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 ...
It's amazing how only they are allowed all the advantages of public discourse, and that Republicans willingly give it to them.
-PJ
yikes.
this article is all over the place.
It’s a partisan hit job and that’s ok - it’s what editorials are for.
But 1st Amendment ? not hardly.
Handed the presidency to GWBush ? pahleeze.
It’s one thing for Ginsberg to comment but to come back and respond ?
Hope this election doesn’t go to SCOTUS cause some peoples’ heads will explode when Ginsburg has to recuse herself.
Anybody thought about what would happen in a Bush v. Gore repeat?
I’m sure the left would assert this “apology” undoes the damage she did and allows her to hear the case (despite all the squawking they did over Thomas’ wife’s business dealings).
What would the righties on the USSC do when she refused to recuse herself? Could the public have any confidence in a decision relying on a decisive vote from her?
Constitutional crisis anyone?
Her job's great powers and responsibilities require those in her position to remain silent in that situation.
In that situation, to borrow from Ron White, she had the right and responsibility to remain silent, just not the ability.
She still is what she's always been, and how she got where she is required a Clinton.
It would be our great misfortune if she were replace by yet another Clinton...or an obama, for that matter!
Keep that First Amendment argument in mind the next time a lower court judge declares how much he despises BLM or fags.
Never.
Ginsberg is a socialist tool.
The editorialist is a socialist tool.
Echo chamber.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Thursday apologized for statements she made criticizing Republican presidential contender Donald Trump.
And further stated she was out of line making the remarks.
Sucks to be shat upon by one's own champion doesn't it? Ignorance abounds in the double standard of Lib-World.
HITLER-Y is the only bigoted, authoritarian mindset I see
in this equation. (HILLARY)
She can continue to decide down the leftist side of things just like she has always done. And ethically she should not do anything else.
Besides voting left is unethical enough.
I agree, her political views and desires should have been kept to herself...but good to know how she feels about Trump. This will effectively shut her down should anything go to the Supreme Court which could negatively affect Trump, as she would have to recuse herself as everyone is stating. Justice Ginsberg now acknowledges she was out of line with her apology, so hopefully Trump will lay off as anything he says now will be like kicking a dog when its down.
“She can run her mouth all she wants when she retires.”
Agreed.
Never if she wanted to be able to sit in on any trial that comes concerning the Trump or his administration.
Liberals eschewed any pretense of propriety decades ago with Bill Clinton, Edward Kennedy and their gaggle of media shills.
- "Campaign Finance Reform” is an attack on freedom of the press. Just because you have a job at the Sacramento Bee and I do not does not give you constitutional rights which I do not have. I have the right to buy a printing press, operate it, and distribute my output. In fact, if anyone has a right to publish on the Internet (and of course nobody thought that they had that right when the First Amendment was ratified) then I have a right to publish on the internet even if the money I spend to do so doesn’t come from subscriptions or advertising as your paper’s income does.
- Justice Alito did not attack Obama personally after his initial gut reaction to being lied about, and even then he said nothing out loud. Some contrast between that and holding forth, unprovoked, in an interview as Justice Ginzburg has done. That was an unforced error on Ruth’s (if she speaks publicly on politics as if she were a private citizen, she need not expect to be referred to with deference and respect, least of all on an anonymous forum) part. Mr. reporter, I make no doubt that you were offended when The Donald did not refer to a Mexican-America judge with sufficient deference - but Ruth’s remarks makes Trump’s remarks make sense.
“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.”
You’re an idiot, the Supreme Court has a Code of Conduct regarding this kind of behavior.
It’s not allowed.
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.