Ginsburg Moving to New Zealand

[BigHornRam]

If voting for Trump will result in Ruth pulling the pin.........I'm starting warm up to the idea.

http://www.npr.org/2016/07/14/48608...ds-on-decision-to-apologize-for-trump-remarks

 

[noharleyyet]

I don't know why she's apologizing...her partisanship has never lacked transparency. Good for her for 'manning' up during the election run up though.

 

[James Riley]

I don't know why she's apologizing...her partisanship has never lacked transparency. Good for her for 'manning' up during the election run up though.

I agree. Ginsburg is as to Scalia as the 2016 Republican Platform is as to the 2012 Republican Party Platform. Or as Trump is to Bush Jr. The former is open, honest and in your face, while the latter sugar-coats their true feelings to deceive you into thinking they are more moderate than they really are. What's worse? Getting pissed on and told you are being pissed on? Or getting pissed on and told it's raining? But she lost her cred when she started apologizing. At least Trump has the sack to double down.

I was all about voting for Trump until he selected that Tea Party conservative as a Vice. Turns out I was wrong. Trump really is a conservative. He's not just punking conservatives. I done been punked myself, I guess. Does that make Ginsburg smart after all? Hmmm. Well, can't vote for Hillary and now I can't vote for Trump. Johnson or Stein. Or write myself in.

 

[SFC B]

Plain and simple....jurists are not supposed to publicly take political sides. EVERY other judge in the country (other than the SCJs) is constrained by formal codes of ethics which prohibit it. She is WAAAAAAAYYY out of bounds and now if he wins she MUST recuse herself from any litigation involving him. Add to that her horrible legal opinions and she is an embarrassment of epic proportions, nearly on the scale of Blackmun in Roe v Wade....simply making crap up to satisfy political/social agendas. The best we can hope for is a Trump win (lesser of two evils) and that she drop dead of some quick yet painful ailment. Sorry to rant......hot button for me.

 

[James Riley]

Plain and simple....jurists are not supposed to publicly take political sides. EVERY other judge in the country (other than the SCJs) is constrained by formal codes of ethics which prohibit it. She is WAAAAAAAYYY out of bounds and now if he wins she MUST recuse herself from any litigation involving him. Add to that her horrible legal opinions and she is an embarrassment of epic proportions, nearly on the scale of Blackmun in Roe v Wade....simply making crap up to satisfy political/social agendas. The best we can hope for is a Trump win (lesser of two evils) and that she drop dead of some quick yet painful ailment. Sorry to rant......hot button for me.

I'm going to dispute this just for kicks. It's okay for them to think it, but not say it? So, if their surreptitious and dog whistle it like Scalia did, it's okay, but if they say it out loud it's bad? As if the masses are going to lose faith in the objectivity of the Supremes?

They aren't like other lower courts. If they can pen a decision that expressly forbids that decision from ever being cited as authority/precedent in the future (Bush v. Gore, where Scalia anointed Bush but made it a one of) then certainly they can say what they want about some candidate. Scalia didn't recuse himself from every Bush case after he made up crap just to satisfy his political/social agenda so why should Ginsburg in regards to Trump? Besides, Roe v Wade is a great decision and should have gone further. Ginsberg is head and shoulders above Scalia on ever count.
Personally, I hold myself in contempt of Scalia and the notion that objectivity can be obtained by keeping ones mouth shut. That is not how impartiality is achieved.

See how easy that is?

 

[SFC B]

If you seriously think Roe v. Wade, whether you support abortion or not, is an even remotely reasonable decision (from a constitutional standpoint) there really isn't much to be garnered from discussing legal matters with you. In law school even the most liberal professors realized that it was pure fantasy. The construction of a right which didn't have even a tenuous attachment to the constitution and was absolutely contrary to the intent of the framers. It was PURELY a political/public policy move to placate the social upheaval of the time which will haunt us in perpetuity.

And yes, it is right for jurists (any jurists) to have opinions and KEEP THEM TO THEMSELVES. The true jurist can separate his legal reasoning and function from his own opinion and affiliation. If not, they need to find another vocation. Further, the manner in which Scalia acted in the execution of his duties is inherently different than Ginsburg making inflammatory and derogatory statements in multiple news outlets PRIOR to an election

NOT easy....

 

[James Riley]

If you seriously think Roe v. Wade, whether you support abortion or not, is an even remotely reasonable decision (from a constitutional standpoint) there really isn't much to be garnered from discussing legal matters with you. In law school even the most liberal professors realized that it was pure fantasy. The construction of a right which didn't have even a tenuous attachment to the constitution and was absolutely contrary to the intent of the framers. It was PURELY a political/public policy move to placate the social upheaval of the time which will haunt us in perpetuity.

And yes, it is right for jurists (any jurists) to have opinions and KEEP THEM TO THEMSELVES. The true jurist can separate his legal reasoning and function from his own opinion and affiliation. If not, they need to find another vocation. Further, the manner in which Scalia acted in the execution of his duties is inherently different than Ginsburg making inflammatory and derogatory statements in multiple news outlets PRIOR to an election

NOT easy....

The true jurist can separate his legal reasoning and function from his own opinion and affiliation *without* keeping his mouth shut. When you compare Scalia to Ginsburg you exalt form over substance. In other words, you would rather be told it's raining.

Regarding Roe, there was no more legal basis to Bush and law schools across the country know it. Roe is good law. Live with it. Bush, by Scalia's own pen is not. If it were good law, he would allow it to be precedent.

 

[SFC B]

First, neither Scalia nor Ginsburg are shining beacons within the context of the Court. The current issue with the later has NOTHING to do with anything other than her behavior and it's divergence from judicial ethics. To go ahead and dumb it down for and make it clear as crystal here is an excerpt from and a link to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.......

"Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity

(A) General Prohibitions. A judge should not:

(1) act as a leader or hold any office in a political organization;

(2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office;....."

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

Further, Roe and the Bush case could not be more different from a legal standpoint. Roe created an entirely new right through an activist court while the Bush case was dealing with a VERY specific set of circumstances (hence the constraints placed upon it).

I would ask a couple simple questions at this point. Do you have a law degree? Have you ever attended an ABA approved law school? I am looking for any basis for your weak attempt at trying to somehow equate the legal importance of Roe vs the Bush case and to what degree those involved in legal education expend energy upon them. A lay person making suppositions does not good law make. The only good thing about that decision is how it exposes, with clarity, the absolute corruption of the court at that time.

 

[James Riley]

First, neither Scalia nor Ginsburg are shining beacons within the context of the Court. The current issue with the later has NOTHING to do with anything other than her behavior and it's divergence from judicial ethics. To go ahead and dumb it down for and make it clear as crystal here is an excerpt from and a link to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.......

"Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity

(A) General Prohibitions. A judge should not:

(1) act as a leader or hold any office in a political organization;

(2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office;....."

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

Further, Roe and the Bush case could not be more different from a legal standpoint. Roe created an entirely new right through an activist court while the Bush case was dealing with a VERY specific set of circumstances (hence the constraints placed upon it).

I would ask a couple simple questions at this point. Do you have a law degree? Have you ever attended an ABA approved law school? I am looking for any basis for your weak attempt at trying to somehow equate the legal importance of Roe vs the Bush case and to what degree those involved in legal education expend energy upon them. A lay person making suppositions does not good law make. The only good thing about that decision is how it exposes, with clarity, the absolute corruption of the court at that time.

I do have a law degree. I was admitted to and practiced in the Federal Court, District of Idaho, Idaho Courts and the Idaho Supreme Court. I would ask you about the length of your dick but I could care less. It's irrelevant. Surely you are familiar with the logical fallacy of argumentum ad vericundium (sp?)? As an attorney you should focus not on who said what, but on what was said. Your weak attempt to shut this down based upon your status as learned clerk is falling on deaf ears.

Wasn't it you that essentially stipped the Supreme Court is not subject to your cited authority? I don't know. I don't care. Your personal bias is showing when you try to distinguish the weakness of Roe and Bush. Where you see social activism in Roe, but not political/social activism in Bush is telling. At least you agree Ginsberg is not alone and that Scalia is right in there with her. The fact that you want to maintain the veneer of objectivity through silence is indicative of your having bought into the idea of a robe.

P.S. Scalia broke the world. We still haven't recovered and won't for decades. Roe, meh, we live with it. Several runs have been taken at it and all for naught. If it was so weak then Scalia, et al, would have fixed it for you. If there wasn't a right to kill your fetus, there should have been. AmIright? Now, conditionally, there is.

 

[Big Fin]

Another thread serving no value to this hunting forum. Locked.

If people want to talk about Supreme Court justices and their apologies for something they said about a politician, I am sure there are some forums dedicated to political, legal, judicial, and other social topics that would welcome those comments.