Kingwood Underground
the heart and soul of our Kingwood, Texas family
Login - Create Account - Help
Clean out your garage on Kingwood bookoo! Or find local garage sales on Yard Sale Search.com
KU Live!

Ginsberg Impartiality Questioned

who's talking here?

wayward1 12
jackass 1
Hiro Protagonist 1
Joe Blow 1
BuiltinTX70 9
sdanielmcev 5
Emperor of Kingwood 17
Prolix Raconteur 1
RayofHope 11
AMDG 12
them 3
fuzz81 3
urabunchcats 2
JustWatching 13

     » send to friend     » save in my favorites     » flag dangerous topic flag as a dangerous topic

RayofHope --- 355 days ago -

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (and the Supreme Court) will soon make a decision concerning a Trump travel ban; however, Ginsburg has a history of attacking Trump. Many are questioning whether she should be involved in the ruling.

Ginsburg Attacks on Trump 

wayward1 --- 355 days ago -

Well, he wanted to take his Travel Ban "all the way to the top" when the circuit judge voted it down.

I'm presuming he know who was at the top when he pursued this. 

BuiltinTX70 --- 355 days ago -

Many are questioning whether she should be involved in the ruling.

LOL.....seriously?

Sure...let's eliminate from the Supreme Court who could possibly oppose Trump. 

urabunchcats --- 355 days ago -

Her obvious bias and inability to be impartial means she should recuse herself. 

JustWatching --- 355 days ago -

BuiltinTX70 --- 14 min ago - quote - hide comments
Many are questioning whether she should be involved in the ruling.

LOL.....seriously?

Sure...let's eliminate from the Supreme Court who could possibly oppose Trump


That's not what they said. If she cannot be impartial because of her feelings or whatever, she needs to recuse herself. I think it's funny that it's okay for the left to ask someone to recuse themselves for whatever reason but not okay for the right to do the same thing. There's the double standard again, as always! 

BuiltinTX70 --- 355 days ago -

That's not what they said. If she cannot be impartial because of her feelings or whatever, she needs to recuse herself.

I'm sure, as a member of the Supreme Court, she can be impartial in her ruling.

Has a SCOTUS ever removed themselves from a case? 

BuiltinTX70 --- 355 days ago -

Well, the Right does recuse themselves......then just a matter of factly un-recuse themselves LOL

See Senator Nunnes from Calif........ 

JustWatching --- 355 days ago -


Has a SCOTUS ever removed themselves from a case??


From answers. com:
"US Supreme Court justices have recused themselves from cases many times across the history of the Court. Judges, justices and magistrates are required (or encouraged) under federal law to disqualify themselves from any case in which they may have a conflict of interest." 

BuiltinTX70 --- 355 days ago -

Thanks Just Watching.

Here's some more...and it seems it's usually for justices that are just starting (and had served in another capacity) or had a vested interested financially.

More info..... 

wayward1 --- 355 days ago -

I guess this makes Justice RBG now the most powerful Jewish woman in America. 

them --- 355 days ago -

She's 84. I wonder who Trump will replace her with? 

AMDG --- 355 days ago -

conflict of interest.

Your concern about Justice Ginsburg is not a conflict of interest - your concern is impartiality - meaning she would not decide the case on the merits, not on a personal bias.

I am very sure there have been other SCJ who disliked the incumbent president. That is not a reason to recluse one self.

All that said - her remarks during the election were imprudent - and if memory serves - i think she has said as much. 

wayward1 --- 355 days ago -

My guess is Ted Cruz. 

AMDG --- 355 days ago -

She's 84. I wonder who Trump will replace her with?

The minute the republicans won the election - i thought she was the biggest loser - at 84 - she is stuck where she is until a democrat wins - or until sadly she could continue. 

them --- 355 days ago -

Surely they can find someone that didn't attend Harvard or Yale to replace her. 

wayward1 --- 355 days ago -

Hmmm, might be tough to get "diversity" like that on the court. Maybe a Princeton alum if they promise to behave. 

RayofHope --- 355 days ago -

I am very sure there have been other SCJ who disliked the incumbent president. That is not a reason to recluse one self.

What commentators are saying is that Ginsburg criticism of a presidential candidate is unprecedented (Disliking a presidential candidate and publicly criticizing one are much different). She obviously should have kept out of politics, But, since she got herself involved, Ginsberg should recuse herself.

It would be a miscarriage for Ginsburg to rule on a Trump issue. It's not appropriate. 

wayward1 --- 355 days ago -

Hopefully no Congressmen said anything bad about candidate Trump. How could they objectively vote on an issue brought forth by him? 

RayofHope --- 355 days ago -

The left are gonna be in hot water over the issue. 

Emperor of Kingwood --- 355 days ago -

How could they objectively vote on an issue brought forth by him?

There's no requirement for them to be objective. There is for a Judge. 

them --- 355 days ago -

Keagan has recused herself in the past. Ginsberg is too much the SJW to do the right thing. 

wayward1 --- 355 days ago -

Can we seriously think RBG has a conflict with the notion of travel bans.

She's a judge. They make decisions on the case. They vote against the parties that appoint them all the time. And half of them typically hate who ever the president is. But they still know how to vote on the constitutionality of a law. I'm not worried. 

RayofHope --- 355 days ago -

How could they objectively vote on an issue brought forth by him?

How can you make that comparison?

One is talking about legislators voting on a bill and the other is a ruling by a (biased) judge. 

AMDG --- 355 days ago -

It would be a miscarriage for Ginsburg to rule on a Trump issue. It's not appropriate.

sorry Ray - I am no Ginsburg fan, and her comments were defiantly imprudent - but it is not even close to a miscarriage of justice for her to hear this case - or any other one because of that statement.

so now we are going to go down the road of "false judgments" to go along with "false facts" - everything is negotiable - everything is debatable - no answer is answered as long as someone doesn't like the answer - 

RayofHope --- 355 days ago -

There's no requirement for them to be objective. There is for a Judge.
You said it much better!! 

RayofHope --- 355 days ago -

They vote against the parties that appoint them all the time.

Ginsburg doesn't. You know she always goes to the left. I admit that it will be hard for the court to rule against Trump (without Ginsburg), but Ginsburg got herself into this mess. 

sdanielmcev --- 355 days ago -

Yes, Ginsburg should exercise judicial qualification (recusal), though it probably won't matter. She does have a conflict of interest, after publicly decrying Trump. BTW, lack of impartiality is a conflict of interest.
Some light reading:
http://research.lawyers.com/well-recuse-me-when-a-judge-shouldnt-try-a-case.html 

wayward1 --- 355 days ago -

You know she always goes to the left

Then her comment on candidate Trump is a non issue if she'll vote against any right-wing stance.

The mess I see here is, how is Trump going to get his Travel Ban approved with RBG on the court? 

AMDG --- 355 days ago -

Ginsburg doesn't. You know she always goes to the left.

And others almost always go right. There is no requirement for justices to change the way they view the world. That is why they are chosen by the presidents in the first place.

They are required to be impartial - and all that means is they will judge on the merits of the case as they see them -

There is no evidence in a very long career that she has ever not done that . As much as I deeply disagree with many of her rulings. 

Emperor of Kingwood --- 355 days ago -

Legal precedents have traditionally accorded the chief executive complete and nearly unchecked power to deny foreigners permission to enter the United States.

The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty inherent in the executive power, the Supreme Court said in 1950. And lest there be doubt, Congress adopted a provision in 1952 saying the president may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants whenever he thinks it would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. 

BuiltinTX70 --- 355 days ago -

OMG...the number of you wanting RBG to recuse herself is comical. And the reasons: because she always goes left!! LOL...that's her interpretation of the world, as AMDG said.

Talk about snowflakes......get a grip. 

wayward1 --- 355 days ago -

He would have been fine had he not used the term "Muslim ban" so many times.

Now he just has to prove it's not religiously motivated. Some I'm sure will hope he Tweets competently for the next few weeks. 

Emperor of Kingwood --- 355 days ago -

He would have been fine had he not used the term "Muslim ban" so many times.

The EO does not say Muslim ban. 

Emperor of Kingwood --- 355 days ago -

.that's her interpretation of the world,

Shes not supposed to interpret the world shes supposed to stick to the Constitution. 

BuiltinTX70 --- 355 days ago -

The thing I don't get about the travel ban is it's temporary. 90 days, correct?

So what is the Trump plan for after 90 days? It's actually been that time period since they first directed this.....I'd think they were working on the permanent solution which you'd think would almost be ready?

Or do they need the temporary ban before the get cracking on the solution? 

BuiltinTX70 --- 355 days ago -

Shes not supposed to interpret the world shes supposed to stick to the Constitution.

Oh stop parsing, that's what I mean...she takes the Constitution and applies/interprets it to her ideology.

for goodness sake......... 

wayward1 --- 355 days ago -

The EO does not say Muslim ban.?

It doesn't. But the rhetoric was heavy in the beginning for making a Muslim ban. That got the courts interested. And Giuliani saying Trump asked him how to do a Muslim ban legally doesn't help.

The courts need to be convinced there is no religious animus. If Trump can prove the ban is about dangerous countries and not a dangerous religion - he'll be just fine. And then we can have our 90 day ban.

Weird, if he could have gotten it in place originally, the darn ban would be about over by now. 

Emperor of Kingwood --- 355 days ago -

.she takes the Constitution and applies/interprets it to her ideology.

That's till not what she's supposed to do. She is supposed to interpret the Constitution within the bounds of the framers intent and precedent. 

BuiltinTX70 --- 355 days ago -

Weird, if he could have gotten it in place originally, the darn ban would be about over by now.

Again..permanent solution?

Or is this just something to check a box? 

Emperor of Kingwood --- 355 days ago -

It doesn't. But the rhetoric was heavy in the beginning for making a Muslim ban. That got the courts interested. And Giuliani saying Trump asked him how to do a Muslim ban legally doesn't help.

If cases are now decided on rhetoric during a campaign instead of facts then why can't judges be recused for negative rhetoric about a candidate? 

page 1 2 3
Login to add your comments!

see more discussions about...

politics


Online now:
hit counters

Terms of Service - Privacy Policy - Ice Box

Kingwood Underground