Bias on the highest Court in question

[Dan Stubbs]

Here is a question, that is going to be in play. President Trump is going to, sooner or later, have a case to be decided by the Supreme Court. Ginsburge has a problem as a Progressive Judge because she made a statement as follows:
In interviews with the Associated Press and the New York Times she remarked, “I can’t imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be –I don’t even want to contemplate that.” Then she added that her husband would have declared, “Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”
The rules demanding disqualification are set forth very clearly by federal statute, 28 USC 455:Any justice…shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. He shall also disqualify himself…where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.”

She has shown bias in her statement therefore she should by law disqualify herself and the question is will she.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Should she? Yes.

Will she? I doubt it.

 

[longknife]

There is no precedent for an associate justice being required to recuse themselves. And the Chief Justice cannot ask another member to withdraw from a case.

The main things is that her one vote cannot nullify the five who will surely vote against her and her cohorts.

 

[DarkFury]

There is no precedent for an associate justice being required to recuse themselves. And the Chief Justice cannot ask another member to withdraw from a case.

The main things is that her one vote cannot nullify the five who will surely vote against her and her cohorts.

Wrong! In 2008 justice Samuel alito Jr had to recuse himself from a case when he owned stock in the company being tried. The company was Exxon.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

There is no one on the court who does not agree with what she wrote.

The difference is that some of them look at their profit they can make and others do not.

Sorry, but its just fact and you know it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

There is no one on the court who does not agree with what she wrote.

The difference is that some of them look at their profit they can make and others do not.

Sorry, but its just fact and you know it.

No, it's an opinion.

That you are stupid for calling a fact is quite clear.

My Ruthy kick the proverbial bucket soon....very soon.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Here is a question, that is going to be in play. President Trump is going to, sooner or later, have a case to be decided by the Supreme Court. Ginsburge has a problem as a Progressive Judge because she made a statement as follows:
In interviews with the Associated Press and the New York Times she remarked, “I can’t imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be –I don’t even want to contemplate that.” Then she added that her husband would have declared, “Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”
The rules demanding disqualification are set forth very clearly by federal statute, 28 USC 455:Any justice…shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. He shall also disqualify himself…where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.”

She has shown bias in her statement therefore she should by law disqualify herself and the question is will she.

When does that old hag take her last breath ?

Not soon enough.

 

[DarkFury]

There is no one on the court who does not agree with what she wrote.

The difference is that some of them look at their profit they can make and others do not.

Sorry, but its just fact and you know it.

We will see when they vote. Taking your word for anything is like paying a person to shit in your living room.
You can but why?

 

[yiostheoy]

Here is a question, that is going to be in play. President Trump is going to, sooner or later, have a case to be decided by the Supreme Court. Ginsburge has a problem as a Progressive Judge because she made a statement as follows:
In interviews with the Associated Press and the New York Times she remarked, “I can’t imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be –I don’t even want to contemplate that.” Then she added that her husband would have declared, “Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”
The rules demanding disqualification are set forth very clearly by federal statute, 28 USC 455:Any justice…shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. He shall also disqualify himself…where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.”

She has shown bias in her statement therefore she should by law disqualify herself and the question is will she.

So you are asking whether Ginsberg has a code of ethics that she should be following ?!

Ginsberg does not believe in anything.

She does not even believe in the U.S. Constitution.

Obviously then she is not going to have a code of ethics either.

 

[ScienceRocks]

It is fucking amazing to see all the rich dick suckers put a knife through their own backs out of their own idiocy.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I say the above as the bias is against the little guy and for the rich...yet, all I read from you fools is support for your rich masters.

 

[tycho1572]

Ginsburg most certainly should recuse herself.

 

[DGS49]

Depends on the case. Obviously. If the so-called "muslim ban" comes before the court, the personal animus she feels against Trump will not affect her legal opinion. She is an Open - borders Leftist, regardless. No recusal.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

There is no precedent for an associate justice being required to recuse themselves. And the Chief Justice cannot ask another member to withdraw from a case.

The main things is that her one vote cannot nullify the five who will surely vote against her and her cohorts.

 

[regent]

Next people will be thinking that judges are selected because of their political leanings.