Posted on 06/05/2017 4:35:49 AM PDT by simpson96
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. Liberals argued Justice Scalia merely hunting with a Vice President compelled his recusal. As Justice Scalia recognized, recusal is appropriate whenever a Justice has “said or done something” that impacts the perception of impartiality on a pending case. As Justice Scalia implicitly recognized, recusal may be necessary when the Court’s judgment would have “any bearing upon the reputation and integrity” of a party before the court if that individual Justice has voiced a prior opinion on that individual through friendship or hostility.(snip)
How can anyone not “reasonably question” whether Justice Ginsburg is partial about President Trump’s campaign intentions when she said the following about him:
•“He is a faker” in an attack on Trump CNN admitted “as if presenting a legal brief”
•“everything is up for grabs” if Trump wins, in Ginsburg denouncing Trump, to the Associated Press
•“Now it is time for us to move to New Zealand” if Trump won, to the New York Times
Can anyone looking at those statements conclude Ginsburg would not be reasonably seen as partial about Trump in a case that is all about perceiving Trump’s intentions? If Justice Ginsburg is honest to the principles she claims, she must recuse from the Trump travel ban case now before the Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at lawnewz.com ...
Certainly there should be some consistency. If the courts can rule his EO unconstitutional “because of his remarks” then she needs to step out.
She won’t. Sessions has already done the stupidest thing imaginable.
Ginsburg = Do the left thing ...Pribably.
All that recusal stuff is just politics, like everything else. Republicans get shamed into “doing the right thing,” and the Left wins again.
Democrats sneer at the idea, flip us the bird, and the MSM loves it.
There is no enforceable requirement for her to recuse and she won’t. The Bench is a power position to be used for the advancement of her ideology. Recusal is being a traitor to her ideology.
Justice is not why they are there. It is not how they understand their position.
Trump twweted the truth when he said this, this morning, referring to litigation of his immigration EO ... “The courts are slow and political!”
Pray for her, and for the rest of the liberals on the court. Psalm 109:8
Ginsburg should have been compelled to resign in disgrace the day after she wore her “dissent collar” to protest the election outcome.
She will rule with the lower court, deliberately oblivious to her own double standards in the matter.
“...no, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die.”
a2.Section 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
all of 109, not just one verse.
The Rats NEVER recuse unlike our side they know it’s a war. There is 0 chance she will recuse take it to the bank.
I wonder what her fellow chief Justices think of her making a joke out of what the SC is *supposed* to stand for. (No doubt the two other Leftist females are thinking “You go, girl”.)
When is the last time a USSC Justice was impeached? It will never happen.
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.