Last edited Wed Jul 13, 2016, 02:35 PM - Edit history (1)

Are the reason rbg is in the wrong.

We should learn from the past and neither side should be seen as biased.

Unfortunately that's not real life.

im·par·tial
imˈpärSHəl/Submit
adjective
treating all rivals or disputants equally; fair and just.
"independent and impartial advice"
synonyms: unbiased, unprejudiced, neutral, nonpartisan, nondiscriminatory, disinterested, detached, dispassionate, objective, open-minded, equitable, evenhanded, fair, fair-minded, just; More

I corrected, thank you.

The less important is that arguably expressing opinions in private is not the same as making public statements.

But the main one is that on a left-wing echo chamber like DU, it is far more important to condemn instances of political misconduct by left-wing figures than it is to preach to the choir. I don't give a damn if people everyone I'm talking to already disapproves of have acted similarly (although see above; I don't think they have; I think this is qualitatively different), but I do if they're going to try to defend the indefensible on their own side.

Charity may or may not being at home, but standards in politics absolutely have to.

I'm pretty sure I know how all 8 vote. But that's private. As to putting Democratic and all parties' elected members feet to fire there's no doubt. But you know that as you post on DU

You've got to be kidding . . .
What was your charity-for-all counsel when Antonin Scalia and his lapdog Clarence Thomas broke with tradition by attending events organized by Koch Industries?
Or when Scalia expressed his disappointment in the Supreme Court’s decision in King v. Burwell by taking potshots at justices who voted with the majority.
Or when Thomas refused to recuse himself in cases where his wife, Tea Party advocate Ginny Thomas, had a vested interest.
Or when the conservative majority elected George W. Bush, then announced that they were not setting precedent – that it was a one-time deal, that if faced with a similar dilemma anytime in the future, the court could not take the same action … implying but not stating outright that their addendum applied in particular to any case in which progressive justices outnumbered conservatives.
The only way charity works in politics is if it's practiced by both sides.
Republicans have been kicking sand in the face of reason for way too long.

But some people have a double standard that suits their purposes.

legacy by staying silent....

Lady Justice is crying out for the future of our country...

loudly when someone makes what he perceives as a politically inappropriate comment about a powerful figure like him.

LOL - For GOP being 'politically incorrect' is reserved only for them.

Fvckin' whiners.

Fair is fair, please remove that funny hairpiece so we can take a look inside.

Today's new thread: ‘Her mind is shot': Donald Trump-Ruth Bader Ginsburg feud goes nuclear

you know, those three instances?

I was hoping somebody beat me to this. Isn't it funny when the Democrats show some moxie, act a little "impolite" and actually speak out, the huddled masses go all tsk tsk as if it's a major crime for a Justice to speak out as a clear thinking adult?

... thank you, thank you, thank you ...

Obama

We've had several sitting Supremes run for office from the bench. Including the first Supreme, John Jay, who was elected Governor of New York while serving.

We had an abundance of political comments and rulings from the "Scalia" Court.

The federal judges are precluded from political comment - but NOT the Supremes. And we aren't changing the rule or the practice for Donald J(ester) Trump.

It was really surprising. I believe he said three justices ran for the presidential nominee of their party, as well as governor of New York. Some ran more than once.

Last edited Thu Jul 14, 2016, 12:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Almost every time scalia made a speech he made rather pointed political comments. NOBODY batted an eyelash.

Any and all of these points you make, gratuitous, SPOT-ON. NOBODY batted an eyelash.

EVERY time clarence thomas sat there on his ass instead of recusing himself in cases in which his wife had a connection - NOBODY batted an eyelash.

It's a high-tech witch burning, I think. To riff off thomas's own complaint about the high-tech lynching he felt he was subjected to.

I'm not bothered by anything Justice Ginsburg says. She happens to be correct in her assessments, and she has more knowledge, perspective, class, and gravitas in the cuticle of her pinkie fingernail than Donald Trump has in his whole entourage.

non-stop, maligning, hateful propaganda, part of our political reality. We have to transcend it and will. We also have to proactively combat it or the force of the M$M wins the day.

Media coups around the world seem to be a coordinated effort of the right wing, a new, vicious trend of politics as war that knows no respect for the fact people are human beings. Donald is willing to bully a respected octagenarian woman to promote himself, the hater's perfect candidate. This 'liberal is evil by definition' mindset begets death camps and all manner of horrid evil along the way there.

wending

that all good, decent people in the public view feel compelled to speak out about the absolute existential threat to justice and freedom that the slimeball known as Don the Con represents. In the REALLY BIG sense.

The conservative justices have treated our Dem Presidents like shit...especially President Obama.

It's smoke and mirrors of a media trying to prop up a thin skinned yam who has no business in a Presidential election.

when Scalia dined with Ken Starr after Starr was appointed as special prosecutor in Watergate.

As you note, there is no legal matter involving Donald Trump that is before RBG. She is also not influencing any legislation that involves him.

Leave. Her. Alone!

I thought I was losing my mind when I brought the Cheney meeting with Scalia up and got a blank stare from the other party.

It was like, "well that never happened", but I knew it did.

Thanks again.

Not to mention the simple fact that our Supreme Court is political. It's a political, partisan entity. Pretending otherwise doesn't make it any different. If they want to be reporting on something, it should he the politicization of or Supreme Court.

No big hurry on their part to fill an existing vacancy. So hey, there's no hurry to see Justice Ginsburg leave until she is good and ready to do so.

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;

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#f

Even very pro Ginsberg papers like the New York Times and Washington Post have criticized her for this.

As you should know.

And generally do. As you should know. With these comments no one will have any credibility who criticizes Roberts, Thomas, etc. if they ever do anything similar. She has opened a floodgate which will not be stopped.

Did O'Connor? Did Alito? Did Thomas?

As I said in the original post, if you don't have a contemporaneous record of objecting to the shenanigans practiced over and over again by conservative justices, I'm not inclined to listen to any puling about Ginsburg's exceedingly mild criticism of the presumptive Republican nominee, and neither should any decent American.

means you are not a "decent American". Ok, got it. The others did not throw themselves into a political race. And her comments were utterly over the top -- not "mild" in any respect. But the argument that "the other side does it too" has never impressed me.

How incredibly courageous of the Democratic Party to set such a high bar.

justices should maintain at least the illusion of impartiality - PERIOD

He picked on the wrong smart lady.

I don't think you made the point you think you made.

I recall being pretty outraged about them.

I love what Ruth Ginsburg said, but I don't think it was appropriate for a Supreme Court justice to proclaim political affiliations in that way.

I do have trouble mustering actual outrage, however.

I raised an eyebrow at the most.

HAS to speak out about the travesty that this country is experiencing. Donald Trump as a candidate for President is an embarrassment and a fraud, brought to us by the Koch Bros, the M$M, the Teabaggers, and a host of folks who thought he was just an entertaining interlude. I, for one, am glad to hear RBG's outrage. It should be echoing throughout the country.

A Trump presidency would be an unmitigated disaster for our country and the world. Given his rhetoric, I have long since passed the point where I believe it's a moral imperative to speak out against it! I don't care what position the person holds.

Ginsburg has more character in her pinky than he has in his entire unfit erratic undisciplined spoiled self.

She was married ONCE, for 54 years:
"After the birth of their daughter, her husband was diagnosed with testicular cancer. During this period, Ginsburg attended class and took notes for both of them, typed her husband's papers to his dictation, and cared for their daughter and her sick husband – all while making the Harvard Law Review."

The media shouldn't even utter these two names in the same breath.

She was raised Jewish and is old enough to remember the liberation of the prisoners of Nazi death camps. She is free and within her thoughtful, well-educated rights to condemn the fascist, demagogue, dangerous, racist and unstable trump whatever she pleases.

Trump is a fake? REALLY? Is the sky blue??

faker, ego???? compare that to his insults

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Dershowitz-Ginsberg-Trump/2016/07/13/id/738546/

I don't think she cares, she is going to retire after Hillary gets elected. Even if congress remains with the repugs, God forbid, they can't stall for 4 years. Then Obama can take her place.

gag, to dim don

Has he EVER apologized for ANY of the nasty things he has said, EVER??????

blow hard baboon for anything?