Should Ginsburg recuse herself?

[imported_tajmahal]

Due to her intemperate remarks about then candidate Trump should Justice Ginsburg recuse herself from the first test in his presidency ? Even though she apologized for those rude remarks.
http://fortune.com/2016/10/19/presidential-debate-donald-trump-supreme-court-ginsburg/
or her remarks about having to move to New Zealand if Donald Trump is elected.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...er-ginsberg-if-trump-wins-time-to-move-to-new
Is the law that clear?
28 U.S. Code 455 that says "Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
It's my opinion that her impartiality in regards to a Trump action can certainly be reasonably called into question. I seriously doubt if she will, but there should be calls on her to do so in this upcoming test of the Supreme Court.

 

[fskimospy]

Due to her intemperate remarks about then candidate Trump should Justice Ginsburg recuse herself from the first test in his presidency ? Even though she apologized for those rude remarks.
http://fortune.com/2016/10/19/presidential-debate-donald-trump-supreme-court-ginsburg/
or her remarks about having to move to New Zealand if Donald Trump is elected.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...er-ginsberg-if-trump-wins-time-to-move-to-new
Is the law that clear?
28 U.S. Code 455 that says "Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
It's my opinion that her impartiality in regards to a Trump action can certainly be reasonably called into question. I seriously doubt if she will, but there should be calls on her to do so in this upcoming test of the Supreme Court.

So to be clear you believe Ginsburg should recuse herself from the majority of SCOTUS cases for the next four years because she said something mean about Trump? She called him a 'faker', which presumably means that he's a liar. That much can be empirically established beyond question so you're mad at her for saying true things?

Also, presumably you believe that Scalia was in massive violation of judicial ethics for the entirety of the GWB administration then, is that correct?

 

[Grooveriding]

Trump is going to continue to lose bigly on this EO until he gives up or drafts a new one that is not illegal.

 

[momeNt]

No she shouldn't recuse herself. I think she is allowed to have an opinion and unless she writes an opinion which really shows being partial towards Trump and disregarding the law, a SCOTUS deserves the benefit of the doubt.

It is funny that she said that he says whatever pops into his head at the moment, and in her apology, basically said she couldn't avoid saying what popped into her head at the moment.

 

[HomerJS]

Calling Trump a scumbag isn't impartial because its true.

 

[UNCjigga]

Are you serious? Should every "so called" federal judge wary of the Trump administration's fondness for questionable ethics and outright lies just recuse him or herself from any case involving this administration? Your suggestion is as asinine as asking a Mexican judge to recuse himself based on his race...oh wait that happened already.

 

[brycejones]

Due to her intemperate remarks about then candidate Trump should Justice Ginsburg recuse herself from the first test in his presidency ? Even though she apologized for those rude remarks.
http://fortune.com/2016/10/19/presidential-debate-donald-trump-supreme-court-ginsburg/
or her remarks about having to move to New Zealand if Donald Trump is elected.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...er-ginsberg-if-trump-wins-time-to-move-to-new
Is the law that clear?
28 U.S. Code 455 that says "Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
It's my opinion that her impartiality in regards to a Trump action can certainly be reasonably called into question. I seriously doubt if she will, but there should be calls on her to do so in this upcoming test of the Supreme Court.

No, now extract your head from your anus. Although you would probably be instantly blinded by the light since it has been stuffed there for so long now. You should do it in a dark room.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

So to be clear you believe Ginsburg should recuse herself from the majority of SCOTUS cases for the next four years because she said something mean about Trump? She called him a 'faker', which presumably means that he's a liar. That much can be empirically established beyond question so you're mad at her for saying true things?

Also, presumably you believe that Scalia was in massive violation of judicial ethics for the entirety of the GWB administration then, is that correct?

No

 

[bshole]

I am not really down with Supreme Court Justices saying a damn thing about political leaders. It would be great if they could at least pretend to be above politics. The illusion of impartiality is important to me even if I know it is a sham.

 

[cbrunny]

Due to her intemperate remarks about then candidate Trump should Justice Ginsburg recuse herself from the first test in his presidency ? Even though she apologized for those rude remarks.
http://fortune.com/2016/10/19/presidential-debate-donald-trump-supreme-court-ginsburg/
or her remarks about having to move to New Zealand if Donald Trump is elected.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...er-ginsberg-if-trump-wins-time-to-move-to-new
Is the law that clear?
28 U.S. Code 455 that says "Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
It's my opinion that her impartiality in regards to a Trump action can certainly be reasonably called into question. I seriously doubt if she will, but there should be calls on her to do so in this upcoming test of the Supreme Court.

impartiality of supreme court justices is your concern? Surely you know that party lines and voting along party lines is a real thing. In other words, your concern, if acted on, would throw out the entire court.

 

[fskimospy]

No

Haha, shocker. You think Ginsburg should recuse herself for impartiality concerns because she said something mean about Trump but you don't think Scalia was in violation of ethical guidelines when he used to hang out with the Vice President on weekends.

You never fail to fail, haha.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I am not really down with Supreme Court Justices saying a damn thing about political leaders. It would be great if they could at least pretend to be above politics. The illusion of impartiality is important to me even if I know it is a sham.

The best answer so far, she should have been more circumspect in what she said about a candidate for the Presidency. She won't recuse herself, but she should reiterate her impartiality.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Haha, shocker. You think Ginsburg should recuse herself for impartiality concerns because she said something mean about Trump but you don't think Scalia was in violation of ethical guidelines when he used to hang out with the Vice President on weekends.

You never fail to fail, haha.

No, you're wrong again.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

impartiality of supreme court justices is your concern? Surely you know that party lines and voting along party lines is a real thing. In other words, your concern, if acted on, would throw out the entire court.

Justices of the Supreme Court should not be voting along "party lines".

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'll agree once Trump and his family release their taxes to prove they will never be involved in any decisions that effect their income or worth.

Deal?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I'll agree once Trump and his family release their taxes to prove they will never be involved in any decisions that effect their income or worth.

Deal?

Is it the law?

 

[MajinCry]

Due to her intemperate remarks about then candidate Trump should Justice Ginsburg recuse herself from the first test in his presidency ? Even though she apologized for those rude remarks.
http://fortune.com/2016/10/19/presidential-debate-donald-trump-supreme-court-ginsburg/
or her remarks about having to move to New Zealand if Donald Trump is elected.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...er-ginsberg-if-trump-wins-time-to-move-to-new
Is the law that clear?
28 U.S. Code 455 that says "Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
It's my opinion that her impartiality in regards to a Trump action can certainly be reasonably called into question. I seriously doubt if she will, but there should be calls on her to do so in this upcoming test of the Supreme Court.

Why do you hate freedom of speech?

 

[IronWing]

Justices of the Supreme Court should not be voting along "party lines".

Tell that the the corpse of Sandra Day O'Conner who threw an election to put her party in the White House.

 

[fskimospy]

Is it the law?

It's not the law for Ginsburg either.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Is it the law?

No its a deal

 

[nakedfrog]

Stop feeding it, guys.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

No its a deal

Glad to see that you finally admit it's not the law that President Trump has to show his tax returns. It's taken you months , but some people are slow learners. Maybe you can thank Betsy DeVos for your new wisdom.

 

[cbrunny]

Justices of the Supreme Court should not be voting along "party lines".

should - sure. are - definitely.

 

[fleshconsumed]

You'd love that, wouldn't you?

So... Trump blasting Nordstrom is fine because it's his personal opinion, Trump using term "so-called judge" is also fine that's just personal opinion, Trump openly criticizing any judgement not in his favor is also fine and dandy, but RBG making personal statement suddenly means she can't be impartial? Dude, can you even see your own hypocrisy?

 

[cbrunny]

Glad to see that you finally admit it's not the law that President trump has to show his tax returns. It's taken you months , but some people are slow learners. Maybe you can thank Betsy DeVos for your new wisdom.

Law or not, it's still fuckin stupid that he doesn't. It is pure cowardice and does nothing but make him look terrible. That can only mean what is in the returns will make him look worse than a stupid fuckin idiot coward.