Donald Trump Is Right About Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

[Rams]

From of all places, The New York Times:
Donald Trump Is Right About Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD  JULY 13, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/opinion/donald-trump-is-right-about-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg.html?_r=1

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs to drop the political punditry and the name-calling.

Three times in the past week, Justice Ginsburg has publicly discussed her view of the presidential race, in the sharpest terms. In an interview with The Times published Sunday, Justice Ginsburg said, “I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” joking that if her husband were alive, he might have said, “It’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”

Earlier, in an interview with The Associated Press that appeared on Friday, when asked to consider a Trump victory, Justice Ginsburg replied, “I don’t want to think about that possibility, but if it should be, then everything is up for grabs.”

On Monday Justice Ginsburg doubled down, calling Mr. Trump “a faker,” who “has no consistency about him.” In that interview, with CNN, she added: “He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego.”

Mr. Trump responded on Tuesday. “I think it’s highly inappropriate that a United States Supreme Court judge gets involved in a political campaign, frankly,” he told The Times. “I couldn’t believe it when I saw it.”

There is no legal requirement that Supreme Court justices refrain from commenting on a presidential campaign. But Justice Ginsburg’s comments show why their tradition has been to keep silent.

In this election cycle in particular, the potential of a new president to affect the balance of the court has taken on great importance, with the vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. As Justice Ginsburg pointed out, other justices are nearing an age when retirement would not be surprising. That makes it vital that the court remain outside the presidential process. And just imagine if this were 2000 and the resolution of the election depended on a Supreme Court decision. Could anyone now argue with a straight face that Justice Ginsburg’s only guide would be the law?

Mr. Trump’s hands, of course, are far from clean on the matter of judicial independence. It was just weeks ago that he was lambasting Gonzalo Curiel, the United States District Court judge overseeing a case against Trump University, saying that as a “Mexican,” the Indiana-born judge could not be impartial.

All of which makes it only more baffling that Justice Ginsburg would choose to descend toward his level and call her own commitment to impartiality into question. Washington is more than partisan enough without the spectacle of a Supreme Court justice flinging herself into the mosh pit.

[DK]

As a lawyer, my major concern about the Supreme Court is the lifetime appointment and the absence of any means to remove an incompetent Justice.

We have had at least one instance of an incompetent Justice during the years I practiced - Douglas.

I'm not commenting on Ginsberg's or Trump's competency.

[The emperor has no clothes]

She did say today that her comments were a mistake. And that she would try to be more circumspect in the future.

[Jess from VA]

There is no legal requirement that Supreme Court justices refrain from commenting on a presidential campaign.

Actually, I would call the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges a legal requirement.  It is not a criminal code, but a judge can be sanctioned or removed from office if her violations are serious enough. (at least in theory)

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-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; or

(3) solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution to a political organization or candidate, or attend or purchase a ticket for a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization or candidate.

Of course, slowly but surely we see that our ruling elite are above the law.

[Valkorado]

She did say today that her comments were a mistake. And that she would try to be more circumspect in the future.

Well, bless her sweet heart!

[MP]

She did say today that her comments were a mistake. And that she would try to be more circumspect in the future.

So, she admits she was wrong!  She went way beyond what a Supreme Court Judge should say.  What are the consequences?  Nothing!  She will "try" to do better in the future?  What a lame excuse.  We should expect more from them.  She totally shows how she is incapable of being impartial.  She is totally one sided, and admits it!  This is wrong.  She should resign.  It really calls into question her declining mental capacity. 

[Rams]

While every American has the right to free speech, there is always the consideration of "should I
".   I am advised I should exercise better judgement in that area myself.

I don't agree with a lot of the left side of SCOTUS's decisions but, I sincerely believe these statements are a reflection of just how divided this nation is.   The left has grown stronger as the "free stuff" has gotten sweeter.   Their numbers are growing.    As a politician, it's easy to vote and spend Other People's Money, the middle class is shrinking and going broke supporting the lower class.    This can not and will not last forever, there will be an end to it eventually.   The end result will not be painless.

[The emperor has no clothes]

She did say today that her comments were a mistake. And that she would try to be more circumspect in the future.

So, she admits she was wrong!  She went way beyond what a Supreme Court Judge should say.  What are the consequences?  Nothing!  She will "try" to do better in the future?  What a lame excuse.  We should expect more from them.  She totally shows how she is incapable of being impartial.  She is totally one sided, and admits it!  This is wrong.  She should resign.  It really calls into question her declining mental capacity. 

There have been conservative justices who have voiced their disdain for liberal presidents before. Would you expect the same from them ?

[MP]

She did say today that her comments were a mistake. And that she would try to be more circumspect in the future.

So, she admits she was wrong!  She went way beyond what a Supreme Court Judge should say.  What are the consequences?  Nothing!  She will "try" to do better in the future?  What a lame excuse.  We should expect more from them.  She totally shows how she is incapable of being impartial.  She is totally one sided, and admits it!  This is wrong.  She should resign.  It really calls into question her declining mental capacity. 

There have been conservative justices who have voiced their disdain for liberal presidents before. Would you expect the same from them ?

She went a lot farther.  Also, inserting herself into the ELECTION process.  Quite another to talk about a sitting Presidents Policies.

[solo1]

The last time I saw that was in the 'State of the Union" address by Obama where he attacked the SCOTUS and got a head shake from one of the justices.

Ginsberg was completely out of line and that was pointed out by both conservatives AND liberals.

[Rams]

She did say today that her comments were a mistake. And that she would try to be more circumspect in the future.

So, she admits she was wrong!  She went way beyond what a Supreme Court Judge should say.  What are the consequences?  Nothing!  She will "try" to do better in the future?  What a lame excuse.  We should expect more from them.  She totally shows how she is incapable of being impartial.  She is totally one sided, and admits it!  This is wrong.  She should resign.  It really calls into question her declining mental capacity. 

There have been conservative justices who have voiced their disdain for liberal presidents before. Would you expect the same from them ?

Actually, given the same or similar circumstances, yes.

[The emperor has no clothes]

She did say today that her comments were a mistake. And that she would try to be more circumspect in the future.

So, she admits she was wrong!  She went way beyond what a Supreme Court Judge should say.  What are the consequences?  Nothing!  She will "try" to do better in the future?  What a lame excuse.  We should expect more from them.  She totally shows how she is incapable of being impartial.  She is totally one sided, and admits it!  This is wrong.  She should resign.  It really calls into question her declining mental capacity. 

There have been conservative justices who have voiced their disdain for liberal presidents before. Would you expect the same from them ?

She went a lot farther.  Also, inserting herself into the ELECTION process.  Quite another to talk about a sitting Presidents Policies.

Well maybe, but I believe their code of conduct disallows ANY political involvement . But it happens. The larger points are she apologized (others haven't).

[Rams]

She did say today that her comments were a mistake. And that she would try to be more circumspect in the future.

So, she admits she was wrong!  She went way beyond what a Supreme Court Judge should say.  What are the consequences?  Nothing!  She will "try" to do better in the future?  What a lame excuse.  We should expect more from them.  She totally shows how she is incapable of being impartial.  She is totally one sided, and admits it!  This is wrong.  She should resign.  It really calls into question her declining mental capacity.  

There have been conservative justices who have voiced their disdain for liberal presidents before. Would you expect the same from them ?

She went a lot farther.  Also, inserting herself into the ELECTION process.  Quite another to talk about a sitting Presidents Policies.

The larger points are she apologized (others haven't).

I disagree, she's a Supreme Court Justice.   She knows better.   I believe she inserted herself into this (going on record) so as to influence the election, not just giving her opinion.   As someone else pointed out, in court a judge can wipe a statement from the record and advise the jury to ignore the statement or point but, it was still heard by that jury.   It will always be a consideration.

[michaelyoung254]

She did say today that her comments were a mistake. And that she would try to be more circumspect in the future.

So, she admits she was wrong!  She went way beyond what a Supreme Court Judge should say.  What are the consequences?  Nothing!  She will "try" to do better in the future?  What a lame excuse.  We should expect more from them.  She totally shows how she is incapable of being impartial.  She is totally one sided, and admits it!  This is wrong.  She should resign.  It really calls into question her declining mental capacity. 

There have been conservative justices who have voiced their disdain for liberal presidents before. Would you expect the same from them ?

She went a lot farther.  Also, inserting herself into the ELECTION process.  Quite another to talk about a sitting Presidents Policies.

Well maybe, but I believe their code of conduct disallows ANY political involvement . But it happens. The larger points are she apologized (others haven't).

While she may have "Apologized", let's be brutally honest, the ONLY reason she did so is because her remarks bit her in the ass!

[Rams]

She did say today that her comments were a mistake. And that she would try to be more circumspect in the future.

So, she admits she was wrong!  She went way beyond what a Supreme Court Judge should say.  What are the consequences?  Nothing!  She will "try" to do better in the future?  What a lame excuse.  We should expect more from them.  She totally shows how she is incapable of being impartial.  She is totally one sided, and admits it!  This is wrong.  She should resign.  It really calls into question her declining mental capacity. 

There have been conservative justices who have voiced their disdain for liberal presidents before. Would you expect the same from them ?

She went a lot farther.  Also, inserting herself into the ELECTION process.  Quite another to talk about a sitting Presidents Policies.

Well maybe, but I believe their code of conduct disallows ANY political involvement . But it happens. The larger points are she apologized (others haven't).

While she may have "Apologized", let's be brutally honest, the ONLY reason she did so is because her remarks bit her in the ass!

OMG!!!   I did not need that image in my head!!!   

[Serk]

Way before this, on the left she's become a major celebrity judge, they refer to her as "The Notorious RBG"... She let this adulation and hero worship get to her head and cloud what was left of her better judgement.

[Pete]

Ginsberg.............  did not apologize.
No liberal every apologizes they are just sorry they got caught or that you "mis-understood" .

What a crock only the headline apologized not the person or her statement.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I think Scalia was adored as much or more by the right. I don't care to look, but I would bet there some right wingers out there with his image tattooed on their ass.  

[Pappy!]

Just remember who is still in the drivers seat in replacing RBG if she did step down!! We may end up with one that is even more willing to destroy the Constitution.
Oh wait......that will happen anyway if the Hildabeast gets in.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Ginsberg.............  did not apologize.
No liberal every apologizes they are just sorry they got caught or that you "mis-understood" .

What a crock only the headline apologized not the person or her statement.

And only a partisan would say something like that. How is this not an apology ?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-donald-trump.html

[Alpha Dog]

Old Bitty Ginsburg did not apologize.  She just admitted she made a mistake which is more than one would expect I suppose.  I do not know who on the right ever did this, nor do I remember anyone on the left ever doing it in my life. I am certain it happened after they left the court in books or interviews. However I would be much surprised that something similar has not happened.   Even the NYTimes published the day before a very critical article about this conduct as there is some kind of code of conduct Scotus's are suppose to subscribe to.  In this case she would have to recuse herself from any case involving Trump in the future, however in this day of no shame or accountability of the ruling class, I doubt she would do this.   Trump said her mind is shot.  I could have told him that in 1993 and indeed I talked about her with a lot of folks back then,  but I am sure he already knew.

[Skinhead]

This is an apology:

Hey Hillary, I'm sorry that I couldn't personally throw you in the slammer and throw away the key.

This is "admitting you made a mistake":

Hello, I voted for Obama, twice!

[Pete]

Thanks Skinhead/Alpha Dog for the help.
He could not refute the statement, so tried to deflect by minor name calling.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Thanks Skinhead/Alpha Dog for the help.
He could not refute the statement, so tried to deflect by minor name calling.

"Name calling" ? If describing your post as partisan is name calling I apologize . As for not refuting your statement, I believe I did. But here is her statement:
"On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” Ginsburg said in a statement. "Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect."
How is that not an apology ? She said she was wrong . Is that not the definition of an apology ?

[MP]

She apologized.  Good.  Still calls into question her judgement.  Even she admits she has poor judgement.  Not a good quality for a Supreme Court Judge.  Poor Judgement.

[The emperor has no clothes]

She apologized.  Good.  Still calls into question her judgement.  Even she admits she has poor judgement.  Not a good quality for a Supreme Court Judge.  Poor Judgement.

No doubt about it. It was poor judgement.

[Jess from VA]

"On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” Ginsburg said in a statement. "Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect."

How is that not an apology ? She said she was wrong. Is that not the definition of an apology?
_____________________
Wordsmith 101.

My comments were ill advised.   fact

I regret making them.                  fact, because she knew they were wrong

I will be more circumspect in the future.   fact  

There is a recitation of facts, but there is no apology here.

No apology is required, she cannot un-ring this bell.  

Her State licensing bar(s) should issue her an official reprimand, so should the Federal judicial commission.  

The good news is she can now be challenged for cause if hearing any case having anything to do with Mr Trump, any legislation or actions proposed by him as president, and more.  

[Rams]

The good news is she can now be challenged for cause if hearing any case having anything to do with Mr Trump, any legislation or actions proposed by him as president, and more.  

Jess,
While I agree with your assessment, could not she be challenged on just about any issues where the forces pit conservative values which Trump supposedly espouses versus her obvious left lean views? 

Might be stretching the point but, she's obviously not neutral on much, her voting record is well documented.   Just as all the justice's voting records are but, several swing on some issues, she doesn't.

[Serk]

The good news is she can now be challenged for cause if hearing any case having anything to do with Mr Trump, any legislation or actions proposed by him as president, and more.  

Wouldn't it be funny if we end up in a "Dangling Chad" situation like the Bush/Gore election of 2000 and she has to recuse herself?

Talk about regretting making those comments!

[Rams]

The good news is she can now be challenged for cause if hearing any case having anything to do with Mr Trump, any legislation or actions proposed by him as president, and more.  

Wouldn't it be funny if we end up in a "Dangling Chad" situation like the Bush/Gore election of 2000 and she has to recuse herself?

Talk about regretting making those comments!

Yeah well, as I understand it, she has to be the one to do that, she can't be forced except by removal from the position.  My understanding is, that would take both other branches to accomplish such a feat.   If she should decide that she can maintain neutrality and not recluse herself, that could very well be the beginning of another revolt.   Just an opinion, not a promise.

Edited: Anyone with more accurate knowledge on what it takes to remove a sitting SCOTUS member speak up, I'm working off of what I think I remember from a civics class from a long time ago.

[Jess from VA]

Of course she would unlikely ever voluntarily recuse herself from any case.... as it is the same as admitting that you cannot be impartial.  But pressure can be brought and life can be made difficult and the Chief Justice assigns cases, and has powers of persuasion.

A Supreme Court Justice may be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office if convicted in a Senate trial, but only for the same types of offenses that would trigger impeachment proceedings for any other government official under Articles I and II of the Constitution.

The only Justice to ever be impeached was Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805 (one of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence).  The House of Representatives passed Articles of Impeachment against him; however, he was acquitted by the Senate. (Just like lying fellatio Bill and the sparkly dress)

In addition, any federal judge may prosecuted in the criminal courts for criminal activity.  If found guilty of a crime in a federal district court, the justice would face the same type of sentencing any other criminal defendant would. The district court could not remove him/her from the Bench.  However, any justice found guilty in the criminal courts of any felony would certainly be impeached and, if found guilty, removed from office.

[f6john]

    Her apology is worthless. That's closing the door after the horse has walked out, not very effective. Only two possibilities, she knew exactly what she was doing and it was a deliberate act or her mental capacity and judgement are diminished to the point she should step down.

[Willow]

Ginsberg.............  did not apologize.
No liberal every apologizes they are just sorry they got caught or that you "mis-understood" .

What a crock only the headline apologized not the person or her statement.

And only a partisan would say something like that. How is this not an apology ?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-donald-trump.html

I took the time to read the entire linked article.  I saw nothing I would call an apology.
 
You caused me to look up the definition of apology.  My use of the word is that it states a request for or implies a need for forgiveness.  The definition says it is simply a statement of being sorry or an expression of regret.  It was an apology.  I'll continue to use my application of the term personally.  It was not an apology I would have recognized.

[The emperor has no clothes]

    Her apology is worthless. That's closing the door after the horse has walked out, not very effective. Only two possibilities, she knew exactly what she was doing and it was a deliberate act or her mental capacity and judgement are diminished to the point she should step down.

Damn, has nobody here said something they wish they hadn't. She is outspoken. She shouldn't have said it. But I seriously doubt it's going to change one vote in the upcoming election.

[Rams]

Ginsberg.............  did not apologize.
No liberal every apologizes they are just sorry they got caught or that you "mis-understood" .

What a crock only the headline apologized not the person or her statement.

And only a partisan would say something like that. How is this not an apology ?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-donald-trump.html

I took the time to read the entire linked article.  I saw nothing I would call an apology.
 
You caused me to look up the definition of apology.  My use of the word is that it states a request for or implies a need for forgiveness.  The definition says it is simply a statement of being sorry or an expression of regret.  It was an apology.  I'll continue to use my application of the term personally.  It was not an apology I would have recognized.

I had the same thoughts as Carl but didn't want to be accused of playing word games but, having said that, I agree, she regrets the statement which to me, indicates she wishes she hadn't gotten caught.   She did not ask for forgiveness.    

Regardless, there will be no decisions made by SCOTUS where her thoughts won't be questioned from this point on.   I really don't wish to see her resign, Obama will only put in another younger Liberal Judge.  

Damn, has nobody here said something they wish they hadn't. She is outspoken. She shouldn't have said it. But I seriously doubt it's going to change one vote..........

Her vote in the election is her business, her's alone.

Her vote on any SCOTUS issues is our business.  

[The emperor has no clothes]

Ginsberg.............  did not apologize.
No liberal every apologizes they are just sorry they got caught or that you "mis-understood" .

What a crock only the headline apologized not the person or her statement.

And only a partisan would say something like that. How is this not an apology ?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-donald-trump.html

I took the time to read the entire linked article.  I saw nothing I would call an apology.
 
You caused me to look up the definition of apology.  My use of the word is that it states a request for or implies a need for forgiveness.  The definition says it is simply a statement of being sorry or an expression of regret.  It was an apology.  I'll continue to use my application of the term personally.  It was not an apology I would have recognized.

I didn't look it up but I appreciate that you did. I always thought an apology was simply saying you were sorry for doing something wrong. Your definition of asking for forgiveness is more. Maybe she should have done that also. I don't know, but I doubt it would have any difference in the majority here.

[Pete]

Thanks Skinhead/Alpha Dog for the help.
He could not refute the statement, so tried to deflect by minor name calling.

"Name calling" ? If describing your post as partisan is name calling I apologize . As for not refuting your statement, I believe I did. But here is her statement:
"On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” Ginsburg said in a statement. "Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect."
How is that not an apology ? She said she was wrong . Is that not the definition of an apology ?

Apology accepted, apologies are better if not qualified, comes across as more sincere.

"On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” Ginsburg said in a statement. "Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect."

There is no apology to the offended person(s) anywhere in those sentences, "ill-advised, regrets, comments" are not apologies, just comments, verbage and attempts at misdirection.

Try "I am sorry and I apologize to (insert name) for making the statements". See how easy that is.

Based on her words, action and past actions I suspect that she is NOT sorry she made the statements. Nor is she sorry that she did not apologize. Nor was her statement to deflect the heat effective.

[Pete]

"I don't know, but I doubt it would have any difference in the majority here."

I think it would have and would have been the right thing to do.

It would have for me, and I would have had no reason to comment.

[G-Man]

And just who did she "apologize" to?

Not to Trump.  She regrets saying it because of the backlash.  No backlash, no regret.  Actually, she regrets the backlash, she still means what she said.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Thanks Skinhead/Alpha Dog for the help.
He could not refute the statement, so tried to deflect by minor name calling.

"Name calling" ? If describing your post as partisan is name calling I apologize . As for not refuting your statement, I believe I did. But here is her statement:
"On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” Ginsburg said in a statement. "Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect."
How is that not an apology ? She said she was wrong . Is that not the definition of an apology ?

Apology accepted, apologies are better if not qualified, comes across as more sincere.

"On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” Ginsburg said in a statement. "Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect."

There is no apology to the offended person(s) anywhere in those sentences, "ill-advised, regrets, comments" are not apologies, just comments, verbage and attempts at misdirection.

Try "I am sorry and I apologize to (insert name) for making the statements". See how easy that is.

Based on her words, action and past actions I suspect that she is NOT sorry she made the statements. Nor is she sorry that she did not apologize. Nor was her statement to deflect the heat effective.

I guess I qualified it because I didn't realize it was name calling. I meant it as an adjective .