Justice Ginsberg attacks the legitimacy of Trump's candidacy

[candycorn]

She should be impeached for displaying it so openly though. Of course liberals will alibi her. But if a conservative justice skewered Clinton like that, I think they should be impeached too. It's not their role, and worse, it shows overt bias

This comes from the school of “thought” that you’re incapable of impartiality if you have a Hispanic sounding name….

How is saying that judges on neither side should be directly inserting themselves into the political arena in any way like that?

Pretending Drumpf is anything other than a snake oil salesman is silly. Justice Ginsberg doesn’t strike me as being silly.

Ginsberg is an idiot. Trump at least shows intellect.

Perhaps the dumbest post ever.

 

[Wolfpack1]

Her behavior is very questionable. Openly campaigning for a particular candidate, seems to be a big ethics violation. Trump may be justified in demanding she step down.

Really? When out of session, the SC Justices do not have their 1st Amendment rights?

Did she campaign for Hillary, or did she simply put down Trump's character, demeanor, and lack of presidential qualities?

I wish she would have reserved her first Amendment rights, but it is, what it is...

ALSO, she did not break the law in any way....she can be involved in politics especially while out of session and if it does not involve a case the justices are working on...

Did you know that in our History, we have had a Supreme Court Justice RUN as a Candidate for the office of the President, while he was still in the SC?

So apparently, this is acceptable?

Personally, i think she should step down or possibly be removed. But that's just my opinion.

 

[kaz]

Merely as ornament, not as swaying the actual decision. Basing a decision on international /foreign law is much different.

She should be impeached for displaying it so openly though. Of course liberals will alibi her. But if a conservative justice skewered Clinton like that, I think they should be impeached too. It's not their role, and worse, it shows overt bias

The moronic Ginsberg has advocated federal judges looking at cases in foreign courts to help them decide cases in U.S courts. We have a federal justice system based on "common law." This type of activity advocated by Dimsberg goes outside those parameters of that system.

Kennedy has cited foreign law in his majority/minority opinions. It's pathetic

How do you know when it's one or the other? Kennedy's citing foreign law has been pretty direct

 

[Care4all]

She should be impeached for displaying it so openly though. Of course liberals will alibi her. But if a conservative justice skewered Clinton like that, I think they should be impeached too. It's not their role, and worse, it shows overt bias

This comes from the school of “thought” that you’re incapable of impartiality if you have a Hispanic sounding name….

How is saying that judges on neither side should be directly inserting themselves into the political arena in any way like that?

Pretending Drumpf is anything other than a snake oil salesman is silly. Justice Ginsberg doesn’t strike me as being silly.

Ginsberg is an idiot. Trump at least shows intellect.

Donald Trump has ZERO intellect. There is no denying this, imo.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Ginsberg is an idiot. Trump at least shows intellect.

 

[Care4all]

Her behavior is very questionable. Openly campaigning for a particular candidate, seems to be a big ethics violation. Trump may be justified in demanding she step down.

Really? When out of session, the SC Justices do not have their 1st Amendment rights?

Did she campaign for Hillary, or did she simply put down Trump's character, demeanor, and lack of presidential qualities?

I wish she would have reserved her first Amendment rights, but it is, what it is...

ALSO, she did not break the law in any way....she can be involved in politics especially while out of session and if it does not involve a case the justices are working on...

Did you know that in our History, we have had a Supreme Court Justice RUN as a Candidate for the office of the President, while he was still in the SC?

So apparently, this is acceptable?

Personally, i think she should step down or possibly be removed. But that's just my opinion.

But how does that jive with the fact that Supreme Court Justices can run for the office of the President while still in the Supreme Court? If that is not being political, then what is?

 

[Wolfpack1]

Her behavior is very questionable. Openly campaigning for a particular candidate, seems to be a big ethics violation. Trump may be justified in demanding she step down.

Really? When out of session, the SC Justices do not have their 1st Amendment rights?

Did she campaign for Hillary, or did she simply put down Trump's character, demeanor, and lack of presidential qualities?

I wish she would have reserved her first Amendment rights, but it is, what it is...

ALSO, she did not break the law in any way....she can be involved in politics especially while out of session and if it does not involve a case the justices are working on...

Did you know that in our History, we have had a Supreme Court Justice RUN as a Candidate for the office of the President, while he was still in the SC?

So apparently, this is acceptable?

Personally, i think she should step down or possibly be removed. But that's just my opinion.

But how does that jive with the fact that Supreme Court Justices can run for the office of the President while still in the Supreme Court? If that is not being political, then what is?

Yeah, that's a big problem. It should be addressed. I would also support term limits.

 

[depotoo]

He has stated it does not control the outcome, but mentions international /foreign law that happens to agree. Many law profs have been pushing for the Justices to use international law. When some of that law Does agree, why not mention it, to take some of the heat off, as long as the decision is only based only on our Constitutional laws?"

Do I wish it wasn't done? Yes, because it then can appear to interject outside law into arguments, such as other Justices have actually done.

from a Harvard Law study-




"legal academics have urged the Supreme Court to engage in a “dialogue” with their foreign counterparts. Four academic projects are particularly noteworthy: Professor Bruce Ackerman has advocated “world constitutionalism”;18 Professors Vicki Jackson and Mark Tushnet have become interested in the possibilities of comparative constitutional analysis;19 Professor Harold Koh has argued that the Court should look beyond American law when interpreting a constitutional term (like unreasonable search or due process) that “implicitly refers to a community standard”;20 and international law scholar Anne‐Marie Slaughter has argued in favor of transnational communication between courts.21 These academics appear to be attempting to construct an intellectual framework that could justify more extensive use of foreign judicial decisions in the future. This may presage further federal judicial reliance on foreign decisions for support.

Merely as ornament, not as swaying the actual decision. Basing a decision on international /foreign law is much different.

She should be impeached for displaying it so openly though. Of course liberals will alibi her. But if a conservative justice skewered Clinton like that, I think they should be impeached too. It's not their role, and worse, it shows overt bias

The moronic Ginsberg has advocated federal judges looking at cases in foreign courts to help them decide cases in U.S courts. We have a federal justice system based on "common law." This type of activity advocated by Dimsberg goes outside those parameters of that system.

Kennedy has cited foreign law in his majority/minority opinions. It's pathetic

How do you know when it's one or the other? Kennedy's citing foreign law has been pretty direct

 

[BlindBoo]

So Supreme Court Justices have no First Amendment Rights?

She was not deciding a case in law, she was speaking her opinion.

No law against that, yet.

Knowing my opinion on those filthy non-human sacks of shit that sneak across our border, would you trust my ruling on the legality of illegal immigration?

When deciding a case I expect the Judge to be able set aside her personal feelings about the man. You, not so much. What does her opinion of Donald "The Liar" Trump have to do with any case likely to come before the court?

 

[depotoo]

If he is elected President if very well could.

So Supreme Court Justices have no First Amendment Rights?

She was not deciding a case in law, she was speaking her opinion.

No law against that, yet.

Knowing my opinion on those filthy non-human sacks of shit that sneak across our border, would you trust my ruling on the legality of illegal immigration?

When deciding a case I expect the Judge to be able set aside her personal feelings about the man. You, not so much. What does her opinion of Donald "The Liar" Trump have to do with any case likely to come before the court?

 

[BlindBoo]

Do you think she should be punished for expressing her opinions on the presumptive GOP nominee?

Read some of her opinions. She expresses her "pleasure" rather than "the sense of the law". She attempts to rewrite the Constitution. That is why this is streaming over into her comments of Trump. It hurts her credibilty, particularly if Trump were to become President.

So Supreme Court Justices have no First Amendment Rights?

She was not deciding a case in law, she was speaking her opinion.

No law against that, yet.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

So Supreme Court Justices have no First Amendment Rights?

She was not deciding a case in law, she was speaking her opinion.

No law against that, yet.

Knowing my opinion on those filthy non-human sacks of shit that sneak across our border, would you trust my ruling on the legality of illegal immigration?

When deciding a case I expect the Judge to be able set aside her personal feelings about the man. You, not so much. What does her opinion of Donald "The Liar" Trump have to do with any case likely to come before the court?

might have a good deal to do with it once he becomes President.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Do you think she should be punished for expressing her opinions on the presumptive GOP nominee?

Read some of her opinions. She expresses her "pleasure" rather than "the sense of the law". She attempts to rewrite the Constitution. That is why this is streaming over into her comments of Trump. It hurts her credibilty, particularly if Trump were to become President.

So Supreme Court Justices have no First Amendment Rights?

She was not deciding a case in law, she was speaking her opinion.

No law against that, yet.

yes.
I also think it shows she would not be able to decide a case based on the merits of the constitution.
This fault puts her at odds with some of the very people she is tasked with protecting.

 

[depotoo]

If he is elected I believe she should now recuse herself from any decisions that could be affected by her opinion, so yes.

Do you think she should be punished for expressing her opinions on the presumptive GOP nominee?

Read some of her opinions. She expresses her "pleasure" rather than "the sense of the law". She attempts to rewrite the Constitution. That is why this is streaming over into her comments of Trump. It hurts her credibilty, particularly if Trump were to become President.

So Supreme Court Justices have no First Amendment Rights?

She was not deciding a case in law, she was speaking her opinion.

No law against that, yet.

 

[BlindBoo]

I disagree. Even if he is elected, her opinion of him has little to do with any cases brought before the court.

If he is elected President if very well could.

So Supreme Court Justices have no First Amendment Rights?

She was not deciding a case in law, she was speaking her opinion.

No law against that, yet.

Knowing my opinion on those filthy non-human sacks of shit that sneak across our border, would you trust my ruling on the legality of illegal immigration?

When deciding a case I expect the Judge to be able set aside her personal feelings about the man. You, not so much. What does her opinion of Donald "The Liar" Trump have to do with any case likely to come before the court?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I disagree. Even if he is elected, her opinion of him has little to do with any cases brought before the court.

If he is elected President if very well could.

So Supreme Court Justices have no First Amendment Rights?

She was not deciding a case in law, she was speaking her opinion.

No law against that, yet.

Knowing my opinion on those filthy non-human sacks of shit that sneak across our border, would you trust my ruling on the legality of illegal immigration?

When deciding a case I expect the Judge to be able set aside her personal feelings about the man. You, not so much. What does her opinion of Donald "The Liar" Trump have to do with any case likely to come before the court?

I dont see how you can say that.
If you were deciding on sending the illegals back to their respective countries based on our immigration laws, would you say to send them back, let them stay and fast track them, or just let them stay.

 

[OldLady]

So you're saying what she did was 'politically incorrect'.

lolol, good one!

Im saying what she did was a violation of her job. She should be removed and sent to the farm with the other worthless old politicians.

It's not. If it's a violation of her job then you should have no trouble citing the code where the violation is delineated.

the Supreme court is supposed to be impartial, they are supposed to rule based on law, not their personal emotion. If she can not do that then the wrinkled old senile prune needs to be wheeled out of the court and set in a home where she can die with at least a little dignity left. Right now, she has no dignity.

She wasn't ruling on anything! She was spouting her opinion during an interview for a book that it is being written about her. Who spread it around?

Learn to read.
I never said she was ruling. I asked if her opinion on future rulings could be trusted now that she has openly spoke out against Donald Trump in such a fashion. I dont think her senile ass can be trusted at all.

Now I understand the earlier comment that this was like the Curiel aspersions. Don't forget she and Scalia were great friends. She must have something going for her.

 

[OldLady]

So you're saying what she did was 'politically incorrect'.

lolol, good one!

Im saying what she did was a violation of her job. She should be removed and sent to the farm with the other worthless old politicians.

It's not. If it's a violation of her job then you should have no trouble citing the code where the violation is delineated.

the Supreme court is supposed to be impartial, they are supposed to rule based on law, not their personal emotion. If she can not do that then the wrinkled old senile prune needs to be wheeled out of the court and set in a home where she can die with at least a little dignity left. Right now, she has no dignity.

She wasn't ruling on anything! She was spouting her opinion during an interview for a book that it is being written about her. Who spread it around?

Learn to read.
I never said she was ruling. I asked if her opinion on future rulings could be trusted now that she has openly spoke out against Donald Trump in such a fashion. I dont think her senile ass can be trusted at all.

What does it matter what her personal opinion is if she ISN'T ruling. That's my point.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Im saying what she did was a violation of her job. She should be removed and sent to the farm with the other worthless old politicians.

It's not. If it's a violation of her job then you should have no trouble citing the code where the violation is delineated.

the Supreme court is supposed to be impartial, they are supposed to rule based on law, not their personal emotion. If she can not do that then the wrinkled old senile prune needs to be wheeled out of the court and set in a home where she can die with at least a little dignity left. Right now, she has no dignity.

She wasn't ruling on anything! She was spouting her opinion during an interview for a book that it is being written about her. Who spread it around?

Learn to read.
I never said she was ruling. I asked if her opinion on future rulings could be trusted now that she has openly spoke out against Donald Trump in such a fashion. I dont think her senile ass can be trusted at all.

Now I understand the earlier comment that this was like the Curiel aspersions. Don't forget she and Scalia were great friends. She must have something going for her.

and I have some really great friends that are pro illegal and supported Bernie Sanders.
there has to be more to a friendship than just political opinion.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Im saying what she did was a violation of her job. She should be removed and sent to the farm with the other worthless old politicians.

It's not. If it's a violation of her job then you should have no trouble citing the code where the violation is delineated.

the Supreme court is supposed to be impartial, they are supposed to rule based on law, not their personal emotion. If she can not do that then the wrinkled old senile prune needs to be wheeled out of the court and set in a home where she can die with at least a little dignity left. Right now, she has no dignity.

She wasn't ruling on anything! She was spouting her opinion during an interview for a book that it is being written about her. Who spread it around?

Learn to read.
I never said she was ruling. I asked if her opinion on future rulings could be trusted now that she has openly spoke out against Donald Trump in such a fashion. I dont think her senile ass can be trusted at all.

What does it matter what her personal opinion is if she ISN'T ruling. That's my point.

but she does rule.
and if she is so willing to express such vile opinion in public, then she will have no issue with expressing it in her ruling.