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

[Rye Catcher]

Trump demanding that Ginsburg and Sotomayor recuse themselves is arrogant, partisan idiocy.

There was no demand.

Dayum, why does that word always confuse Dimsocialists?

Idiot-gram ^^^; variety Concrete Thinker (thinker is an overstatement)

Show us the demand, Crayon Eater.

It's obvious, I'll restate it just for you: Trump's use of the Bully Pulpit, it gets biddable fools like you to Chant, "lock her up". And the her in this case were two Justices, and bringing discredit to the Judiciary is seditious.

Postscript: The idiot Nostra believes ( I can never stomach using think when referencing this jerk) my comment on the power of the Bully Pulpit was funny and dismisses its power).

 

[Nostra]

Trump demanding that Ginsburg and Sotomayor recuse themselves is arrogant, partisan idiocy.

There was no demand.

Dayum, why does that word always confuse Dimsocialists?

Idiot-gram ^^^; variety Concrete Thinker (thinker is an overstatement)

Show us the demand, Crayon Eater.

It's obvious, I'll restate it just for you: Trump's use of the Bully Pulpit, it gets biddable fools like you to Chant, "lock her up". And the her in this case were two Justices, and bringing discredit to the Judiciary is seditious.

So once again you have nothing. Typical lying Dimsocialist.

 

[Ken Mac]

The president has no authority to tell judges what to do. It's an authoritarian fantasy Trump has, or he literally doesn't understand how our Constitution works. He needs to back off.

It's a BIG LIE, one which the Chief Justice responded to when Trump called out "Obama Judges". Now we have seen more intrusion into the Judiciary:

Trump Demands Two Liberal Justices Recuse Themselves From His Cases

Is there any doubt trump is a person who is obsessed with their own power?

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Self Proclaimed" Emperor Hussein!

The top video is hilarious!!!!
Obama whining about rich people financing campaigns.....but opting out of the public financing system
for both his presidential campaigns. What a hypocritical twat.

 

[Coyote]

SC Justices have the same free speech rights as Trumpybear and his Banana Republicans. Why do they oppose Free Speech?

What is he doing to suppress their free speech?

He has no mechanism to make them recuse.

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.

 

[Lysistrata]

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.

 

[HappyJoy]

It's a BIG LIE, one which the Chief Justice responded to when Trump called out "Obama Judges". Now we have seen more intrusion into the Judiciary:

Trump Demands Two Liberal Justices Recuse Themselves From His Cases

Is there any doubt trump is a person who is obsessed with their own power?

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

I believe you'll find Trump's recusal statements revolve around the prejudicial nature of the justices - and thus, their inability to impartially hear a case - rather than simply disagreeing with Trump.

 

[Indeependent]

SC Justices have the same free speech rights as Trumpybear and his Banana Republicans. Why do they oppose Free Speech?

I have free speech and speech at work that can get me fired.

 

[Nostra]

What is he doing to suppress their free speech?

He has no mechanism to make them recuse.

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.

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

I believe you'll find Trump's recusal statements revolve around the prejudicial nature of the justices - and thus, their inability to impartially hear a case - rather than simply disagreeing with Trump.

How are their decisions prejudicial? Give me an example. It's perfectly fine for a Justice to disagree with the Trump or Obama administration and judge impartially.

Your post requires more detail to make a point.

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

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

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

I believe you'll find Trump's recusal statements revolve around the prejudicial nature of the justices - and thus, their inability to impartially hear a case - rather than simply disagreeing with Trump.

How are their decisions prejudicial?

Their extra-judicial statements demonstrate prejudice against Trump, and this, raise legitimate questions of their impartiality.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg calls Trump a 'faker,' he says she should resign - CNNPolitics
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Says Trump Should Recuse Himself from All Decisions Involving the Future of the Country
Justice Sonia Sotomayor: Trump's travel ban was 'motivated by anti-Muslim animus’

 

[Rye Catcher]

It's a BIG LIE, one which the Chief Justice responded to when Trump called out "Obama Judges". Now we have seen more intrusion into the Judiciary:

Trump Demands Two Liberal Justices Recuse Themselves From His Cases

Is there any doubt trump is a person who is obsessed with their own power?

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

 

[blackhawk]

If the Justices can speak out against Trump he has just as much right to speak out against them in turn free speech cuts both ways.

 

[Coyote]

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.

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

 

[Coyote]

If the Justices can speak out against Trump he has just as much right to speak out against them in turn free speech cuts both ways.

He has. Multiple times attacking judges. I guess they are finally speaking up.

 

[blackhawk]

If the Justices can speak out against Trump he has just as much right to speak out against them in turn free speech cuts both ways.

He has. Multiple times attacking judges. I guess they are finally speaking up.

As I said freedom of speech cuts both ways judges can speak their mind so can the President. Far to many people seem to have a hard time grasping this concept.