She's out of line. Problem is she forgets that she has to work with whoever gets elected.
She's out of line. Problem is she forgets that she has to work with whoever gets elected.
She's out of line. Problem is she forgets that she has to work with whoever gets elected.
Maybe a special prosecutor as well to make sure nothing else was said that wasn't reported.
Why not. Any kitchen sinks we can toss into the mix as well?
Probably an investigation of the other "liberals" on the court to make sure they aren't conspiring with her. Should be the top priority of the FBI and at least 5 congressional committees.
Probably an investigation of the other "liberals" on the court to make sure they aren't conspiring with her. Should be the top priority of the FBI and at least 5 congressional committees.
Political alignment isn't grounds for recusal, I thought we went over this in another thread. Pretty much the only thing that can cause a justice to recuse themselves is a financial stake or a personal relationship.
Calling for her to step down is way too far. Calling for a recusal if the need arises is much more appropriate.
You make perfect sense. However, what you suggest is not in the Official Republican Playbook of Dirty Deeds and Dastardly Schemes.
Therefore, calling for her to step down is their preferred opening move. Should this move acquire traction, then the next move after that is to demand that all the other liberal judges also step down and be replaced by whomever Pres. Trump sees fit.
More crying towels for the Trumpsters.
Ginsberg has the right to speak out, just like everybody else. It would be inappropriate to speak out against a sitting president, I think, but Trump isn't that & likely never will be.
She said a lot of other stuff in the interview that should leave Repubs clutching at their pearls-
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/u...an-of-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.html
This qualifies as "not holding a thing back?" She refused to speculate and jokingly quoted her husband. Everyone knows she would have strong feelings on this and which way they lean. If one of the conservative justices said the same about HRC it would be just as much ado over nothing. But good grief, it's Donald Trump, are we really all going to keep pretending he's seriously presidential material all the way to November?“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” Ginsburg told the Times' Adam Liptak. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”
Meet Trump's Supreme Court picks
Ginsburg also recalled something her late husband said about such matters: "Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand."
Never expected much different from a senile old bat that should have retired 25 years ago.
All judges have personal feelings; all judges are expected to put those aside when they go to work. Just like all of us are supposed to do when we go to work. She's been principled and a solid judge to date; there's no reason why she wouldn't continue to be just that.
What about the founders rule about advise & consent? When is the Senate going to do its damn job to get us back to 9 members of SCOTUS?
What line did she cross?
This qualifies as "not holding a thing back?" She refused to speculate and jokingly quoted her husband. Everyone knows she would have strong feelings on this and which way they lean. If one of the conservative justices said the same about HRC it would be just as much ado over nothing. But good grief, it's Donald Trump, are we really all going to keep pretending he's seriously presidential material all the way to November?
With the modern world we live in... instant communications... social media networks...
The entire concept of judicial impartiality is a fantasy of a bygone era when news from around the country took weeks / months to travel, and a bunch of old legal scholars could hold themselves up in study of the law and spend their time isolated from the political battles in the halls of Congress.
Today it is of the utmost impossibility for our SCOTUS not to be political. Impossible for them not to be in the literal thick of social upheaval. And for there to be just 9 of them means a GREAT deal of pressure is placed onto them, from all sides. All day, every day.
Our founder's concept for the Judaical branch has long since been dead, gone, and buried.
Our founder's concept for the Judaical branch has long since been dead, gone, and buried.