Will Ginsburg Have To Recuse Herself On Travel Suspension

[bodecea]

We are talking about a justice who admitted showing up at a state of the Union and passed out! Is it asking to much to expect our Justice's to be sober on duty and such public events?

Is that what YOU call sleep? If you pay attention at SOTUs, a lot of people sleep during those.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nope.

Of course you'd be saying the same if the situation were reversed, right?


.

Yep.

.

You asked a question. I answered it with complete honesty. You are just unable to recognize honesty.

What I recognized was the lack of convincing statement.


.

You asked if she will have to recuse herself. I answered with the correct answer. She will not.

You asked if I'd say the same thing if " the situation were reversed". I answered the correct answer again.

Try harder.

 

[OKTexas]

Of course you'd be saying the same if the situation were reversed, right?


.

Yep.

.

You asked a question. I answered it with complete honesty. You are just unable to recognize honesty.

What I recognized was the lack of convincing statement.


.

You asked if she will have to recuse herself. I answered with the correct answer. She will not.

You asked if I'd say the same thing if " the situation were reversed". I answered the correct answer again.

Try harder.

Excuse me if I doubt your integrity and her impartiality.


.

 

[radical right]

After all the negative comments RGB made during the election about Trump can she objectively hear this case?

Days later, in a CNN interview, she said of candidate Trump, “He is a faker. He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns?”

Personally, I don't how she can be objective after such statements. Even an appearance of bias should disqualify a judge. This is much more than an appearance.

Discuss.


.

Antonin Scalia went duck hunting with a case before the court, and didn't recuse himself. Clarence Thomas's wife made a living from an organization with a case before the court, and didn't recuse himself.

Personal and financial relationships are the usual reasons for recusal, but republicans have drawn the line that it's acceptable.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yep.

.

You asked a question. I answered it with complete honesty. You are just unable to recognize honesty.

What I recognized was the lack of convincing statement.


.

You asked if she will have to recuse herself. I answered with the correct answer. She will not.

You asked if I'd say the same thing if " the situation were reversed". I answered the correct answer again.

Try harder.

Excuse me if I doubt your integrity and her impartiality.


.

You are conditioned to doubt the integrity of people who have it. It's how you deal with your lack thereof.

 

[OKTexas]

After all the negative comments RGB made during the election about Trump can she objectively hear this case?

Days later, in a CNN interview, she said of candidate Trump, “He is a faker. He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns?”

Personally, I don't how she can be objective after such statements. Even an appearance of bias should disqualify a judge. This is much more than an appearance.

Discuss.


.

Antonin Scalia went duck hunting with a case before the court, and didn't recuse himself. Clarence Thomas's wife made a living from an organization with a case before the court, and didn't recuse himself.

Personal and financial relationships are the usual reasons for recusal, but republicans have drawn the line that it's acceptable.

And those rise to a personal and public animosity toward a litigant how?


.

 

[LoneLaugher]

After all the negative comments RGB made during the election about Trump can she objectively hear this case?

Days later, in a CNN interview, she said of candidate Trump, “He is a faker. He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns?”

Personally, I don't how she can be objective after such statements. Even an appearance of bias should disqualify a judge. This is much more than an appearance.

Discuss.


.

Antonin Scalia went duck hunting with a case before the court, and didn't recuse himself. Clarence Thomas's wife made a living from an organization with a case before the court, and didn't recuse himself.

Personal and financial relationships are the usual reasons for recusal, but republicans have drawn the line that it's acceptable.

And those rise to a personal and public animosity toward a litigant how?


.

You are one of those fuckers who thinks asking questions in a constant attempt to catch someone unaware constitutes full participation in a discussion.

As such, you don't grasp how boring it is for everyone else.

 

[OKTexas]

.

You asked a question. I answered it with complete honesty. You are just unable to recognize honesty.

What I recognized was the lack of convincing statement.


.

You asked if she will have to recuse herself. I answered with the correct answer. She will not.

You asked if I'd say the same thing if " the situation were reversed". I answered the correct answer again.

Try harder.

Excuse me if I doubt your integrity and her impartiality.


.

You are conditioned to doubt the integrity of people who have it. It's how you deal with your lack thereof.

No, I've just witnessed your partisan hackery for too long. You're really not known for unbiased posts.


.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You asked a question. I answered it with complete honesty. You are just unable to recognize honesty.

What I recognized was the lack of convincing statement.


.

You asked if she will have to recuse herself. I answered with the correct answer. She will not.

You asked if I'd say the same thing if " the situation were reversed". I answered the correct answer again.

Try harder.

Excuse me if I doubt your integrity and her impartiality.


.

You are conditioned to doubt the integrity of people who have it. It's how you deal with your lack thereof.

No, I've just witnessed your partisan hackery for too long. You're really not known for unbiased posts.


.

Who ever said I'm not biased? I'm biased. I'm also fair and reasonable. That is where you fall short.

 

[radical right]

And those rise to a personal and public animosity toward a litigant how?


.

You have something against judges exercising their 1st amendment rights?

What about Trump attacking the american judge handling one of the Trump university cases. He bent over backwards giving Trump a delayed trial, and the orange clown did nothing but insult the judge.

 

[OKTexas]

After all the negative comments RGB made during the election about Trump can she objectively hear this case?

Days later, in a CNN interview, she said of candidate Trump, “He is a faker. He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns?”

Personally, I don't how she can be objective after such statements. Even an appearance of bias should disqualify a judge. This is much more than an appearance.

Discuss.


.

Antonin Scalia went duck hunting with a case before the court, and didn't recuse himself. Clarence Thomas's wife made a living from an organization with a case before the court, and didn't recuse himself.

Personal and financial relationships are the usual reasons for recusal, but republicans have drawn the line that it's acceptable.

And those rise to a personal and public animosity toward a litigant how?


.

You are one of those fuckers who thinks asking questions in a constant attempt to catch someone unaware constitutes full participation in a discussion.

As such, you don't grasp how boring it is for everyone else.

So when someone compares apples to oranges, it's not fair to point it out?


.

 

[radical right]

So when someone compares apples to oranges, it's not fair to point it out?


.

You're comparing apples to orange clowns.

 

[OKTexas]

And those rise to a personal and public animosity toward a litigant how?


.

You have something against judges exercising their 1st amendment rights?

What about Trump attacking the american judge handling one of the Trump university cases. He bent over backwards giving Trump a delayed trial, and the orange clown did nothing but insult the judge.

I don't think Trump would have a reasonable expectation of ruling on a case where the judge might be a litigant. She didn't think Trump would be elected and felt safe disregarding precedent, then life smacked her in the mouth. She should do the honorable thing and recuse herself.


.

 

[OKTexas]

After all the negative comments RGB made during the election about Trump can she objectively hear this case?

Days later, in a CNN interview, she said of candidate Trump, “He is a faker. He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns?”

Personally, I don't how she can be objective after such statements. Even an appearance of bias should disqualify a judge. This is much more than an appearance.

Discuss.


.

Antonin Scalia went duck hunting with a case before the court, and didn't recuse himself. Clarence Thomas's wife made a living from an organization with a case before the court, and didn't recuse himself.

Personal and financial relationships are the usual reasons for recusal, but republicans have drawn the line that it's acceptable.

And those rise to a personal and public animosity toward a litigant how?


.

You are one of those fuckers who thinks asking questions in a constant attempt to catch someone unaware constitutes full participation in a discussion.

As such, you don't grasp how boring it is for everyone else.

So when someone compares apples to oranges, it's not fair to point it out?


.

See post #73.

 

[Kondor3]

Will Ginsburg Have To Recuse Herself On Travel Suspension

Ginsburg's dislike for Drumpf is insufficient to set the stage for a recusal.

Whereas SCOTUS judges do not have a governing body that can insist on recusal......

Dislike for one of the party's involved in a case is one of the primary reasons one would be considered as warranting recusal.

In other words, you are dead wrong.

All a judge need do is to rule on the nature and interpretation and application of The Constitution in a SCOTUS setting.

Besides, you are correct in observing that there is no governing body that can insist upon the recusal of a Supreme Court Justice, is there?