• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg crossed a very important line

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
lopri said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
glenn1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I love RBG

CIhPMuzUMAEgtxQ.jpg
 
I can sort of understand why liberals disapprove of such comments, but aren't conservatives these days all about keeping it real?
 
agent00f said:
I can sort of understand why liberals disapprove of such comments, but aren't conservatives these days all about keeping it real?
Click to expand...

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.
 
glenn1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what this has to do with her 2a rights....😉
 
glenn1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top