Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Justice Ginsburg Goes Rogue - Bernie Goldberg

  1. #1
    Administrator fuego's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    16,271
    Thanked: 14129
    Blog Entries
    1

    Justice Ginsburg Goes Rogue - Bernie Goldberg

    I'm assuming Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg is a smart woman. You don't get to sit on the highest court in the land if you don't have more than a little intelligence. So the best I can come up with to explain her unprofessional, unethical and just plain dumb behavior of the past week is that she must have missed social studies class in junior high the day they discussed the three branches of government.

    You remember how our system of government works: The president is at the head of the executive branch. Congress handles legislation. And the federal courts make up the judicial branch, the one that interprets the law and makes decisions after hearing competing arguments.

    Pretty simple, right? But not for Justice Ginsburg, who apparently doesn't understand how the system works — or else she wouldn't be giving interviews that make her sound not like an impartial judge, but rather like someone campaigning for Hillary Clinton.

    Last week, in an interview with the New York Times, Justice Ginsburg said this:

    "I can't imagine what this place would be — I can't imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president."

    Supreme Court Justices usually don't give interviews – unless they're trying to sell a book they just wrote. But Ruth Bader-Ginsburg prides herself on speaking her mind, so she went on. "For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don't even want to contemplate that."

    In another interview, this one with the Associated Press, she said that she assumed that Hillary Clinton would win the election in November.

    What would happen, she was asked, if Donald Trump won instead. "I don't want to think about that possibility, but if it should be, then everything is up for grabs."

    Justice Ginsburg, in case you're interested, was nominated to the court in 1993 – by Hillary's husband, then President Bill Clinton.

    You might cut Justice Ginsburg some slack. She's 83 years old and maybe her comments last week were the result of what they euphemistically call "a senior moment." But if you thought that you'd be wrong. Her shot at Donald Trump was no unguarded moment. Because this week she did it again – this time calling Trump a "faker," and adding for good measure that she was surprised the news media haven't pushed him harder to release his tax returns.

    In response – and you just knew there'd be a response — Trump told a New York Times reporter that Ginsburg's comments were "highly inappropriate" and then took to Twitter to say: "Her mind is shot – resign!"

    Trump wasn't alone. She got slammed by judicial ethics experts, politicians, and many in the press, both from the left and the right. What if Trump wins and legislation he helped push through Congress winds up at the Supreme Court? How could Justice Ginsburg possibly be fair? Wouldn't she have to recuse herself?

    Josh Blackman, a Law professor at Houston College who writes about the Supreme Court put it this way: "The other Justices should hold an intervention, and tell her to be quiet or step down," he said.

    But before we demand an apology, an explanation or the "death penalty" for Justice Ginsburg, maybe we should thank her for being so open about her politics – while her colleagues on the High Court, many of whom are just as partisan, are cautious enough not to make it so obvious.


    I have long believed that when it comes to hot button social issues, the Justices on the High Court often make decisions based on how they feel politically – the Constitution only comes into it later on.

    So if they're pro-choice, they'll come down on that side of the issue; if they're pro-life, they rule that way. If they're against same-sex marriage, they won't find any basis for allowing it in the Constitution; if they're for it, the other way around.

    Then, an only then, I believe they find in the Constitution whatever they need to justify what was not really a legal decision they had arrived at – but a political one.

    As discouraging as that might be, there may be some good news in this fiasco after all. In the Times interview, Justice Ginsburg pulled out that tattered cliché about packing your bags and leaving the country if the "wrong" candidate wins. You know how liberals said they'd move to Canada if Bush won; or how the hard right said they'd leave the country if Obama won. For Ruth Bader- Ginsburg, moving to Canada isn't nearly going far enough. She recalled for the Times something her late husband said about such matters: "Now it's time for us to move to New Zealand."

    Good idea, Justice Ginsburg. I've been there. Nice people. Beautiful country. You'll love it. Safe travels.


    http://bernardgoldberg.com/justice-ginsburg-goes-rogue/

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to fuego For This Useful Post:

    Ezekiel 33 (07-13-2016), Romans828 (07-13-2016)

  3. #2
    Well, I believe that Mr. Goldberg is right about the partisanship of the Supreme Court. It's nice to think that they're honestly trying to interpret the Constitution, and not letting their personal views intrude on their decisions, but I believe the reality is quite different.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to njtom For This Useful Post:

    Quest (07-17-2016)

  5. #3
    Administrator fuego's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    16,271
    Thanked: 14129
    Blog Entries
    1
    Even Trump's enemies are taking his side in feud with Ginsburg

    A few excerpts:

    Ginsburg's unusual foray into presidential politics drew criticism from even left-leaning pundits and media outlets, who said she went too far by taking an openly partisan stance in the election.

    The Times scolded the liberal justice Wednesday in an editorial and called her impartiality into question.

    "Donald Trump Is Right About Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg," the headline proclaimed. The Times accused Ginsburg of "flinging herself into the mosh pit" with Trump and called her behavior "baffling."

    The Washington Post — which has warred with Trump and even had its campaign credentials pulled by the candidate — also sided with the billionaire against the Brooklyn-born justice.

    "However valid her comments may have been, though . . . they were still much, much better left unsaid by a member of the Supreme Court," the Post wrote.

    Some experts even theorized that Ginsburg's partisan outburst makes her too biased to rule on cases involving Trump — especially if the election were to wind up in the hands of the Supreme Court, as it did in 2000.

    "A federal law requires all federal judges, including the justices, to recuse themselves if their 'impartiality might reasonably be questioned,' " Stephen Gillers, a legal ethicist at New York University School of Law, told CNN.

    Howard Wolfson, a former top campaign aide to Hillary Clinton, also questioned Ginsburg's conduct.

    "I ️<3  RBG but I don't think our Supreme Court justices should be publicly offering their opinions about POTUS candidates," Wolfson tweeted...

    http://nypost.com/2016/07/13/even-tr...with-ginsburg/

  6. #4
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    What's the difference between US supreme court justices and European royalty ? Not much, except that once they are appointed they wield actual power that cannot be taken from them, ever. The institution is almost as archaic as enlightened despotism.

  7. #5
    Senior Member Cardinal TT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    7,640
    Thanked: 5995
    Blog Entries
    2
    She is not fit to run a chook raffle

  8. #6
    Administrator fuego's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    16,271
    Thanked: 14129
    Blog Entries
    1
    Pirro: Ginsburg, Lynch, Hillary 'All Doing Things They Know Aren't Allowed!'

    Judge Jeanine Pirro went off on Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, calling for her impeachment after she criticized Donald Trump publicly.

    Justice Ginsburg expressed regret this morning over the "ill-advised" statements after she triggered widespread outrage by entering the political fray.

    The Outnumbered hosts weighed in this afternoon, with Judge Pirro explaining that federal judges' code of conduct prohibits them from engaging in politics.

    "The remedy is impeachment," said Pirro.

    She pointed out that Ginsburg would have to recuse herself in the event that the presidential election comes down to a Supreme Court decision, as it did in 2000.

    Harris Faulkner noted that by bashing Trump, Ginsburg implicitly endorsed Hillary Clinton.

    Pirro ended by saying this is yet another example of an official in a "rigged system" doing or saying something that they know is wrong.

    "You've got the Supreme Court, the Attorney General, the president, the candidate - everybody's doing things that they know isn't allowed!"

    Watch the full discussion at link:

    http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/07/1...rg-outnumbered

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
You can avoid expensive repair costs with an extended service plan for your Ford. We cover all Ford models, including the Ford Mustang .