And so it continues, unabated, by the self proclaimed Emperor!

[Ken Mac]

Trump didn't demand anything, you sissy bedwetter.

It's the title of an article, the very conservative moony times also used the same language.

President demands that two liberal Supreme Court justices recuse themselves from 'Trump related' matters

Is this where you expect me to say, "Oh, well, if THEY said it, it must be true!!"?

How do you think that's going to work out for you?

I'm saying the word 'demands' is used in multiple articles and is a single word that you're going to hang your hat on rather than the fact that the president of the United States even insinuating that a justice should recuse themselves because they spoke up against him is troubling.

What is even more troubling is a SCJ speaking up against any party. It's not for them to "Judge". Trump was right to push back and put them in their place. They are supposed to be neutral to ideology and compliant with the constitution. When your ideology rises up to the level of speaking out against someone or some platform, your bias is tainting your neutrality to uphold the constitution.

I have no problem when anyone criticizes political parties to include Supreme Court justices. I have no problem with members of the court criticizing the president or vice versa. I have a problem with the president stating that members of the Supreme Court (or any court) should recuse themselves or in any way attempts to invalidate the court because they don't agree with the president. Disagree, sure, it happens. Getting wingnuts to think the supreme court is somehow unfair because the shit eating goblin in the white house says so is another thing all together.

You don't care if a SCJ aires their opinion and sways voters? That's bullshit, you know. He's just calling them out on it. They are supposed to be impartial. Get it? Otherwise, why would they ask about their political leanings in a confirmation hearing? They do that shit to ensure they are impartial. They test them to see if they will give answers that show they are partial to one party or another. A SCJ would never be confirmed if they showed any impartiality.

You're an idiot.

 

[Ken Mac]

Trump didn't demand anything, you sissy bedwetter.

It's the title of an article, the very conservative moony times also used the same language.

President demands that two liberal Supreme Court justices recuse themselves from 'Trump related' matters

Is this where you expect me to say, "Oh, well, if THEY said it, it must be true!!"?

How do you think that's going to work out for you?

I'm saying the word 'demands' is used in multiple articles and is a single word that you're going to hang your hat on rather than the fact that the president of the United States even insinuating that a justice should recuse themselves because they spoke up against him is troubling.

What is even more troubling is a SCJ speaking up against any party. It's not for them to "Judge". Trump was right to push back and put them in their place. They are supposed to be neutral to ideology and compliant with the constitution. When your ideology rises up to the level of speaking out against someone or some platform, your bias is tainting your neutrality to uphold the constitution.

Trump was very far right when he attacked the Judiciary, something he has done repeatedly. It is mindful of something Mussolini may had done, given how his words and not actions impacted the silence of the Pope.

It was justified.

You're an idiot too.

 

[Coyote]

By demanded they recuse. Had they lavished praise on the Trumpybear, I don't think he would have made any such demand.

You're right. He has no authority over the Court. He can announce what he thinks of them, and they can announce what they think of him.

And that would have been equally wrong. Any judge that shows bias one way or another to the subject of the case before them should recuse themselves.

An example of this bias would really be kind of a good thing to post about now.

Take what Ginsberg said. "Trump is a faker" and "I cannot see how he could be president".

Those statements show she obviously does not like trump, and apparently does not agree with him as president.

It would be the exact same if kavanaugh came out and said I'm 100% on the side of trump. Any cases involving trump that comes before him, he should recuse himself because it would be hard to know if he was giving a law driven opinion, or a personally biased opinion.

So Trump can exercise his free speech but judges can't exercise theirs to Islam the president? Maybe both should be more circumspect.

SC Judges are supposed to be impartial Politicians, not so much.

Get a clue.

He is not a politician. He is the president. As such, yes, he should be impartial as he represents all of the country.

On the other hand, you are lacking a clue. Impartiality is only required in the conduct of their duties.

However...optically, it would be better if the justices refrained from attacking the president refrained from attacking judges, and worse, individual jurists.

You also can't demand free speech rights for the president to attack with impunity and then deny the same for others. Make up your mind.

 

[Coyote]

It's the title of an article, the very conservative moony times also used the same language.

President demands that two liberal Supreme Court justices recuse themselves from 'Trump related' matters

Is this where you expect me to say, "Oh, well, if THEY said it, it must be true!!"?

How do you think that's going to work out for you?

I'm saying the word 'demands' is used in multiple articles and is a single word that you're going to hang your hat on rather than the fact that the president of the United States even insinuating that a justice should recuse themselves because they spoke up against him is troubling.

What is even more troubling is a SCJ speaking up against any party. It's not for them to "Judge". Trump was right to push back and put them in their place. They are supposed to be neutral to ideology and compliant with the constitution. When your ideology rises up to the level of speaking out against someone or some platform, your bias is tainting your neutrality to uphold the constitution.

Trump was very far right when he attacked the Judiciary, something he has done repeatedly. It is mindful of something Mussolini may had done, given how his words and not actions impacted the silence of the Pope.

It was justified.

You're an idiot too.

Really? Trump has a long history of attacking judges.

 

[Nostra]

And that would have been equally wrong. Any judge that shows bias one way or another to the subject of the case before them should recuse themselves.

An example of this bias would really be kind of a good thing to post about now.

Take what Ginsberg said. "Trump is a faker" and "I cannot see how he could be president".

Those statements show she obviously does not like trump, and apparently does not agree with him as president.

It would be the exact same if kavanaugh came out and said I'm 100% on the side of trump. Any cases involving trump that comes before him, he should recuse himself because it would be hard to know if he was giving a law driven opinion, or a personally biased opinion.

So Trump can exercise his free speech but judges can't exercise theirs to Islam the president? Maybe both should be more circumspect.

SC Judges are supposed to be impartial Politicians, not so much.

Get a clue.

He is not a politician. He is the president. As such, yes, he should be impartial as he represents all of the country.

On the other hand, you are lacking a clue. Impartiality is only required in the conduct of their duties.

However...optically, it would be better if the justices refrained from attacking the president refrained from attacking judges, and worse, individual jurists.

You also can't demand free speech rights for the president to attack with impunity and then deny the same for others. Make up your mind.

He is not a politician. He is the president.

Thanks for exposing your colossal ignorance.

 

[peach174]

Trump said they should recuse themselves.
It was not a demand to do it.
He has the right of freedom of speech.

 

[Rye Catcher]

It's the title of an article, the very conservative moony times also used the same language.

President demands that two liberal Supreme Court justices recuse themselves from 'Trump related' matters

Is this where you expect me to say, "Oh, well, if THEY said it, it must be true!!"?

How do you think that's going to work out for you?

I'm saying the word 'demands' is used in multiple articles and is a single word that you're going to hang your hat on rather than the fact that the president of the United States even insinuating that a justice should recuse themselves because they spoke up against him is troubling.

What is even more troubling is a SCJ speaking up against any party. It's not for them to "Judge". Trump was right to push back and put them in their place. They are supposed to be neutral to ideology and compliant with the constitution. When your ideology rises up to the level of speaking out against someone or some platform, your bias is tainting your neutrality to uphold the constitution.

Trump was very far right when he attacked the Judiciary, something he has done repeatedly. It is mindful of something Mussolini may had done, given how his words and not actions impacted the silence of the Pope.

It was justified.

You're an idiot too.

I'd suggest that your use of a logical fallacy, the infamous ad hominem, is that you believe you are articulate, urbane and informed. One more example of an inflated ego wrapped in someone seeking attention and affection. Sad, I do so pity you.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Trump was very far right when he attacked the Judiciary, something he has done repeatedly. It is mindful of something Mussolini may had done, given how his words and not actions impacted the silence of the Pope.

Do you play the fool for free, or did Bloomberg pay you to post this nonsense?

I'm not surprised you are not informed of what trump has tweeted and spewed at his rallies. Also the fact that the Chief Justice spanked trump's fat ass for using the phrase, "Obama's Judges".

Don't you have a gun to clean, the one you carry around when you fear going to the supermarket to buy your daily six pack of Bud?

 

[toobfreak]

For those who doubt DJT is not a megalomaniac, and the GOP which has allowed him to become a self proclaimed emperor, please wake up, open you eyes, and read this:

"President Donald Trump lashed out at two liberal Supreme Court justices Tuesday, escalating his battle with the judicial system to new heights despite entreaties by his attorney general to refrain from Twitter blasts that complicate the administration’s legal fights.

"Weighing in on a domestic matter before embarking on a day of ceremony and meetings in India, Trump seized on an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and a years-old comment by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to demand that the two Democratic-appointed jurists recuse themselves from any cases involving him."

Trump Demands Two Liberal Justices Recuse Themselves From His Cases

This is a totally outrageous demand and one that I have never heard a U.S. president ever make before. This is overstepping by far.

Those who claim that Justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg have obvious and admitted biases seem to forget that we have had "conservative" justices who have expressed biased attitudes openly, and never received demands for recusal. Scalia used to trot around all over the place speaking to biased groups like the Federalist Society, and "conservative" groups constantly call for the appointment of justices who can be relied upon to always rubber-stamp "conservative" views.

There was one case on a controversial law in which, according to the transcript of oral argument, the justices identified as "conservative" asked only a few questions relating to procedural matters regarding the bringing of the action, but never asked one single question regarding to the substantive provisions of the law and how they applied in the real world. Their silence was certainly indicative of pre-judgment bias. Did they even read the briefs, of which there were many and from expert sources?

Now justices are getting demands for recusal from the criminal who sits on the Oval Office who demands to be a dictator? No way! This is totally un-American.

Totally outrageous demand. Except that if it were SCOTUS members calling for Trump's resignation, you'd be all for it calling it appropriate!

How would you even know this? Don't try to put words in another person's mouth. As far as I know, all that you are doing is raising some hypothetical situation that has never occurred.

How do I know that if SCOTUS was attacking Trump, you'd be all for it, Shitstain? Because I read it here everyday from losers like you who'll buy into any anti-Trump rant! I get tired of carrying your ignorant, stupid ass:

https://nypost.com/2016/07/11/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-unhinged-assault-on-trump/

Cruz scorches Sotomayor over court critique, turns tables on her dissent

 

[toomuchtime_]

Take what Ginsberg said. "Trump is a faker" and "I cannot see how he could be president".

Those statements show she obviously does not like trump, and apparently does not agree with him as president.

It would be the exact same if kavanaugh came out and said I'm 100% on the side of trump. Any cases involving trump that comes before him, he should recuse himself because it would be hard to know if he was giving a law driven opinion, or a personally biased opinion.

So Trump can exercise his free speech but judges can't exercise theirs to Islam the president? Maybe both should be more circumspect.

SC Judges are supposed to be impartial Politicians, not so much.

Get a clue.

Impartial for any cases before the court. They are not required to be impartial on their views of the president or anyone else.

It damages the perception of the Court as an impartial body when its members go public with their political biases. Sotomayor actually attacked her colleagues on the Court. These two women are obviously morally unfit to serve on the Court.

I think our president has damaged the office he holds and is morally unfit to serve as president.

Not true. You feel that way but there is no evidence of thought in any of your posts.

 

[HappyJoy]

An example of this bias would really be kind of a good thing to post about now.

Take what Ginsberg said. "Trump is a faker" and "I cannot see how he could be president".

Those statements show she obviously does not like trump, and apparently does not agree with him as president.

It would be the exact same if kavanaugh came out and said I'm 100% on the side of trump. Any cases involving trump that comes before him, he should recuse himself because it would be hard to know if he was giving a law driven opinion, or a personally biased opinion.

So Trump can exercise his free speech but judges can't exercise theirs to Islam the president? Maybe both should be more circumspect.

SC Judges are supposed to be impartial Politicians, not so much.

Get a clue.

Impartial for any cases before the court. They are not required to be impartial on their views of the president or anyone else.

It damages the perception of the Court as an impartial body when its members go public with their political biases. Sotomayor actually attacked her colleagues on the Court. These two women are obviously morally unfit to serve on the Court.

They "attack" each other whenever they have a minority opinion. They are not unfit to serve, idiot.

 

[Ken Mac]

Is this where you expect me to say, "Oh, well, if THEY said it, it must be true!!"?

How do you think that's going to work out for you?

I'm saying the word 'demands' is used in multiple articles and is a single word that you're going to hang your hat on rather than the fact that the president of the United States even insinuating that a justice should recuse themselves because they spoke up against him is troubling.

What is even more troubling is a SCJ speaking up against any party. It's not for them to "Judge". Trump was right to push back and put them in their place. They are supposed to be neutral to ideology and compliant with the constitution. When your ideology rises up to the level of speaking out against someone or some platform, your bias is tainting your neutrality to uphold the constitution.

Trump was very far right when he attacked the Judiciary, something he has done repeatedly. It is mindful of something Mussolini may had done, given how his words and not actions impacted the silence of the Pope.

It was justified.

You're an idiot too.

Really? Trump has a long history of attacking judges.

I'm not speaking to the fact he has questioned other judges. That is whataboutism. I'm specifically speaking to the SCJ's sharing their political opinions.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Take what Ginsberg said. "Trump is a faker" and "I cannot see how he could be president".

Those statements show she obviously does not like trump, and apparently does not agree with him as president.

It would be the exact same if kavanaugh came out and said I'm 100% on the side of trump. Any cases involving trump that comes before him, he should recuse himself because it would be hard to know if he was giving a law driven opinion, or a personally biased opinion.

So Trump can exercise his free speech but judges can't exercise theirs to Islam the president? Maybe both should be more circumspect.

SC Judges are supposed to be impartial Politicians, not so much.

Get a clue.

Impartial for any cases before the court. They are not required to be impartial on their views of the president or anyone else.

It damages the perception of the Court as an impartial body when its members go public with their political biases. Sotomayor actually attacked her colleagues on the Court. These two women are obviously morally unfit to serve on the Court.

They "attack" each other whenever they have a minority opinion. They are not unfit to serve, idiot.

So you have no idea what is going on, but you have strong opinions about it anyway. Sotomayor publicly attacked her more conservative colleagues during an interview, and Ginsburgh made public statements about President Trump that were unrelated to anything before the Court.

 

[Ken Mac]

Is this where you expect me to say, "Oh, well, if THEY said it, it must be true!!"?

How do you think that's going to work out for you?

I'm saying the word 'demands' is used in multiple articles and is a single word that you're going to hang your hat on rather than the fact that the president of the United States even insinuating that a justice should recuse themselves because they spoke up against him is troubling.

What is even more troubling is a SCJ speaking up against any party. It's not for them to "Judge". Trump was right to push back and put them in their place. They are supposed to be neutral to ideology and compliant with the constitution. When your ideology rises up to the level of speaking out against someone or some platform, your bias is tainting your neutrality to uphold the constitution.

Trump was very far right when he attacked the Judiciary, something he has done repeatedly. It is mindful of something Mussolini may had done, given how his words and not actions impacted the silence of the Pope.

It was justified.

You're an idiot too.

I'd suggest that your use of a logical fallacy, the infamous ad hominem, is that you believe you are articulate, urbane and informed. One more example of an inflated ego wrapped in someone seeking attention and affection. Sad, I do so pity you.

You're right. I apologize. You're ignorant.

 

[HappyJoy]

I'm saying the word 'demands' is used in multiple articles and is a single word that you're going to hang your hat on rather than the fact that the president of the United States even insinuating that a justice should recuse themselves because they spoke up against him is troubling.

What is even more troubling is a SCJ speaking up against any party. It's not for them to "Judge". Trump was right to push back and put them in their place. They are supposed to be neutral to ideology and compliant with the constitution. When your ideology rises up to the level of speaking out against someone or some platform, your bias is tainting your neutrality to uphold the constitution.

Trump was very far right when he attacked the Judiciary, something he has done repeatedly. It is mindful of something Mussolini may had done, given how his words and not actions impacted the silence of the Pope.

It was justified.

You're an idiot too.

Really? Trump has a long history of attacking judges.

I'm not speaking to the fact he has questioned other judges. That is whataboutism. I'm specifically speaking to the SCJ's sharing their political opinions.

Cuz otherwise it would be such a mystery.

 

[HappyJoy]

So Trump can exercise his free speech but judges can't exercise theirs to Islam the president? Maybe both should be more circumspect.

SC Judges are supposed to be impartial Politicians, not so much.

Get a clue.

Impartial for any cases before the court. They are not required to be impartial on their views of the president or anyone else.

It damages the perception of the Court as an impartial body when its members go public with their political biases. Sotomayor actually attacked her colleagues on the Court. These two women are obviously morally unfit to serve on the Court.

They "attack" each other whenever they have a minority opinion. They are not unfit to serve, idiot.

So you have no idea what is going on, but you have strong opinions about it anyway. Sotomayor publicly attacked her more conservative colleagues during an interview, and Ginsburgh made public statements about President Trump that were unrelated to anything before the Court.

Yes, they were unrelated. Glad you caught that.

 

[Ken Mac]

And that would have been equally wrong. Any judge that shows bias one way or another to the subject of the case before them should recuse themselves.

An example of this bias would really be kind of a good thing to post about now.

Take what Ginsberg said. "Trump is a faker" and "I cannot see how he could be president".

Those statements show she obviously does not like trump, and apparently does not agree with him as president.

It would be the exact same if kavanaugh came out and said I'm 100% on the side of trump. Any cases involving trump that comes before him, he should recuse himself because it would be hard to know if he was giving a law driven opinion, or a personally biased opinion.

So Trump can exercise his free speech but judges can't exercise theirs to Islam the president? Maybe both should be more circumspect.

SC Judges are supposed to be impartial Politicians, not so much.

Get a clue.

He is not a politician. He is the president. As such, yes, he should be impartial as he represents all of the country.

On the other hand, you are lacking a clue. Impartiality is only required in the conduct of their duties.

However...optically, it would be better if the justices refrained from attacking the president refrained from attacking judges, and worse, individual jurists.

You also can't demand free speech rights for the president to attack with impunity and then deny the same for others. Make up your mind.

It's not just an optic problem. It can have a large impact on the views of the voter. Could you imagine if they all shared their political leanings all the time with the public? That would be a shit show. It's just plain wrong.

 

[Flash]

For those who doubt DJT is not a megalomaniac, and the GOP which has allowed him to become a self proclaimed emperor, please wake up, open you eyes, and read this:

"President Donald Trump lashed out at two liberal Supreme Court justices Tuesday, escalating his battle with the judicial system to new heights despite entreaties by his attorney general to refrain from Twitter blasts that complicate the administration’s legal fights.

"Weighing in on a domestic matter before embarking on a day of ceremony and meetings in India, Trump seized on an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and a years-old comment by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to demand that the two Democratic-appointed jurists recuse themselves from any cases involving him."

Trump Demands Two Liberal Justices Recuse Themselves From His Cases

Trump Derangement Syndrome mental illness. You haz it.

 

[Ken Mac]

What is even more troubling is a SCJ speaking up against any party. It's not for them to "Judge". Trump was right to push back and put them in their place. They are supposed to be neutral to ideology and compliant with the constitution. When your ideology rises up to the level of speaking out against someone or some platform, your bias is tainting your neutrality to uphold the constitution.

Trump was very far right when he attacked the Judiciary, something he has done repeatedly. It is mindful of something Mussolini may had done, given how his words and not actions impacted the silence of the Pope.

It was justified.

You're an idiot too.

Really? Trump has a long history of attacking judges.

I'm not speaking to the fact he has questioned other judges. That is whataboutism. I'm specifically speaking to the SCJ's sharing their political opinions.

Cuz otherwise it would be such a mystery.

Go ahead an minimize it if that makes you feel better. It's just my opinion.

 

[HappyJoy]

Trump was very far right when he attacked the Judiciary, something he has done repeatedly. It is mindful of something Mussolini may had done, given how his words and not actions impacted the silence of the Pope.

It was justified.

You're an idiot too.

Really? Trump has a long history of attacking judges.

I'm not speaking to the fact he has questioned other judges. That is whataboutism. I'm specifically speaking to the SCJ's sharing their political opinions.

Cuz otherwise it would be such a mystery.

Go ahead an minimize it if that makes you feel better. It's just my opinion.

Oh, there was something to minimize?