet unlikely to happen is for her to take the consequences of exercising that right and recusing herself from any hypothetical cases where that speech correctly calls her impartiality into question. Even slate.com said she acted "unethically." My problem is that she'll almost certainly act unethically again should circumstances arise where a more honest person would recuse themself.

Like when Scalia recused himself from cases involving Dick Cheney?

 

[Jaskalas]

Like when Scalia recused himself from cases involving Dick Cheney?

There's no need to pretend one side is neutral, they're not.
But that raises an existential crisis for the court, they are agents of their party before acting as arbiters of law.

 

[feralkid]

There's no need to pretend one side is neutral, they're not.

Who is pretending that?

 

[poofyhairguy]

Part of me wants her to nominate someone farther to the left just to spite the GOP for blocking Garland. I know, I'm not being very mature but I feel that bad behavior should have consequences.

I thought the GOP plan was to ramrod him through during the lame duck period if Trump loses the election to prevent that?

 

[Bitek]

I do not understand how liberals can defend Justice Ginsberg's initial remarks, let alone her doubling-down the next day. "She has the 1st amendment right" is a non sequitur because she was not speaking in her private capacity. She can do it with her family, friends, and colleagues, and few will bat an eye even if those conversations leaked out. But she consciously chose to speak out in a setting where she was giving an interview as the SCOTUS justice.

It is also a misguided defense to say that "Everyone already knows what she believes in, so what is the big deal?" Well, for one thing, one's spoken words tend to reinforce one's thoughts, consciously or subconsciously. We all have a sense of honor, and want to avoid being seen as a hypocrite. When justice makes a public comment on a political issue, she may have limited her future opinions on similar issues for fear of being seen inconsistent. That is why we require judges to maintain appearance of neutrality - because the court's legitimacy depends on it, and because languages are not mere expression of thoughts. They also reinforces ones previous thoughts.

I frankly have no idea what her intention was. She is an extremely smart person and by all accounts her remarks were not a momentary slip in the heat of discussion. She must have weighed the cost and risks of her speaking out, and I wonder what convinced her to go on with the plan. What did she deem such an urgent issue that she would go out of the established norm, fully aware that her comments will attract backlash?

It was meant to be a shocking statement to draw attention to the danger our governmental institutions are in. This did not begin with Trump, but he has escalated the stakes considerably.

The court has already become politically polarizing by the partisan class.
EG. The philosophy of dismissing even a hearing on Garland, and vowing that the election should decide the next justice is explicitly based on the idea the SC justices are political agents advancing agendas, rather than referees operating in good faith.

The current climate is incredibly outrageous and damaging to the SCOTUS institution, and RGB, as a institutional member, is well justified in speaking out.

Of course it is dangerous and can easily backfire, but the fact that the dire situation has made the risk tolerable speaks volumes in itself.

 

[Bitek]

The Supreme Court is not bound by the federal code of judicial conduct. That would be unconstitutional.

That being said, I think it was inappropriate of her to say. While it's fairly obvious that the court is pretty politicized there's always that fig leaf of impartiality that I think is actually important to the court's legitimacy. They should keep that if possible.

That's all it actually is though.

They are human, of course they have biases, and the biases do not become any more real of they are made public or not.

The difference is they are expected to be able to compartmentalize those biases and make judgements based on objectivity.

RGBs public statements do not make her biases any more real than those of her colleagues, but I do agree they come with a cost of perception (illusion tho it may be) and she must tread carefully.

 

[pcgeek11]

What I would do if I were Clinton after winning the election in November:

1) Ask Obama/Garland to withdraw Garland from consideration
2) Nominate Obama to fill vacancy
3) Drink republican tears

He would never get past the hearings. You could bet on that.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Haha, I just heard RBG misses bickering with Scalia so now its Trump

 

[IBMer]

So talking about both parties right?


no? well then its time to re-up your partisan hack membership.

Your own hand should snap back and hit you in the face every time you call someone else a partisan hack.

 

[Jhhnn]

It was meant to be a shocking statement to draw attention to the danger our governmental institutions are in. This did not begin with Trump, but he has escalated the stakes considerably.

The court has already become politically polarizing by the partisan class.
EG. The philosophy of dismissing even a hearing on Garland, and vowing that the election should decide the next justice is explicitly based on the idea the SC justices are political agents advancing agendas, rather than referees operating in good faith.

The current climate is incredibly outrageous and damaging to the SCOTUS institution, and RGB, as a institutional member, is well justified in speaking out.

Of course it is dangerous and can easily backfire, but the fact that the dire situation has made the risk tolerable speaks volumes in itself.

Thank you. It's not RBG who first crossed the line- it was McConnell & Senate Repubs.

 

[glenn1]

Thank you. It's not RBG who first crossed the line- it was McConnell & Senate Repubs.

They are not members of the judicial branch and are held to very different standards. Even if we accept that premise it still doesn't mean that judges (especially members of the SCOTUS) should join them. If a judge is unhappy with the expectation and historical practice that they relate appearance of impartiality by not engaging in blatantly political speech they would probably be better suited running for Congress.

Which also highlights the difference between this and the Scalia-Cheney relationship mentioned earlier. It's one thing to have a pre-existing friendship with someone and engage in activities with them which may lead to the appearance of impartiality. It's another thing to confirm your lack of impartiality beyond a reasonable doubt by statements like "he's a danger to the nation."

 

[fskimospy]

They are not members of the judicial branch and are held to very different standards. Even if we accept that premise it still doesn't mean that judges (especially members of the SCOTUS) should join them. If a judge is unhappy with the expectation and historical practice that they relate appearance of impartiality by not engaging in blatantly political speech they would probably be better suited running for Congress.

Which also highlights the difference between this and the Scalia-Cheney relationship mentioned earlier. It's one thing to have a pre-existing friendship with someone and engage in activities with them which may lead to the appearance of impartiality. It's another thing to confirm your lack of impartiality beyond a reasonable doubt by statements like "he's a danger to the nation."

I sincerely don't think those two things are different at all, if anything Scalia's transgression was far worse. Imagine if you were involved in a court case and you found out that the judge was hanging out with your opponent on the weekends during the case. How would that not be an egregious conflict of interest?

In both cases the judge's actions were inappropriate, but in only one was a justice actively fraternizing with a litigant.

 

[michal1980]

Your own hand should snap back and hit you in the face every time you call someone else a partisan hack.

ever consider I'm not a hack.

Just a voice calling out the left on its hackery?

 

[Thump553]

The first Supreme Court Chief Justice ran for governor of New York twice while sitting on the Supreme Court (he lost the first time). Three early Justices ran for the Presidency while on the Court, lost, and remained on the Court throughout.

The rules of judicial conduct have not significantly changed in this area since those days.

While Ginsberg's comments may being politically incorrect (and thus greatly offense to righties) it is clear she neither "crossed a line" or violated her oath of office.

Obviously if the election ever reached the Supreme Court (ala 2000) she should recluse herself. It would sad if Trump got elected to the Presidency by a 4-3 vote (less than GWB's 5-4) but I don't think the Court will visit those dark days of jurisprudence again.

As an aside, I wonder how many posters here know that the judges in their own state very well be elected themselves. Stupid system IMO but a lot of states do this.

 

[Bitek]

Thank you. It's not RBG who first crossed the line- it was McConnell & Senate Repubs.

I don't think it started there, but they certainly escalated an already vulnerable situation.

You could easily take this back to Bork, the federalist society grooming conservative justices, or Bush v Gore at least.

Anymore every partisan issue everyone expects the 4-4 split and just looked to see where Kennedy fell.

The perception is the jurists rally around their flag and make the calls they were sent there to do, rather than act as independent and objective thinkers.

It may not always be accurate, but the perception is poisonous.

Trump and Cruz have been pretty naked and aggressive in promoting this view as a campaign tactic. Dems have been mostly subtle, but not immune either. Wins them votes, but at a cost.

 

[glenn1]

I sincerely don't think those two things are different at all, if anything Scalia's transgression was far worse. Imagine if you were involved in a court case and you found out that the judge was hanging out with your opponent on the weekends during the case. How would that not be an egregious conflict of interest?

In both cases the judge's actions were inappropriate, but in only one was a justice actively fraternizing with a litigant.

Sure, if that's the case then every SCOTUS justice who is friends with anyone having business in front of the court should recuse themselves. And RBG should have again recused herself for officiating a same-sex marriage right before ruling on the constitutionality of laws against the same.

https://www.washingtonian.com/2015/05/18/yes-a-supreme-court-justice-can-officiate-your-wedding/

Oh and BTW the Cheney v. USDC of DC case that you're so concerned about Scalia being friends with Cheney was a 7-2 decision, with the case being sent back to the District Court who found in Cheney's favor.

 

[fskimospy]

Sure, if that's the case then every SCOTUS justice who is friends with anyone having business in front of the court should recuse themselves.

Yes, they should recuse themselves if they have friends who are litigants before the court. That's just common sense, no? It's a truly massive conflict of interest and was extremely, extremely unethical. We should all be able to agree that Scalia acted extraordinarily unprofessionally.

And RBG should have again recused herself for officiating a same-sex marriage right before ruling on the constitutionality of laws against the same.

Absolutely not, that's silliness. Knowing gay people or choosing to officiate their marriage is irrelevant to her ruling on whether or not same sex marriage bans are unconstitutional. This is similar reasoning to what Trump tried to use when he said a judge should recuse himself because he was a member of a Hispanic law organization.

The standard for recusal isn't if you know someone who could possibly be affected by your ruling as that would basically encompass everyone on the Supreme Court on every occasion. Scalia was hanging out on weekends with someone who was a direct participant in a case before the court. If that's not a conflict of interest, what is?

Oh and BTW the Cheney v. USDC of DC case that you're so concerned about Scalia being friends with Cheney was a 7-2 decision, with the case being sent back to the District Court who found in Cheney's favor.

The outcome of the case is irrelevant as to whether or not Scalia committed an ethical breach, which he pretty obviously did.

 

[brycejones]

ever consider I'm not a hack.

Just a voice calling out the left on its hackery?

You made a joke, look at what you did!

 

[glenn1]

Yes, they should recuse themselves if they have friends who are litigants before the court. That's just common sense, no? It's a truly massive conflict of interest and was extremely, extremely unethical. We should all be able to agree that Scalia acted extraordinarily unprofessionally.


Absolutely not, that's silliness. Knowing gay people or choosing to officiate their marriage is irrelevant to her ruling on whether or not same sex marriage bans are unconstitutional. This is similar reasoning to what Trump tried to use when he said a judge should recuse himself because he was a member of a Hispanic law organization.

The standard for recusal isn't if you know someone who could possibly be affected by your ruling as that would basically encompass everyone on the Supreme Court on every occasion. Scalia was hanging out on weekends with someone who was a direct participant in a case before the court. If that's not a conflict of interest, what is?


The outcome of the case is irrelevant as to whether or not Scalia committed an ethical breach, which he pretty obviously did.

Well then censure him. That's what you always say about LBJ when his lying to get us more involved in a war is compared to Dubya.

And I'm perfectly fine with the "if you know someone you must recuse yourself" standard but you might not like the results.

 

[fskimospy]

Well then censure him. That's what you always say about LBJ when his lying to get us more involved in a war is compared to Dubya.

He probably should have been censured, yes. Anyways, do we now agree that hanging out on weekends with litigants is worse than a judge saying they don't like someone?

And I'm perfectly fine with the "if you know someone you must recuse yourself" standard but you might not like the results.

I'm not fine with the 'if you know someone you must recuse yourself' standard, what I am actually not fine with is judges ruling on cases directly involving people they are hanging out with while their business is before the court.

 

[Genx87]

lol.

The left great defenders of the constitution.

Except when it comes to separation of powers, and the 2nd amendment. Obama shits on the constitution and you don't bat an eye

Dont forget the 4th amendment(although both parties shit on that) and now the 5th amendment when it comes to dying from a drone strike. And they are working on dismantling the 5th amendment when it comes to our 2nd amendment rights. A double whammy. Truly impressive when one thinks about it.