Ginsburg Should Recuse Herself

[carpro]

Ginsburg Better Do Right Thing and Recuse Herself From Trump Travel Ban Case

If campaign comments are evidence of bias in a way that invalidates the actions of a decision-maker (as the 4th Circuit claimed), then the same logic the 4th Circuit used to deny Trump’s travel ban must require Ginsburg’s recusal in the Supreme Court’s review of that travel ban.

The standard for recusal does not require a judge admit their bias. It only requires a review whether the public might “reasonably question” the “impartiality” of the judge in the matter.
----------------------------------------------------------------

She chose up sides in an election and made it public. She holds a personal animosity for the president.
She should recuse herself, but she won't.

Instead, she will dishonor the court

 

[just-want-peace]

Ginsburg Better Do Right Thing and Recuse Herself From Trump Travel Ban Case

If campaign comments are evidence of bias in a way that invalidates the actions of a decision-maker (as the 4th Circuit claimed), then the same logic the 4th Circuit used to deny Trump’s travel ban must require Ginsburg’s recusal in the Supreme Court’s review of that travel ban.

The standard for recusal does not require a judge admit their bias. It only requires a review whether the public might “reasonably question” the “impartiality” of the judge in the matter.
----------------------------------------------------------------

She chose up sides in an election and made it public. She holds a personal animosity for the president.
She should recuse herself, but she won't.

Instead, she will dishonor the court

More likely she would claim that she should get TWO votes because of her age!! (wiser???)

 

[Yeshua1]

Ginsburg Better Do Right Thing and Recuse Herself From Trump Travel Ban Case

If campaign comments are evidence of bias in a way that invalidates the actions of a decision-maker (as the 4th Circuit claimed), then the same logic the 4th Circuit used to deny Trump’s travel ban must require Ginsburg’s recusal in the Supreme Court’s review of that travel ban.

The standard for recusal does not require a judge admit their bias. It only requires a review whether the public might “reasonably question” the “impartiality” of the judge in the matter.
----------------------------------------------------------------

She chose up sides in an election and made it public. She holds a personal animosity for the president.
She should recuse herself, but she won't.

Instead, she will dishonor the court

What is said during a campaigh should matter ZILCH, as once in office, their words matter! And still see NO evidence that this is a religious litmus test against Muslims, if the IRA was bombing mew york, would we be able to enforce stoppage from IIreland, or would that be anti catholic?

 

[carpro]

What is said during a campaigh should matter ZILCH, as once in office, their words matter! And still see NO evidence that this is a religious litmus test against Muslims, if the IRA was bombing mew york, would we be able to enforce stoppage from IIreland, or would that be anti catholic?

Now that you have that off your chest, would you like to actually comment on the topic?

 

[Yeshua1]

Now that you have that off your chest, would you like to actually comment on the topic?

She should recuse herself, but that will not happen, look at when the issue of gay marriages came to the Court, and even though 2 Justices had done gay marriage ceromonies, stayed on the case!

 

[Happy]

"Over the summer, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the following comments about then presidential-candidate Donald Trump: “He is a faker…He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. …How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.”


"For most judges in the United States, there are codes of conduct that regulate their behavior to avoid situations where judges impartially can be called into question, yet the justices of the Supreme Court are exempt from these conduct proscriptions. Although Supreme Court justices are not required to recuse themselves from cases, they do so from time-to-time."

When Justices Recuse, and When they Refuse

What Supreme Court Justices are NOT exempt from is;

"US Constitution ~ Article III
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

Good Behaviour does not INCLUDE ruling based on opinions, or outside of the confines of the Constitution.

Every time you hear of a Supreme Court Decision that is NOT unanimous..... Do you not ask yourself, HOW the LAW can be so UNCLEAR that 9 Judges appointed to the highest Court in the Land can not agree ?

Vagueness doctrine. In American constitutional law, a statute is void for vagueness and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand.

Perhaps Supreme Court Justices should be "average citizens"... and not uppity "Judges", who are touted as being "appointed for life"......when the US Constitution clearly informs us their "appointment", has a "caveat" of "good behaviour", and they can be "impeached".

 

[carpro]

"I find it baffling actually that she says these things," said Arthur Hellman, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh. "She must know that she shouldn’t be. However tempted she might be, she shouldn’t be doing it."

Similarly, Howard Wolfson, a former top aide to Hillary Clinton and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, said Ginsburg shouldn't have said it.

I RBG but I don't think our Supreme Court justices should be publicly offering their opinions about POTUS candidates.

Louis Virelli is a Stetson University law professor who just wrote a book on Supreme Court recusals, titled "Disqualifying the High Court." He said that "public comments like the ones that Justice Ginsburg made could be seen as grounds for her to recuse herself from cases involving a future Trump administration.