Ruth Bader Ginsburg crossed a very important line

[Genx87]

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

Eh Scalia and RBG were actually very close friends.

 

[Pens1566]

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

You're assuming the senate doesn't flip, which is entirely possible.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Eh Scalia and RBG were actually very close friends.

That's exactly why its funny

 

[glenn1]

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?

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.

No I don't. But then again I don't think with motivated political reasoning like you do. Obviously you must also then think that AG Lynch should have recused herself from the Hillary Clinton investigation after Loretta and Bill decided to have a little get together on their planes, right? Or since that didn't happen "on the weekend" is that somehow different?

Of course we know the answer to that question. You excused it away since it was your team.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38327662&postcount=48

 

[fskimospy]

No I don't. But then again I don't think with motivated political reasoning like you do.

Your reasoning seems to be almost exclusively politically motivated, what are you talking about? Your positions seem to stem almost entirely from a desire to exact revenge on your perceived enemies.

Obviously you must also then think that AG Lynch should have recused herself from the Hillary Clinton investigation after Loretta and Bill decided to have a little get together on their planes, right? Or since that didn't happen "on the weekend" is that somehow different?

Of course we know the answer to that question. You excused it away since it was your team.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38327662&postcount=48

I would have been fine with her recusing herself from the investigation and I never said otherwise. I even said in that thread that I thought it was a mistake because it created a bad image. If that's your example you actually showed the exact opposite of what you claim.

I don't actually believe that Scalia was influenced by Cheney when they went duck hunting, it just gave the appearance of impropriety which is just as bad. Similarly, the idea that Lynch was actually corrupted by a quick meeting on a plane is preposterous.

Remember, not everyone bases their reasoning on whether or not it gets their imagined enemies. Some of us are actually pretty consistent.

 

[Jhhnn]

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."

Puh-leeze. The Senate has a Constitutional duty to advise & consent wrt SCOTUS nominees which Repubs choose to ignore. They threw aside 200+ years of precedent, decency & respect for the institution of the Court. Their radical agenda has nothing to do with being conservative or preserving tradition at all. It's a shameless partisan attack on the independence of the Judiciary & the rights of the Chief Executive.

Trump? That's what happens when democratic govt & institutions are deliberately crippled & disrespected by those sworn to serve them, in this case Republicans. When govt fails to deliver to the People they're easily swayed by appeals to raw emotion & bigotry inherent in the leader cult phenomenon. They accept very anti-democratic authoritarian means in the process-

http://www.alternet.org/media/philippine-president-duterte-donald-trump

Need another example? Try Saddam Hussein. Remember that Trump praised his methods.

 

[glenn1]

Your reasoning seems to be almost exclusively politically motivated, what are you talking about? Your positions seem to stem almost entirely from a desire to exact revenge on your perceived enemies.



I would have been fine with her recusing herself from the investigation and I never said otherwise. I even said in that thread that I thought it was a mistake because it created a bad image. If that's your example you actually showed the exact opposite of what you claim.

I don't actually believe that Scalia was influenced by Cheney when they went duck hunting, it just gave the appearance of impropriety which is just as bad. Similarly, the idea that Lynch was actually corrupted by a quick meeting on a plane is preposterous.

Remember, not everyone bases their reasoning on whether or not it gets their imagined enemies. Some of us are actually pretty consistent.

You're claiming consistency? LOL.

When it's Lynch you say "I would have been fine with her recusing herself."

With Scalia instead it's "he SHOULD recuse himself" fortified with "It's a truly massive conflict of interest and was extremely, extremely unethical."

Then you look at my comments. I said that Scalia being friends with someone is a non-issue. When it came to the Lynch thing I said:

Yeah, but even though I disagree with her politics I trust Lynch to be the professional she is and not act unethically. The meeting probably wasn't the best thing from an optics standpoint but unless someone can produce a smoking gun I don't see why anyone being honest about it instead of nakedly partisan should have a cow about it either.

That's consistency. Try using it for once.

And how you can possibly think the Cheney thing is worse is completely baffling. How you can say something that gives the appearance of non-impartiality is worse than someone who outright says things that completely 100% confirm her lack of impartiality is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while. Now you can make the argument (not that it would be particularly persuasive) that after saying those things that she could still maintain a professional and impartial demeanor and rule exclusively on the merits of the law and the case before her, but that's a different argument than the one you're making.

 

[fskimospy]

You're claiming consistency? LOL.

When it's Lynch you say "I would have been fine with her recusing herself."

With Scalia instead it's "he SHOULD recuse himself" fortified with "It's a truly massive conflict of interest and was extremely, extremely unethical."

Then you look at my comments. I said that Scalia being friends with someone is a non-issue. When it came to the Lynch thing I said:




That's consistency. Try using it for once.

And how you can possibly think the Cheney thing is worse is completely baffling. How you can say something that gives the appearance of non-impartiality is worse than someone who outright says things that completely 100% confirm her lack of impartiality is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while. Now you can make the argument (not that it would be particularly persuasive) that after saying those things that she could still maintain a professional and impartial demeanor and rule exclusively on the merits of the law and the case before her, but that's a different argument than the one you're making.

Yep, I was entirely consistent. I like how you tried to first claim I was being hypocritical by linking a thread that you were wrong about and then pivoted to saying my description of the thread was somehow now evidence of inconsistency.

You didn't read the thread, got something wrong, and I busted you. It's okay, it happens. Read the thread next time before you comment on it.

As to this case, not sure what the confusion is here. It is also baffling that you think a public comment saying you think someone is bad would somehow be worse than maintaining a personal friendship with a litigant. That literally makes no logical sense.

 

[glenn1]

Yep, I was entirely consistent. I like how you tried to first claim I was being hypocritical by linking a thread that you were wrong about and then pivoted to saying my description of the thread was somehow now evidence of inconsistency.

You didn't read the thread, got something wrong, and I busted you. It's okay, it happens. Read the thread next time before you comment on it.

As to this case, not sure what the confusion is here. It is also baffling that you think a public comment saying you think someone is bad would somehow be worse than maintaining a personal friendship with a litigant. That literally makes no logical sense.

Again, "would be fine with" and "should recuse" are consistent in what parallel universe?

And the Code of Conduct for U.S. judges gives some guidance on when personal relationships rise to the level of recusal (and yes, I know SCOTUS justices are not bound to it). One can argue in good faith whether the Scalia-Cheney relationship rises to that level (or the Lynch-Clinton relationship for that matter). What is not really arguable in good faith is whether RBG violated the "Judges shall refrain from policital activity" rules. She not only broke them, she burned them, stomped over the ashes, then took a steaming dump on what was left.

 

[fskimospy]

Again, "would be fine with" and "should recuse" are consistent in what parallel universe?

They both express support for recusal, making them consistent in all universes, presumably. You're trying to take an offhand comment and spin it into something it wasn't. You were wrong. Accept it and move on.

And the Code of Conduct for U.S. judges gives some guidance on when personal relationships rise to the level of recusal (and yes, I know SCOTUS justices are not bound to it). One can argue in good faith whether the Scalia-Cheney relationship rises to that level (or the Lynch-Clinton relationship for that matter). What is not really arguable in good faith is whether RBG violated the "Judges shall refrain from policital activity" rules. She not only broke them, she burned them, stomped over the ashes, then took a steaming dump on what was left.

Talk about insane hyperbole. Ginsburg absolutely broke the judicial code of conduct in this way which is why I said what she did was wrong.

Scalia most certainly did as well and it's easy to see in his tortured reasoning for why it was okay that he not recuse himself despite being buddies with a litigant. He said that since Cheney was being sued as the Vice President (for his personal actions as Vice President) it was okay, but it would have been wrong if Cheney were being personally sued. Imagine a judge trying to use that logic on a private citizen, haha.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I just saw the broadcast news. RBG said her words were not appropriate and breaks tradition. She will be more careful in the future.

**summary not her exact words**

 

[Blackjack200]

Wow, Ginsburg apologized.

 

[bshole]

I find it absolutely disgraceful that a sitting Supreme Court Justice would say anything about politics. I lot a shitload of respect for this woman.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Here:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...ogies-donald-trump-comments-article-1.2711251

 

[Jhhnn]

I just saw the broadcast news. RBG said her words were not appropriate and breaks tradition. She will be more careful in the future.

**summary not her exact words**

"Oh! Was that my knee in your crotch? How terribly inappropriate of me! I'll be more careful!"

Republicans? Trump? They issued a challenge assuming that nobody would get down in the mud pit with them. RBG proved them wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

Wow, Ginsburg apologized.

It's the right thing for her to do. I mean it's no surprise that she shares most people's disgust with Donald Trump but the judicial branch is supposed to remain separate from that.

 

[PokerGuy]

Wow, Ginsburg apologized.

Good. Now she needs to resign.

She's apologized, I wonder if all her lefty wacko defenders will agree that she went over the line.

 

[senseamp]

Good. Now she needs to resign.

She's apologized, I wonder if all her lefty wacko defenders will agree that she went over the line.

Senate needs to start voting on Obama's SCOTUS nominees, maybe she would resign then.

 

[fskimospy]

Good. Now she needs to resign.

She's apologized, I wonder if all her lefty wacko defenders will agree that she went over the line.

Of course she doesn't need to resign. Do you think Scalia should have resigned?

 

[PokerGuy]

Of course she doesn't need to resign. Do you think Scalia should have resigned?

No, but then again he didn't blatantly enter the political sphere by blasting a presidential candidate either. I do think he should have recused himself from that particular case to remove the appearance of impropriety.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Good. Now she needs to resign.

She's apologized, I wonder if all her lefty wacko defenders will agree that she went over the line.

She did something inappropriate but not illegal. She broke a long held tradition. She made a mistake and apologized. Plenty of people make mistakes at home, work or in life. Resignation is not required.

 

[senseamp]

No, but then again he didn't blatantly enter the political sphere by blasting a presidential candidate either. I do think he should have recused himself from that particular case to remove the appearance of impropriety.

Should he have resigned for not recusing himself and creating the appearance of impropriety?

 

[fskimospy]

No, but then again he didn't blatantly enter the political sphere by blasting a presidential candidate either. I do think he should have recused himself from that particular case to remove the appearance of impropriety.

It's hard to see how someone saying that they didn't like a presidential candidate in an interview is worthy of resignation when hanging out with your friend the sitting Vice President while litigation directly involving him is on your docket isn't. They are both inappropriate.

I personally think neither is worthy of resignation (or really anywhere close) although I would have definitely supported censuring Scalia for his behavior, maybe Ginsburg too?

 

[senseamp]

It's hard to see how someone saying that they didn't like a presidential candidate in an interview is worthy of resignation when hanging out with your friend the sitting Vice President while litigation directly involving him is on your docket isn't. They are both inappropriate.

I personally think neither is worthy of resignation (or really anywhere close) although I would have definitely supported censuring Scalia for his behavior, maybe Ginsburg too?

One is a personal free speech expression, the other is actual action on the job.

 

[bshole]

She did something inappropriate but not illegal. She broke a long held tradition. She made a mistake and apologized. Plenty of people make mistakes at home, work or in life. Resignation is not required.

I disagree. She is really old and I think her judgment has become impaired. The bare minimum that we ask of our justices is that they maintain the illusion of not being political hacks. That should be fairly achievable objective. She stands out as one of the exceedingly rare (if not only) justices who were unable to meet that minimal standard.