• 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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Anyone who thinks there shouldn't be a political fight over nominations, had better look in a mirror when giving Ginsburg's commentary any sort of nod. Because when the mask is pulled off we see in our SCOTUS the same ill begotten disease that has crippled our government and rendered a nation divided.

They are entirely politicized.
 
brycejones said:
Probably an investigation of the other "liberals" on the court to make sure they aren't conspiring with her. Should be the top priority of the FBI and at least 5 congressional committees.
Click to expand...

Consider the notion that the more picayune an incident is, the more the Repubs in Congress will try to blow it up into a major existential threat to the nation. As a result of this rather odd approach toward attacking their opposition, it seems to me that Ginsburg's musings will somehow lead to either Obama being impeached or Hillary being disqualified to run for the presidency. 😉
 
I really don't see the big deal. Yes, she probably should've kept it to herself, but did any really think RBG had any love for Trump? I trust that the vast majority of judges can put their personal feelings to the side and judge a case based on the facts.
 
Political alignment isn't grounds for recusal, I thought we went over this in another thread. Pretty much the only thing that can cause a justice to recuse themselves is a financial stake or a personal relationship.

Calling for her to step down is way too far. Calling for a recusal if the need arises is much more appropriate.
 
Subyman said:
Political alignment isn't grounds for recusal, I thought we went over this in another thread. Pretty much the only thing that can cause a justice to recuse themselves is a financial stake or a personal relationship.

Calling for her to step down is way too far. Calling for a recusal if the need arises is much more appropriate.
Click to expand...

You make perfect sense. However, what you suggest is not in the Official Republican Playbook of Dirty Deeds and Dastardly Schemes.

Therefore, calling for her to step down is their preferred opening move. Should this move acquire traction, then the next move after that is to demand that all the other liberal judges also step down and be replaced by whomever Pres. Trump sees fit. 😉
 
Last edited:
tweaker2 said:
You make perfect sense. However, what you suggest is not in the Official Republican Playbook of Dirty Deeds and Dastardly Schemes.

Therefore, calling for her to step down is their preferred opening move. Should this move acquire traction, then the next move after that is to demand that all the other liberal judges also step down and be replaced by whomever Pres. Trump sees fit. 😉
Click to expand...

We all know exactly why they want her to step down and it has nothing to do with her comments specially when acts like this have been done before, such as not showing up to the State of the Union.
 
Jhhnn said:
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
Click to expand...

Never expected much different from a senile old bat that should have retired 25 years ago.
 
Really, what line was left there after Republican SCOTUS hand-picked the president they wanted in 2000, and then told everyone what they did was a one-off and not a precedent?
 
If she can't respect the will of the Republican party to nominate their Avatar (whatever the hell you or I think of him) then she doesn't belong on that court.

She's speaking out of turn. She's not a private entity.
 
What line did she cross?
“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” Ginsburg told the Times' Adam Liptak. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”
Meet Trump's Supreme Court picks

Ginsburg also recalled something her late husband said about such matters: "Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand."
Click to expand...
This qualifies as "not holding a thing back?" She refused to speculate and jokingly quoted her husband. Everyone knows she would have strong feelings on this and which way they lean. If one of the conservative justices said the same about HRC it would be just as much ado over nothing. But good grief, it's Donald Trump, are we really all going to keep pretending he's seriously presidential material all the way to November?
 
Last edited:
Pffffftttt
Much to do about nothing.
Hopefully, right wingers heads will explode.
If her comments fail to explode republican heads, then maybe a swift kick in the balls will do it. I hear she has pointy shoes and knows karate. 😉
 
All judges have personal feelings; all judges are expected to put those aside when they go to work. Just like all of us are supposed to do with our personal feelings when we go to our workplaces. She's been principled and a solid judge to date; there's no reason why she wouldn't continue to be just that.
 
Last edited:
yllus said:
All judges have personal feelings; all judges are expected to put those aside when they go to work. Just like all of us are supposed to do when we go to work. She's been principled and a solid judge to date; there's no reason why she wouldn't continue to be just that.
Click to expand...

But she said something bad about the orange man!
 
preCRT said:
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?
Click to expand...

Like it or not, they are doing that. They're saying, 'No more justices for you. Your replacement gets this one.' That's that pesky 'consent' part, son. Don't worry. Your beloved Hillary will be elected and she'll pick a nice liberal activist judge and RBG will stay on and continue to be her sweet liberal self as well. Hillary will get a minimum of 2 and very likely 3 picks for the court; all will be left leaning justices. You libs should be happy.
 
Gonad the Barbarian said:
What line did she cross?

This qualifies as "not holding a thing back?" She refused to speculate and jokingly quoted her husband. Everyone knows she would have strong feelings on this and which way they lean. If one of the conservative justices said the same about HRC it would be just as much ado over nothing. But good grief, it's Donald Trump, are we really all going to keep pretending he's seriously presidential material all the way to November?
Click to expand...

We? Who's this we?
 
Sadly, this is true. EVERYTHING is politicized these days.

Jaskalas said:
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 Judaical branch has long since been dead, gone, and buried.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top