Ginsburg apologizes
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Everyone knew she was a left wing nut job liberal but when she started campaigning for Hillary she proved herself to a democrat party hack too. I guess there are no 'rules' against it but I think it is a best for judges not to opine about politics. People in the military are not allowed to campaign or make political statements while in uniform. Judges don't have uniforms be are certainly most people know the SCOTUS justices. Anyway, she just apologized and says she regrets saying what she said. Fat lot of good that does....that is a lawyer trick, they can say something they know is not allowed and the judge can strike it from the record but what has been heard cannot be unheard.
|
|
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Do you also think that Scalia should either have not been such a private buddy with Cheney or recused himself in Cheney v. US District of Columbia? |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by ejshowers Do you also think that Scalia should either have not been such a private buddy with Cheney or recused himself in Cheney v. US District of Columbia?
Not familiar with the case but absolutely he should have recused himself....but maybe threatened to shoot him in the face if he did? |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Rogillio Everyone knew she was a left wing nut job liberal but when she started campaigning for Hillary she proved herself to a democrat party hack too. I guess there are no 'rules' against it but I think it is a best for judges not to opine about politics. People in the military are not allowed to campaign or make political statements while in uniform. Judges don't have uniforms be are certainly most people know the SCOTUS justices. Anyway, she just apologized and says she regrets saying what she said. Fat lot of good that does....that is a lawyer trick, they can say something they know is not allowed and the judge can strike it from the record but what has been heard cannot be unheard. Oh yeah so if we're namecalling, what name do you propose for the conservatives?
They're all politically aligned. It's not like any of this is a surprise. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() You guys are really predictable. Liberal does something bad, goto: point out republican who did something wrong to distract from the topic at hand. Anyways, Ginsburg shouldn't have waded in and she knows it and I commend her for attempting to make it right. With the court the way it is, it's actually quite important for her to stay "impartial" in the public eye because if there were a Bush v. Gore type scenario with Trump/Clinton then she almost certainly has to recuse herself at this point. That wouldn't help her cause in any way.
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by tuwood Anyways, Ginsburg shouldn't have waded in and she knows it and I commend her for attempting to make it right. With the court the way it is, it's actually quite important for her to stay "impartial" in the public eye because if there were a Bush v. Gore type scenario with Trump/Clinton then she almost certainly has to recuse herself at this point. That wouldn't help her cause in any way.
I completely agree while the courts are riddled with biases only because these people are human. There is a reason we appoint them a justice for life. They are supposed to be above politics. heck they probably once appointed not even be allowed to vote. Since they should not care who wins or even pay attention to the candidates. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Originally posted by chirunner134 Originally posted by tuwood I completely agree while the courts are riddled with biases only because these people are human. There is a reason we appoint them a justice for life. They are supposed to be above politics. heck they probably once appointed not even be allowed to vote. Since they should not care who wins or even pay attention to the candidates. Anyways, Ginsburg shouldn't have waded in and she knows it and I commend her for attempting to make it right. With the court the way it is, it's actually quite important for her to stay "impartial" in the public eye because if there were a Bush v. Gore type scenario with Trump/Clinton then she almost certainly has to recuse herself at this point. That wouldn't help her cause in any way.
While the should not comment or try to sway political discourse, they have every right to care who wins elections, pay attention to the candidates, and vote their conscience. They are represented in Washington, their home state, and by local governing bodies just like everyone else. They are appointed for life so that their decisions won't be subject to political influence, not the other way around. Edited by Hook'em 2016-07-15 10:47 AM |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by tuwood You guys are really predictable. Liberal does something bad, goto: point out republican who did something wrong to distract from the topic at hand. Anyways, Ginsburg shouldn't have waded in and she knows it and I commend her for attempting to make it right. With the court the way it is, it's actually quite important for her to stay "impartial" in the public eye because if there were a Bush v. Gore type scenario with Trump/Clinton then she almost certainly has to recuse herself at this point. That wouldn't help her cause in any way. Wasn't distracting, I just hate the feigned outrage at one side while ignoring the other. I'll straight up call them both out. Edit: that said, I have no problem with judges *voting*. They are still citizens in good standing. One person one vote. Edited by spudone 2016-07-15 11:36 AM |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by spudone Originally posted by tuwood You guys are really predictable. Liberal does something bad, goto: point out republican who did something wrong to distract from the topic at hand. Anyways, Ginsburg shouldn't have waded in and she knows it and I commend her for attempting to make it right. With the court the way it is, it's actually quite important for her to stay "impartial" in the public eye because if there were a Bush v. Gore type scenario with Trump/Clinton then she almost certainly has to recuse herself at this point. That wouldn't help her cause in any way. Wasn't distracting, I just hate the feigned outrage at one side while ignoring the other. I'll straight up call them both out. Edit: that said, I have no problem with judges *voting*. They are still citizens in good standing. One person one vote. One thing I've improved on more than any other when it comes to politics is that I do see the stupidity on both sides. I used to be in the camp of "hey, he's on my side so he can do no wrong" /facepalm. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by spudone Originally posted by tuwood You guys are really predictable. Liberal does something bad, goto: point out republican who did something wrong to distract from the topic at hand. Anyways, Ginsburg shouldn't have waded in and she knows it and I commend her for attempting to make it right. With the court the way it is, it's actually quite important for her to stay "impartial" in the public eye because if there were a Bush v. Gore type scenario with Trump/Clinton then she almost certainly has to recuse herself at this point. That wouldn't help her cause in any way. Wasn't distracting, I just hate the feigned outrage at one side while ignoring the other. I'll straight up call them both out. Edit: that said, I have no problem with judges *voting*. They are still citizens in good standing. One person one vote. One thing I've improved on more than any other when it comes to politics is that I do see the stupidity on both sides. I used to be in the camp of "hey, he's on my side so he can do no wrong" /facepalm. While politically she's "on my side" on most issues, I do have to say she should not have made these comments publicly. I'm glad she apologized. That said, she isn't the first to have erred...and she won't be the last. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() While I agree with her, I don't think she should have been public about it due to her position. But part of me wants to think that Notorious RBG don't need to apologize to no one, no where, no how. |
|