White House candidate Trump calls Justice Ginsburg mentally unfit

a reply to: Gryphon66

As well, she and Scalia were good friends. Perhaps she finally spoke her mind on a political subject (as he did so many times) out of respect for him.

I hadn't looked at it from that angle... If so, good for her. I can certainly respect that.

The lady is beyond just merely smart. Intellectually she was every bit the match of Scalia. Whatever else he was, Scalia was also very very smart. Kinda amazes me that they were as close as they were when I think about it. Diametrically opposed would be nicest way to describe it...

It's a very small, very exclusive group... Just as ex-presidents all get along, too. I suppose it's only they know what it's like to be where they are.

Here's the gut-level truth from me ... we are never going to start healing the divide in this country unless we get real and come down off of the ideological perches we've been provided with.

Here's some gut-level agreement. As I said above, it's time for us to STFU, and actually listen to each other, and stop attempting to drown each other out.

, sir.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Your opinions of me are not relevant

Well now if opinions are irrelevant.

That means Ginsburg opinions are irrelevant.

If they're irrelevant, why the hubbub, bub?

You may want to speak to some of your compatriots here.

originally posted by: seagull

The lady is beyond just merely smart. Intellectually she was every bit the match of Scalia. Whatever else he was, Scalia was also very very smart. Kinda amazes me that they were as close as they were when I think about it. Diametrically opposed would be nicest way to describe it...

There was a time, not so long ago, when opposing political opinions could be argued passionately among the best of friends.

I find it sad that we've lost that. Argue for points, not against people. (I am myself working on this issue. )

a reply to: butcherguy

You think that Judges and Justices should actively support/voice disapproval of political candidates?

I do not think it is clear to some how important the rule of law is, and how even a mere appearance of bias can bring it into doubt in the eyes of the public. Of course, it is a fundamental human right for her to speak her opinion, and no one should stop her for doing so. Yet in doing so, she has revealed to all that her ethics are questionable, that she cannot nor will not uphold certain standards, and does so in favor of partisan politics.

How many conservative Justices are currently on the Court?

How many liberal Justices?

Anyone have an idea?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Exactly.

That's why I'm a tad bit torn in my opinion on it. Yes, she can...but should she have?

Nicely stated.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I think it's 3 to 5. I think.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Gryphon66

I think it's 3 to 5. I think.

So that's a known thing then ...

a reply to: BlueAjah

I would say this.

He/She is welcome to their opinion...but that it wasn't exactly wise of them to say that. Exactly what I'm saying here.

That opinion, stated that strongly, I would expect that justice to recuse themselve when it reached them. I would expect that at any level,actually. But especially at the final level, at that level, there can not be, or shouldn't be, the slightest question of probity.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: butcherguy

You think that Judges and Justices should actively support/voice disapproval of political candidates?

I do not think it is clear to some how important the rule of law is, and how even a mere appearance of bias can bring it into doubt in the eyes of the public. Of course, it is a fundamental human right for her to speak her opinion, and no one should stop her for doing so. Yet in doing so, she has revealed to all that her ethics are questionable, that she cannot nor will not uphold certain standards, and does so in favor of partisan politics.

See, that got blown to heck already by Scalia. And others. In fact, that EXACT quote could be used for him and some of the other members of the SCOTUS, both liberal and conservative.

It is their right to speak, it may be bad form and borderline with ethics, but there are no actual rules against it. If there were, others would have already been legally censured before Ginsburg.

You cannot hold her to standards that have been shredded by others as if it were somehow an isolated act on her part.

originally posted by: butcherguy

The New York Times
Search
SUBSCRIBELOG INOpinion

EDITORIAL
Donald Trump Is Right About Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
JULY 13, 2016
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs to drop the political punditry and the name-calling.

New York Times

Hah, that's good!

Trump just said that he might have to frame the NY Times editorial, because it might be the only positive editorial he ever gets from them.

originally posted by: AboveBoard

You cannot hold her to standards that have been shredded by others as if it were somehow an isolated act on her part.

You're talking about Bader Ginsburg, not Clinton here, right?

(Sorry, sorry ... this is an obviously off-topic statement intentionally meant to poke a bit of fun at the whole political mess)

Does the Supreme Court of the United States have a known political/ideological division?

Yes or no?

a reply to: seagull

And how do we even know which ones are liberal and which ones are conservative, if none of them are supposed to ever speak of anything that would show any bias? (just asking this as a general question, not specifically asking you).

The truth is, we can tell by the way they speak of many subjects where each justice stands ideologically and politically. They do it all the time. They have always done it. They still use the constitution as their basis for court rulings, but their perceptions and interpretations of that constitution varies according to whether they are liberal or conservative.

It's no secret that Ginsburg is liberal, just as it was no secret that Scalia was an extreme conservative. Just because she doesn't like Trump (just like Scalia didn't hide the fact that he didn't like Obama), it doesn't mean she can't review cases according to constitutional law.

a reply to: kaylaluv

It's nothing but opinion. If you disagree with me, fine. It really doesn't matter in the end, or shouldn't.

Supposedly, conservative/liberal goes out the window, or into a lock box, the day they take the oath of office.

By my reading. It's 3 to 5. Your reading may differ.

It really shouldn't matter liberal/conservative. But if there is the least question concerning bias of any sort... That justice should be expected to recuse themselves from adjudicating the issue before the court.

They're human, complete with a full set of foibles and life lessons and opinions. To expect them to be able to ignore all of it is unreasonable. But we should expect them to practice good judgement when it comes to a strongly held bias for or against and issue. My humble opinion, of course.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Prior affiliations.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: neo96

YES
She can even run for president and have a smear campaign against him. While serving. There is no line.
No line for her to cross.
She can say what ever she wants.
And that moron can't stop her.

Non-elected Federal employees are prohibited from running for public office or being involved in elections.

Sorry, this is the clearest case I've seen in some time of rampant hypocrisy.

You know, I know, Trump knows, Ruth Bader Ginsburg knows ... the SCOTUS is divided politically.

When I see any of you calling, for example, for the Catholics to recuse themselves from anything that might disagree with formal Church doctrine, I'll start listening about an old lady speaking her mind.

What rapacious horse droppings.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: neo96

YES
She can even run for president and have a smear campaign against him. While serving. There is no line.
No line for her to cross.
She can say what ever she wants.
And that moron can't stop her.

Non-elected Federal employees are prohibited from running for public office or being involved in elections.

By what? Does that mean that they can't vote too?

Quote your source for this "prohibition" please, and thank you.

a reply to: AboveBoard

See, that got blown to heck already by Scalia. And others. In fact, that EXACT quote could be used for him and some of the other members of the SCOTUS, both liberal and conservative.

It is their right to speak, it may be bad form and borderline with ethics, but there are no actual rules against it. If there were, others would have already been legally censured before Ginsburg.

You cannot hold her to standards that have been shredded by others as if it were somehow an isolated act on her part.

What I mean by "everyone" is everyone. That's the point of having standards.