Enough with the Trump is Hitler already.
“when should Justice Ginsburg have spoken out on Trump?”
As the IRS audits her tax returns next year?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Never if she wanted to be able to sit in on any trial that comes concerning the Trump or his administration.
- "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.