Guess who just apologised

[Hossfly]

Stupid move by Ginsburg to apologize.

Even stupider to have said it in the first place.

I disagree. Evil triumphs when good men (or women) do nothing.

She ain't a good woman. She's a liberal biased judge.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

That's right Ginsberg!
Guess the old hag has lost her mind.
BUT! She helped Trump get another 100K votes. Thanks bitch!
Every vote helps.
These LIBs can't help themselves.
Emotional hemophiliacs.

She's an 83 year old Jewish grandmother. Done well to keep quiet this long. I'm kind of sorry she apologized. Why do so many people LOVE Trump for being politically incorrect, but an 83 year old woman tries it and BLAM. Hang her.

As a Justice, she should be impartial.

or, dont' you like impartial judges?

She's supposed to be impartial even on none legal case stuff?

Would you like to be in front of a judge that was openly hostile to lesbians?

Drumpf is a lesbian now?....Not much of one with his tiny hands...

While i'm sure your debating acumen is admired in the like minded lesbian circles you run in,it fails miserably in the normal world.

 

[Pogo]

She's a Supreme Court Justice they are prevented from voicing their personal opinions about POTUS contests. She broke the law, and she violated her Code of Ethics. Color me unsurprised that you have no problem with that violation.

Uh --- really.

What "law" would this be then?

"Canon 2, which provides that “[a] judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently and diligently.” It also could violate Rule 2.1 of Canon 2, which provides that the judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge’s personal and extrajudicial activities."

Ginsburg has shown by her statements that she is not impartial and that her personal beliefs matter more than her duties to be impartial. Had she not said anything, most people with any sense knew how she would view things. However, when she made the statements, she opened a can that can't be resealed.

What case are we talking about?

Future cases. Judges do it all the time when past situations put them in a place of conflict of interest. Ginsburg set herself up now for the need to recuse herself should such a situation occur.

"Future cases", by definition do not exist NOW. If they did they would be "present cases".
Is that hard to figure out?

Here's the actual law -- 28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge:

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1)
Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2)
Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3)
Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
(4)
He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i)
Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii)
Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii)
Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv)
Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(c)
A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.
(d) For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated:
(1)
“proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation;
(2)
the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system;
(3)
“fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;
(4) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
(i)
Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;
(ii)
An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization;
(iii)
The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;
(iv)
Ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities.
(e)
No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.
(f)
Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification.

​

Now then, back to the question: What case are we talking about?

You do understand, judges exist to work on cases ---- they don't exist as some sort of mutant with no life? You do understand that Everyday Life-Itself does not constitute a "proceeding"?

If and when SCOTUS takes on the question of "whether Donald Rump is a faker and makes it up as he goes along", well on that day RBG will have to recuse --- since those were her comments.

Gonna wait for that?


And btw with that law quoted sitting up there ----------- how come Clarence Thomas didn't recuse himself from Bush v. Gore? That actually WAS a case.

 

[westwall]

Even stupider to have said it in the first place.

I disagree. Evil triumphs when good men (or women) do nothing.

She's a Supreme Court Justice they are prevented from voicing their personal opinions about POTUS contests. She broke the law, and she violated her Code of Ethics. Color me unsurprised that you have no problem with that violation.

Uh --- really.

What "law" would this be then?

"Canon 2, which provides that “[a] judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently and diligently.” It also could violate Rule 2.1 of Canon 2, which provides that the judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge’s personal and extrajudicial activities."

Explain how stating her opinion is "performing the duties of judicial office".

Yeppers. You're a stupid one too. Judicial duties are always supposed to be based on impartial analysis, her declaration IS a demonstration of partiality. You really ARE a clown....

 

[Pogo]

Stupid move by Ginsburg to apologize.

Even stupider to have said it in the first place.

I disagree. Evil triumphs when good men (or women) do nothing.

She ain't a good woman. She's a liberal biased judge.

What'd she say about "liberalism" then?

 

[bodecea]

I disagree. Evil triumphs when good men (or women) do nothing.

She's a Supreme Court Justice they are prevented from voicing their personal opinions about POTUS contests. She broke the law, and she violated her Code of Ethics. Color me unsurprised that you have no problem with that violation.

Uh --- really.

What "law" would this be then?

"Canon 2, which provides that “[a] judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently and diligently.” It also could violate Rule 2.1 of Canon 2, which provides that the judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge’s personal and extrajudicial activities."

Explain how stating her opinion is "performing the duties of judicial office".

Yeppers. You're a stupid one too. Judicial duties are always supposed to be based on impartial analysis, her declaration IS a demonstration of partiality. You really ARE a clown....

So...in your theory of law...a judge cannot express an opinion on anything without breaking the law....

 

[Pogo]

I disagree. Evil triumphs when good men (or women) do nothing.

She's a Supreme Court Justice they are prevented from voicing their personal opinions about POTUS contests. She broke the law, and she violated her Code of Ethics. Color me unsurprised that you have no problem with that violation.

Uh --- really.

What "law" would this be then?

"Canon 2, which provides that “[a] judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently and diligently.” It also could violate Rule 2.1 of Canon 2, which provides that the judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge’s personal and extrajudicial activities."

Explain how stating her opinion is "performing the duties of judicial office".

Yeppers. You're a stupid one too. Judicial duties are always supposed to be based on impartial analysis, her declaration IS a demonstration of partiality.

---- in what?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

She's a Supreme Court Justice they are prevented from voicing their personal opinions about POTUS contests. She broke the law, and she violated her Code of Ethics. Color me unsurprised that you have no problem with that violation.

Uh --- really.

What "law" would this be then?

"Canon 2, which provides that “[a] judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently and diligently.” It also could violate Rule 2.1 of Canon 2, which provides that the judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge’s personal and extrajudicial activities."

Explain how stating her opinion is "performing the duties of judicial office".

Yeppers. You're a stupid one too. Judicial duties are always supposed to be based on impartial analysis, her declaration IS a demonstration of partiality. You really ARE a clown....

So...in your theory of law...a judge cannot express an option on anything without breaking the law....

Are you referring to the the lesbian option?

 

[bodecea]

Uh --- really.

What "law" would this be then?

"Canon 2, which provides that “[a] judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently and diligently.” It also could violate Rule 2.1 of Canon 2, which provides that the judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge’s personal and extrajudicial activities."

Explain how stating her opinion is "performing the duties of judicial office".

Yeppers. You're a stupid one too. Judicial duties are always supposed to be based on impartial analysis, her declaration IS a demonstration of partiality. You really ARE a clown....

So...in your theory of law...a judge cannot express an option on anything without breaking the law....

Are you referring to the the lesbian option?

I was hoping you would be smart enough to see the weakness in your fail analogy....I was too optimistic...

Think about it.....

 

[Pogo]

How horrible that somebody showed humility and character by apologizing and admitting a mistake/laps in judgement... Funny that you think that is a shortcoming.

You think Trump would have the balls to do the same? Or maybe you just think he is always right?

I don't care if she appologizes or not, she proved she was nothing but a political hack.

she proved she has an opinion on trump, nothing more

She proved she was biased when saying it and a liar by claiming she was sorry for doing so.

lol. biased? maybe you could claim bias if something about the election ended up in front of the court...

and nothing about expressing regret makes one a liar

Sandra Day O'Connor "regrets" Bush v. Gore too. Wonder if this crowd would paint her a "liar".

 

[Iceweasel]

Stupid move by Ginsburg to apologize.

Even stupider to have said it in the first place.

I disagree. Evil triumphs when good men (or women) do nothing.

She ain't a good woman. She's a liberal biased judge.

What'd she say about "liberalism" then?

She says it in every court decision. Start there.

 

[Iceweasel]

How horrible that somebody showed humility and character by apologizing and admitting a mistake/laps in judgement... Funny that you think that is a shortcoming.

You think Trump would have the balls to do the same? Or maybe you just think he is always right?

I don't care if she appologizes or not, she proved she was nothing but a political hack.

she proved she has an opinion on trump, nothing more

She proved she was biased when saying it and a liar by claiming she was sorry for doing so.

lol. biased? maybe you could claim bias if something about the election ended up in front of the court...

and nothing about expressing regret makes one a liar

Sandra Day O'Connor "regrets" Bush v. Gore too. Wonder if this crowd would paint her a "liar".

Not a liar, liberal. She went full retard.

 

[bodecea]

Look at all of Scalia ' s publicly said opinions on things........but where are all the RW complaints?

 

[Pogo]

Stupid move by Ginsburg to apologize.

Even stupider to have said it in the first place.

I disagree. Evil triumphs when good men (or women) do nothing.

She ain't a good woman. She's a liberal biased judge.

What'd she say about "liberalism" then?

She says it in every court decision. Start there.

Izzat right.

Link? Quote?

You do realize the question wasn't put to you, right?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

"Canon 2, which provides that “[a] judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently and diligently.” It also could violate Rule 2.1 of Canon 2, which provides that the judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge’s personal and extrajudicial activities."

Explain how stating her opinion is "performing the duties of judicial office".

Yeppers. You're a stupid one too. Judicial duties are always supposed to be based on impartial analysis, her declaration IS a demonstration of partiality. You really ARE a clown....

So...in your theory of law...a judge cannot express an option on anything without breaking the law....

Are you referring to the the lesbian option?

I was hoping you would be smart enough to see the weakness in your fail analogy....I was too optimistic...

Think about it.....

We all know you meant opinion but go ahead and try and save face...or have your chick sit on you face....whatever.

 

[Iceweasel]

Even stupider to have said it in the first place.

I disagree. Evil triumphs when good men (or women) do nothing.

She ain't a good woman. She's a liberal biased judge.

What'd she say about "liberalism" then?

She says it in every court decision. Start there.

Izzat right.

Link? Quote?

You do realize the question wasn't put to you, right?

I read your link, dumbfuck. You realize you posted your comment in an open forum, right?

 

[Auld Phart]

How horrible that somebody showed humility and character by apologizing and admitting a mistake/laps in judgement... Funny that you think that is a shortcoming.

You think Trump would have the balls to do the same? Or maybe you just think he is always right?

I don't care if she appologizes or not, she proved she was nothing but a political hack.

she proved she has an opinion on trump, nothing more

She proved she was biased when saying it and a liar by claiming she was sorry for doing so.

lol. biased? maybe you could claim bias if something about the election ended up in front of the court...

and nothing about expressing regret makes one a liar

Sandra Day O'Connor "regrets" Bush v. Gore too. Wonder if this crowd would paint her a "liar".

AFTER she left the bench.

Or did you think she was still on the bench, and Bush was president in 2013?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

"Canon 2, which provides that “[a] judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently and diligently.” It also could violate Rule 2.1 of Canon 2, which provides that the judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge’s personal and extrajudicial activities."

Explain how stating her opinion is "performing the duties of judicial office".

Yeppers. You're a stupid one too. Judicial duties are always supposed to be based on impartial analysis, her declaration IS a demonstration of partiality. You really ARE a clown....

So...in your theory of law...a judge cannot express an option on anything without breaking the law....

Are you referring to the the lesbian option?

I was hoping you would be smart enough to see the weakness in your fail analogy....I was too optimistic...

Think about it.....

Weakness? Than why'd you fix the typo?
Good Lord you really are pathetic.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Look at all of Scalia ' s publicly said opinions on things........but where are all the RW complaints?

You must have missed the link...
Funny how you do that every time it refutes your bullshit.

 

[Pogo]

I don't care if she appologizes or not, she proved she was nothing but a political hack.

she proved she has an opinion on trump, nothing more

She proved she was biased when saying it and a liar by claiming she was sorry for doing so.

lol. biased? maybe you could claim bias if something about the election ended up in front of the court...

and nothing about expressing regret makes one a liar

Sandra Day O'Connor "regrets" Bush v. Gore too. Wonder if this crowd would paint her a "liar".

AFTER she left the bench.

Or did you think she was still on the bench, and Bush was president in 2013?

Doesn't matter --- the contrast there is between "apologize" and "regret".

Both Justices expressed a "regret" but in the present case you tried to make it into an "apology". So did the OP.
You even extended it to "liar".

Just using your own logic.