Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

If not now, when should Justice Ginsburg have spoken out on Trump?
Sacramento Bee ^ | July 13, 2016 | Shawn Hubler

Posted on 07/14/2016 6:13:36 AM PDT by artichokegrower

When is the First Amendment not the First Amendment? Apparently, when a liberal U.S. Supreme Court justice exercises it to voice alarm at the possibility that Donald Trump might become the next president.

(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: ginsburg
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last
To: artichokegrower

Judges voluntarily give up a measure of their first amendment rights when the take the bench. It is a requirement of office. All judges and justices are bound by the canons. Ginsburg violated Canon 5 of the federal rules.
Hubler knows this, but he hates Trump, thus the rules don’t matter.
Simple for the left—the end always justifies the means. They see themselves as above the law.


41 posted on 07/14/2016 6:41:05 AM PDT by The Continental Op
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: artichokegrower
An extremely biased article from one of the most liberal outlets in the West.

They don't even try to hide it.

42 posted on 07/14/2016 6:43:59 AM PDT by capt. norm (If you can't make them see the light, let them feel the heat!<)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: artichokegrower

It’s one thing to criticize a president by name in a Supreme Court decision for his policies involved in a case before the court. Or to criticize a politician in private. It’s another to publicly criticize a presidential candidate in the media.


43 posted on 07/14/2016 6:52:38 AM PDT by Lower Deck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Ginsburg is biased—it is good when she lets everyone know where she stands—she is a proud member of the Alzheimer’s leftist club.


44 posted on 07/14/2016 6:54:44 AM PDT by cgbg (Epistemology is not a spectator sport.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: artichokegrower

When is the First Amendment not the First Amendment? Apparently, when a liberal U.S. Supreme Court justice exercises it to voice alarm at the possibility that Donald Trump might become the next president.


I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV but even I can see this is wrong. However, I am pleased she did speak out. It now exposes her bias (as if anyone that has been paying attention did not already know her bias).

Hopefully she will resign after the election and move to a country that is more in tune with her beliefs.

One point that puzzles me however, is why she has not resigned before now to let Obama pick her replacement.


45 posted on 07/14/2016 7:07:17 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN (The government is the problem, not the solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: artichokegrower
Good stuff from the Comments section:

Dje Dje

Ginsburg has gone beyond stating a personal opinion. She is interfering with a public election for POTUS. She can be impeached if members of the US House of Representatives find that her comments violate the "good behavior" required of all federal judges by the US Constitution. I think that they do. Her remarks are biased, unprecedented, and reveal an inability to render impartial judgements. For the sake of the nation, she should apologize for undermining public trust in the nation's courts and resign immediately.

46 posted on 07/14/2016 7:08:43 AM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JLAGRAYFOX

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is now 83 years old. She has undergone both chemo and radiation treatments for cancer. Ruth now uses a wheel chair on a regular basis.
Perhaps age is catching up with her. Ruth could be in the early stages of dementia. Dementia causes mood changes, forgetfulness, irritably etc.

The Supreme Court justices answer only to themselves and God when it comes to stepping down from the bench. Once Congress hath joined a nominee and his office, only death or retirement can separate them. They can be impeached though.


47 posted on 07/14/2016 7:10:33 AM PDT by hapnHal (**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: artichokegrower

Anybody live near the “Bee” can yell a #### you when they pass it for me?

Where did this rag come from. It’s CA’s version of the NY Times.


48 posted on 07/14/2016 7:13:15 AM PDT by dp0622 (The only thing an upper crust conservative hates more than a liberal is a middle class conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: artichokegrower
She and the writer are both wrong on the appropriateness of Justice Ginsburg's ex cathedra pronouncements. It is not only about her proclaiming her bias towards one who may likely be involved in various future issues coming to the Court. Her whole tone was absurdly unjudicious; just as the writer's characterization of Trump as "bigoted" is absurd.

Trump, to the contrary, is the one who has gone after--aggressively gone after the "politically correct" bullies, who have been stifling free discussion of vital social & political & legal issues, for the past quarter century. The bigots are the ones who insist that all of the rest of us simply accept their insulting views on social, political & ethnic questions.

The bigot in this case is the Justice, who throws over the normal restraints that go with her position, to vilify one who chooses to dissent from her very biased position. The writer is even more pathetic. She is so imbued with an insulting narrative against dissenters, that she seems to actually think it necessary for a sitting Supreme Court Justice to slander a Presidential candidate--because the Ginsburg tirade was indeed slanderous. (Now I know that the Court has held that public figures can be slandered with impunity--but one expects something a little better from the Justices themselves.)

49 posted on 07/14/2016 7:13:37 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

You wrote that “a judge must be impartial, non-political and above perception of bias.”

That is totally correct. I’m stunned that Ginsburg has spoken out the way she has. Totally unprofessional.


50 posted on 07/14/2016 7:17:56 AM PDT by Theo (No tagline for now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: artichokegrower

“when should Justice Ginsburg have spoken out on Trump?”

As the IRS audits her tax returns next year?


51 posted on 07/14/2016 7:19:05 AM PDT by equaviator (There's nothing like the universe to bring you down to earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: artichokegrower; All
Code of Conduct for United States Judges

The Code of Conduct for United States Judges includes the ethical canons that apply to federal judges and provides guidance on their performance of official duties and engagement in a variety of outside activities.

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; or

(3) solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution to a political organization or candidate, or attend or purchase a ticket for a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization or candidate.

(B) Resignation upon Candidacy. A judge should resign the judicial office if the judge becomes a candidate in a primary or general election for any office.

(C) Other Political Activity. A judge should not engage in any other political activity.

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

I do not know about you, but to me this is very clear! And end of any discussion!

52 posted on 07/14/2016 7:19:18 AM PDT by Lockbox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JPJones

I, an American Jew, born in 1934, see a Judge who has announced to the world that she has not a trace of “impartiality” while sitting on the bench of the highest court in the land.
All the while, she obviously stands with the most corrupt and evil administration this land has seen. Some “JUDGE”


53 posted on 07/14/2016 7:20:05 AM PDT by CaptainAmiigaf (New York Times: "We print the news as it fits our views.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Theo

Teaser on FOX: Coming up, Ginsberg regrets her comments.

Waiting to hear the details.


54 posted on 07/14/2016 7:21:04 AM PDT by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

She can say which team she wants to win or prevent from winning the Super Bowl, but no right to then referee the game. Didn’t we all know this before now?


55 posted on 07/14/2016 7:23:56 AM PDT by Anima Mundi (Envy is just passive, lazy greed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: artichokegrower
From wikipedia:

During her tenure on the D.C. Circuit, Ginsburg made 57 hires for law clerk, intern, and secretary positions. At her Supreme Court confirmation hearing, it was revealed that none of those hired had been African-American, a fact for which Ginsburg (an "aggressive support[er] [of] disparate-impact statistics as evidence of intentional discrimination") was sharply criticized.

She is a racist to boot.

56 posted on 07/14/2016 7:28:19 AM PDT by Godebert (CRUZ: Born in a foreign land to a foreign father.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Protect the Bill of Rights

Oh, I’m sure she does. Because her comments were completely inappropriate.


57 posted on 07/14/2016 7:28:50 AM PDT by Theo (No tagline for now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Ruth Ginsburg was out of place - a judge must be impartial, non-political and above perception of bias.

Is this that old fashioned and out of date concept called "decorum" that you are talking about?

58 posted on 07/14/2016 7:30:42 AM PDT by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JPJones

impartiality only applies to cases being heard by the jurist. I don’t know of any case that is before her regarding Trump—otherwise she has the same 1st Am rights that you have.


59 posted on 07/14/2016 7:31:57 AM PDT by evilclown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Samurai_Jack

Ruth Buzzie should be impeached.


60 posted on 07/14/2016 7:31:57 AM PDT by hh9999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson