What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Does Ginsburg need to recuse herself... (1 Viewer)

Walking Boot said:
Not only that, but she should recuse herself from all suits against the administration if Trump wins. In the case of Anybody v Trump, she can't be impartial.

Hopefully she just makes good on her threat to move to New Zealand and we can avoid the constitutional crisis she would create.
Click to expand...
Thanks Grandpa Rox.

 
Justices don't recuse themselves when they are good buddies with the president, so why should they when they are not?

 
Um, can we agree that Merrick should be confirmed already? Until he is confirmed or, at minimum, given a hearing, I'm not sure we should be listening to any group calling for her to be recused from any case. So, let's all tell the Senate to hold a confirmation hearing first, mkay.

 
Is she powerful enough to play by the Clinton set of rules?  I'd think so as a Supreme Court Justice nominated by Bill but I'm also someone who has to be held accountable for my words and actions so I'm obviously not playing the game right.

 
Let's just dispense with the notion that SCOTUS is apolitical or non-partisan. We all know it isn't but we're supposed to pretend like it is. Both sides are saying how important this election is because of the justice appointments. Why should that be? A judge is supposed to interpret the laws as written, fairly and impartially.

 
McGarnicle said:
Let's just dispense with the notion that SCOTUS is apolitical or non-partisan. We all know it isn't but we're supposed to pretend like it is. Both sides are saying how important this election is because of the justice appointments. Why should that be? A judge is supposed to interpret the laws as written, fairly and impartially.
Click to expand...
Could not agree more...just Interpet the law and stop with the living breathing document bs when it fits your agenda...it shouldn't matter whether you are liberal or conservative...

 
McGarnicle said:
Let's just dispense with the notion that SCOTUS is apolitical or non-partisan. We all know it isn't but we're supposed to pretend like it is. Both sides are saying how important this election is because of the justice appointments. Why should that be? A judge is supposed to interpret the laws as written, fairly and impartially.
Click to expand...
Sounds like we should just replace them with computers

 
NutterButter said:
Sounds like we should just replace them with computers
Click to expand...
Not a bad idea...just Interpet the law...than neither side can complain and we don't have to have these asinine confirmations were each side basically pulls the same nonsense than gets all up in arms when it happens to their guy...

 
Imagine Scalia had said Clinton was an awful choice before he passed away...what would the outrage be from the DNC? They would be calling for Scalia to resign, why is it different with Ginsburg?

Woman/Female? We gonna play that card?

 
AAABatteries said:
Cliff's notes about what this is about?
Click to expand...
Ginsy said Trump is suxor and an awful POTUS nominee, no other SC Justice has done this prior to the election...if Scalia had done this he would have been ousted from the Supreme Court and all the Clitnon bed wetters would have been up in arms in the FFA...that's a good start.

 
Ministry of Pain said:
Ginsy said Trump is suxor and an awful POTUS nominee, no other SC Justice has done this prior to the election...if Scalia had done this he would have been ousted from the Supreme Court and all the Clitnon bed wetters would have been up in arms in the FFA...that's a good start.
Click to expand...
That would be a lot of wet beds.

 
If Scalia did this, my reaction would've been the same as it is now.   :sleep: I'm not sure though if I'm technically a member of the Clinton bed wetters.

 
Ministry of Pain said:
Ginsy said Trump is suxor and an awful POTUS nominee, no other SC Justice has done this prior to the election...if Scalia had done this he would have been ousted from the Supreme Court and all the Clitnon bed wetters would have been up in arms in the FFA...that's a good start.
Click to expand...
Calm down

 
The old bag should be in a nursing home. Why no age limit I will never understand. 83..####### ridiculous. She probably can't be trusted to not #### herself let alone interpret law.

 
Ministry of Pain said:
Ginsy said Trump is suxor and an awful POTUS nominee, no other SC Justice has done this prior to the election...if Scalia had done this he would have been ousted from the Supreme Court and all the Clitnon bed wetters would have been up in arms in the FFA...that's a good start.
Click to expand...
ousted, huh?

 
Interesting -  I seriously doubt POTUS goes to SCOTUS this time around but it's an interesting discussion.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ministry of Pain said:
Ginsy said Trump is suxor and an awful POTUS nominee, no other SC Justice has done this prior to the election...if Scalia had done this he would have been ousted from the Supreme Court and all the Clitnon bed wetters would have been up in arms in the FFA...that's a good start.
Click to expand...



If what RBG did is a disgrace to the court, she’s in illustrious company. Supreme Court justices have been messing in politics, including campaign politics, since the ink was still wet on the Constitution. In 1800, just a decade after the court was founded, so many of its justices were out campaigning for John Adams that the opening of the court term had to be delayed. Two-hundred and some years later, it’s more taboo than it once was for a justice to openly endorse a particular candidate—but that hasn’t really stopped the country’s top legal officials from taking sides: As recently as election night, 2000, when NBC declared for Democratic candidate Al Gore, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor told the guests at an election party that the Democrat’s election victory was “terrible.” (Of course, her criticism was a little premature, as we now know.) She then went on to participate in making sure nothing so terrible would happen, casting the crucial fifth vote in Bush v. Gore without blinking an eye. O’Connor had a long history of rooting for the Bushes in presidential elections. In 1988, she wrote to longtime political ally Senator Barry Goldwater, in a letter now in his public archives, that she “would be thankful if George B wins. It is vital for the Court and the nation that he does.”
Click to expand...

additional detail here:  http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/ruth-bader-ginsburg-donald-trump-supreme-court-politics-history-214044

 
She also should not be allowed to rule on anything about the state of Pennsylvania because she looks like Joe Paterno...

 
bigbottom said:
additional detail here:  http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/ruth-bader-ginsburg-donald-trump-supreme-court-politics-history-214044
Click to expand...
If you have to go back to 1800, different time and world than now. Social media, things spread like wildfire, it was a terrible use of power and a total loss of judgement on her part. She should remove herself from the bench immediately. She is an embarrassment and people should be informed that what she did was terribly wrong and an egregious decision. She deserves to be punished and removed. 

If Scalia had done this the media would have lopped off his head.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
[scooter] said:
Good thing you're not a history teacher.
Click to expand...
Not like she did and then blown up all over social media. Different time now and the media is owned and operated mostly by Leftist agendas so of course they didn't tear Ginsburg apart and call for her to step down which is what she should do at this point. 

A tragedy for women in this country right now. First Clinton, a woman who swallowed her pride because she couldn't her husband's and now Ginsburg showing her true agenda as she waits till 82 to weigh in on an election like this where she doesn't fear the ramifications in the way she would want average citizens to fear the Supreme Court, the irony is thick and the impact on women and their roles in society damaged forever. 

 
Well I'm glad there's someone who is outraged.  I do think RBG should recuse herself in the event of a Bush v. Gore dispute arising from this election ends up before the Supreme Court, even if RBG's more conservative sister on the Court did not.

 
Lawrence O'Donnell (MSNBC) raised a few interesting thoughts.  First, he pointed out that SC justices have actually run for public office, including President, while serving and continued to serve after losing. Second, he asked if publicly endorsing a candidate was worse than privately endorsing one (they all vote).  Third, Catholic justices have never recused themselves when dealing with abortion issues, even though they have a religious bias against it.

 
I came in here expecting it to be about Tom Brady*. :bag:

*RBG would be in charge of deciding if the Deflategate drama would be accepted to the SC, because she is in charge of cases from the 2nd Circuit where that case was heard.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JohnnyU
Devil's Den Random Murders - Now a possible serial killer?
Replies
15
Views
373
Ilov80s
Ilov80s
El Floppo
At NYC jury duty... AMA
2 3
Replies
117
Views
4K
B Maverick
B Maverick
Gawain
To you music drafters...top songs of early 60s
Replies
21
Views
438
kupcho1
kupcho1

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top