Posted on 07/13/2016 12:19:11 PM PDT by TangledUpInBlue
The editorial boards for both the New York Times and the Washington Post took issue with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s recent musings about presumptive Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.
Each paper editorialized this week that Supreme Court justices should hold back from broadcasting their preferences in the presidential race because it could question their impartiality.
Neither the Times nor the Post challenged Ginsburg’s assessment of Trump as egotistical, inconsistent and unqualified for the Oval Office. Nevertheless, her comments would have been better left unspoken, according to the newspapers.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
I’m not. She stupidly ripped the veil off the “non-partisan” supreme court image and exposed them for what we all knew they were: partisan hacks.
Even these leftards are realizing that #blackbowelmovements are guaranteeing a Trump win
The comparison to Bush/Gore is spot on.
I think as delusional as they are, they realize if Trump wins it will change the court for decades to come. They are basically trying to tell that old coot to shut up. It won’t work, IMO.
the only reason they’re concerned about this is she might be forced to recuse herself when making decisions on cases brought during a Trump administration, and he supports the case in front of the court.
lots of small people HAVE BIG MEGAPHONES
and NO CLASS NO HONOR NO CHARACTER NO BRAINS NO INTEGRITY
and can be bought like a $2 crackhead hooker
Like it!
Ginsberg should resign. She’s 83 and needs to spend some time with her family anyway. Maybe go on lecture circuit or simply take a nap.
Buzzy craved power more than what she thinks is the good of her country. She could have resigned under Obama. Instead, President Trump will pick her replacement.
She acted stupidly.
“Maybe go on lecture circuit or simply take a nap.”
First she should move to New Zealand, then take a nap.
Like anybody would have thought differently had she not said it. They are just upset that there is now, no defensible argument to counter to counter that claim it should it come up. That is why they are speaking out about her speaking out.
You are correct. Only reason for the editorials.
Really? I’m surprised the comments shed any light whatsoever on the partisan nature of the Supreme Court.
Isn’t some old, tall, historic building perhaps missing a lost gargoyle from its facade?
She was always a partisan hack, this just makes it indisputable for all to see.
I’m glad she spoke out — it tears away the facade that pretends the liberals on the Supreme Court are anything but partisans. WHen they go about ignoring the US Constitution and making up law as they go along, they are serving their political cause(s) and not the Constitution and the body of US laws.
the only reason they’re concerned about this is she might be forced to recuse herself when making decisions on cases brought during a Trump administration, and he supports the case in front of the court.
Just like the Mexican Judge recusing himself.
Also validating his assertion that the judiciary is politically biased.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.