Ginsburg comments regarding a Trump presidency and High Court meanderings

While I have always been an admirer of the Notorious RBG, her comments (which I agree with), on Trump were highly inappropriate. However as both parties in the last 30 years have taken a wildly partisan approach to the High Court, I suppose it could not have turned out any other way. Obviously a President is going to nominate both Chief and Associate justices that are in line with their own thoughts on the law and the Constitution, but we have gone way beyond that.

Earl Warren is generally viewed as the most liberal, activist Chief Justice ever. And he was nominate by Republican Dwight Eisenhower. Warren was the former Republican Governor of California (at the time one of the reddest states). Ike was quoted, and wrote in his memoirs, that his nomination of Warren was his greatest regret as President. And remember, it was Ike who gave us Dick Nixon.

Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her memoirs 9 years after the fact that her vote in Bush v Gore was #1 a mistake on her part, and #2 the Court should have never heard a case that was a state action , that already had two cures in Florida's own constitution. While I am glad she was aware that her vote in the 5-4 decision was wrong, it is troublesome that it took her a decade to figure it out and then tell the world about it.

All of us recognize that the upcoming election will sully our great democratic experiment, likely in a manner that will not be corrected in our lifetimes. Both candidates, while deeply flawed, were the choice of the American people and I believe that we always get the government that we deserve. The problem does not lay at the feet of Sec. Clinton or Mr. Trump, the problem is with us. That this is what we think we deserve. When I think of so many candidates in my life, Ford, Carter, Bush Sr., Clinton, McCain, Obama and Dole, none of those men used today's tactics. They rightly disagreed, often with fire in their eyes, on policy. But they never attacked each other as people, as candidates, or as American's. Because that was what we expected and demanded of them.

The next President could easily appoint as many as 4 justices. Shaping our country for generations. It is an issue that will receive little attention by the candidates or the media. Because emails, walls, serial adultery and AR-15's are much more glamours.

Just some early morning thoughts. Hope everyone has a great day and Hook Em.

 

I agree with her comments and your assertion that they were highly inappropriate. It reminded me of my grandfather that after age 80 appeared to make up his mind not to use any filter and say whatever was on his mind, regardless of who was present.

 

yelladawgdem, I enjoyed your comments as always. However, I'm not as outraged by what RBG said. As you rightly pointed out, the Court is now a fully partisan and agenda-driven institution. That's true of the conservative justices, and it's even more true of the liberal justices, including RGB. (In my view, this means the Court has lost its legitimacy, but that's a separate discussion.) Was there any question about what RGB believed about Trump or how she'd view cases in which his Administration is before the Court? What's the point of pretending that her mind was open to anything he has to say? He's the complete opposite of everything she has stood for for 60 years of legal advocacy (as a lawyer and as a judge). All she did was say what Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan believe just as fervently but keep to themselves.

Frankly, even though I detest Ginsburg's judicial philosophy and view it as tyrannical, I think her personality as an old lady is charming. She gets caught asleep during the State of the Union. Most people would deny they were sleeping, and not only does she admit it, she admits that she had been drinking Anthony Kennedy's wine and was a little drunk during the speech. Liberals tried to get her to step down from the Court during Obama's term to ensure that a Republican didn't pick her replacement, and she basically told them she didn't give a crap. Now she says what every liberal every liberal judge in the United States thinks but just doesn't have the balls to say. I kinda like an old lady who doesn't give a crap what anybody thinks. Hell, next term maybe she'll fart out loud during oral argument.

 

+1

 

It's highly inappropriate and legit grounds for recusal if cases involving Trump come before her. It's no different than a potential juror being disqualified because he/she is known to previously dislike the defendant. Few people can disregard strong bias and be completely fair in those situations.

Same with the Mexican-American judge hearing the Trump University case. To say he wouldn't be biased at all is irrational. He's an active member of a legal association who's mission statement states they defend the rights of illegal immigrants in the U.S. Trump wants to remove their supposed right to be here. Conflict of interest is no stretch.

To me this is all part of the Dem strategy to stack the deck. Having as many people in power positions or visible roles in society vocally bash Trump.

The idea is the more visible people who speak out, the more people in all segments of life they'll persuade to follow the lead of one they're fond of.

I happen to believe it's a double-edged sword. The more visible people who strongly force feed their opinion Trump will destroy today's America, the more the common person wants to buck "assumed" authority and today's corrupt system they reject.

 

Are there other examples of active SCOTUS judges commenting on Presidential candidates? I cannot remember any.

 

Did you really think that she didn't have a bias against Trump before she made the statement? Do you think that her liberal colleagues on the Court who kept quiet don't share the same bias? They do.

Ginsburg isn't following anybody's strategy. She's a slightly nutty old lady shooting her mouth off like an old, drunk uncle at the Thanksgiving dinner table. Most Democrats probably wish she hadn't said anything, because people are talking about the fact that she took sides in the election than whether or not her comments about Trump are true. If anything, it's a diversion from the Democrats' strategy.

 

Thomas Jefferson and Chief Justice John Marshall hated each other's guts and screwed with each other every chance they got. In fact, the modern Court's power as the supreme authority on what the law is and means comes from a case that was a purely political pissing match between them. I don't have any quotes from Marshall about Jefferson, but I assure you he didn't just shut his mouth about him in public.

 

So, was Trump right about that biased judge whose parents were from Mexico?

 

MrD
did John Marshall make negative comments about TJ when he was running for office?

 

Uh, no.

 

There's no way for me to know that, but I would assume that he did since their feud was very well-known and public. It's legend lives on more than 200 years later.

 

Of course everyone has bias in life it's human nature. But the minute someone in authority who's job is to be impartial vocalizes it, they made their bias clear and are no longer qualified to be in a position that requires unbiased weighing of evidence.

Donald Sterling lost his franchise because of his private racial bias against his hoochie gf taking pics with black guys. Not even hooking up with them which he was cool with, just the public image she presented showing it off.

How many old, rich, white pro team owners share that same bias? Plenty is no stretch of the imagination.

I get racial bias is a different form than the bias shown here, but the point is you can have your own personal bias all you want, but can't vocalize it in positions of power where it's inappropriate.

A SPJ can't strongly bash a potential future President and expect to be seen as an impartial judge before evidence in his cases hits the floor. It wasn't a criticism of a specific policy or stance, she disapproves of the man as a whole and his abilities.

Common sense, I know they brainwash it out of you all in Lib Camp, but really it's not that hard to recover. 1+1=2 is a good start.

 

MrD
I tried to find out but all I could find was Marshall was appointed in Jan 1801 and TJ was declared winner in feb 1801
so Marshall wouldn't have had much time to bash TJ
Not quite the same as RGB

 

Hell yes!

 

I am reluctant to admit a 'guilty' feeling here. Mr Deez's early on condemnation of Trump supporters (when my son had joined the band wagon earlier), to SH's sometimes objectionable biased bashing, and some MSM compare/contrast to Trump vs Hillary has moved me from 'anyone but Hillary' to now actually wanting to vote for Trump. I am so completely SICK of the establishment that I now enthusiastically wish to literally rub it in their face.

 

The timing of the comments isn't what's critical. What's critical is that Marshall harbored opinions on Jefferson that were comparable to Ginsburg's opinions on Trump while the Jefferson Adminstration was likely to be before Marshall's Court. The Marbury v. Madison case was all about their feud. Can I find direct quotes from Marshall at the time? No, because I don't have access to news articles, speeches, and interviews from the early 1800s. However, I do know that their hostility for each other was very commonly known even then, so it's doubtful that Marshall was hush-hush about it. Furthermore, standards of judicial conduct were far from universal in those days (In fact, it wasn't even settled what a federal judge's job actually was yet.), so Marshall would have had little reason to hold his tongue.

 

What Mr Deez doesn't realize that millions like you in the privacy of the voting booth is going to vote for Trump.

 

If that's your priority, that's fine. My concern is about the judicial philosophy that Ginsburg has, not the superficiality of what she says in public. If she had kept her mouth shut, she'd be no better of a judge, and she's no worse or less fair of a judge than the other liberals on the bench who haven't commented but think the same things Ginsburg does and brings those opinions onto the bench with them.

Sterling lost his franchise because he created a PR dumpster fire for the NBA. The league didn't care about his bias or what he thought of his hoochie having her picture taken with black dudes. And I think his fellow owners would disagree with him on one issue. I'm sure most of them would care if their hoochies hook up black dudes.

A liberal judge doesn't like Donald Trump? What a shock.

Not sure where you got the impression that I was liberal.

 

My token Trump supporter friend agrees. He says there's a Bradley Effect going on - lots of Trump voters are telling pollsters that they're going to vote for somebody else, because they know how dumb they sound saying they're going to vote for Trump. However, they'll ultimately vote for him, despite what they told the pollsters.

 

I've made it clear that Trump wasn't in my top 5 in the GOP primary. But I had planned to vote for him without hesitation because the other candidate is Hillary "corrupt with no accomplishments" Clinton. But the ******** they played with the emails and the democrat establishments not holding her accountable makes me not only vote for him, but I will do everything I can to advocate for Trump. I now want him to win more than any other GOP candidate in the past. BHO, Comey, Lynch, and the Clintons made it personal by insulting all of the American people. Of course one half of America doesn't even realize they've insulting them and will still vote for the most corrupt person I know.

 

I want to see the quote that O'Conner says she made a mistake in her opinion of Bush v. Gore? She said it was a mistake for the high court to take the case......

 

Mr D.
The question was if a Supreme had ever bashed a presidential candidate before so timing is relevant.

 

If you see it that way, that's fine, but what's noteworthy about Ginsburg's comment isn't that Trump is a candidate rather than an incumbent President. If she said the same thing about Obama (or more likely about Bush), it would have been just as noteworthy.

 

This New York Times story has quotes from her on the issue. You can decide for yourself whether she's actually calling it a mistake or if she's simply acknowledging that it had its downsides.

 

?Mr D.?
It is not the way I see it . It was in fact a question by another poster,asking if a Supreme had ever bashed a presidential candidate before.
Of course it would have been newsworthy if she'd bashed BO
But that was not the question.

 

Yes, that's what the question was, but the fact that Trump is a candidate rather than an incumbent is extraneous to the controversy itself, regardless of how he chose to frame the question.

 

UH? You are trying to confuse me Counselor. And that ain't hard.
Utche asked this,
UTChE96
Are there other examples of active SCOTUS judges commenting on Presidential candidates? I cannot remember any. "

You answered , "Thomas Jefferson and Chief Justice John Marshall hated each other's guts and screwed with each other every chance they got"
which might be true BUT as it turns out Marshall as a Supreme likely didn't comment much on TJ as a CANDIDATE since he was made a Supreme days before TJ was declared winner and after the campaign period.
I am pretty sure UTChe96 meant to ask exactly what he asked which is has a Supreme ever commented on a CANDIDATE, not an incumbent.

I think we have shown what was asked and that AFAWK Ginsberg is the only Supreme to comment on a candidate.
Pretty sure the subject has been covered. If you want to start another thread on Supremes negatively commenting on incumbents, have at it.

 

See this article.

 

MrD>
How do you do it? You keep at it until you find the exact right factoid.
Even you have to admit until you found this there had been no mention of any Supreme speaking out about a Candidate.
but here it is from your linkP
" 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."


No one else did for 216 years until RBG and now she is apologizing. times do change