And so it continues, unabated, by the self proclaimed Emperor!

[toomuchtime_]

SC Judges are supposed to be impartial Politicians, not so much.

Get a clue.

Impartial for any cases before the court. They are not required to be impartial on their views of the president or anyone else.

It damages the perception of the Court as an impartial body when its members go public with their political biases. Sotomayor actually attacked her colleagues on the Court. These two women are obviously morally unfit to serve on the Court.

They "attack" each other whenever they have a minority opinion. They are not unfit to serve, idiot.

So you have no idea what is going on, but you have strong opinions about it anyway. Sotomayor publicly attacked her more conservative colleagues during an interview, and Ginsburgh made public statements about President Trump that were unrelated to anything before the Court.

Yes, they were unrelated. Glad you caught that.

This was aberrant that shows clearly these women are not capable judging any case that involves the President fairly. To save the Court's reputation, they should recuse themselves from such cases in the future.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

For those who doubt DJT is not a megalomaniac, and the GOP which has allowed him to become a self proclaimed emperor, please wake up, open you eyes, and read this:

"President Donald Trump lashed out at two liberal Supreme Court justices Tuesday, escalating his battle with the judicial system to new heights despite entreaties by his attorney general to refrain from Twitter blasts that complicate the administration’s legal fights.

"Weighing in on a domestic matter before embarking on a day of ceremony and meetings in India, Trump seized on an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and a years-old comment by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to demand that the two Democratic-appointed jurists recuse themselves from any cases involving him."

Trump Demands Two Liberal Justices Recuse Themselves From His Cases

He's entitled to voice his opinion like any other American just as you are entitled to whine like any other toddler.

 

[HappyJoy]

Impartial for any cases before the court. They are not required to be impartial on their views of the president or anyone else.

It damages the perception of the Court as an impartial body when its members go public with their political biases. Sotomayor actually attacked her colleagues on the Court. These two women are obviously morally unfit to serve on the Court.

They "attack" each other whenever they have a minority opinion. They are not unfit to serve, idiot.

So you have no idea what is going on, but you have strong opinions about it anyway. Sotomayor publicly attacked her more conservative colleagues during an interview, and Ginsburgh made public statements about President Trump that were unrelated to anything before the Court.

Yes, they were unrelated. Glad you caught that.

This was aberrant that shows clearly these women are not capable judging any case that involves the President fairly. To save the Court's reputation, they should recuse themselves from such cases in the future.

Disagree. Judges have opinions. Trump's attempt to game the refs is obvious and atrocious.

 

[toomuchtime_]

It damages the perception of the Court as an impartial body when its members go public with their political biases. Sotomayor actually attacked her colleagues on the Court. These two women are obviously morally unfit to serve on the Court.

They "attack" each other whenever they have a minority opinion. They are not unfit to serve, idiot.

So you have no idea what is going on, but you have strong opinions about it anyway. Sotomayor publicly attacked her more conservative colleagues during an interview, and Ginsburgh made public statements about President Trump that were unrelated to anything before the Court.

Yes, they were unrelated. Glad you caught that.

This was aberrant that shows clearly these women are not capable judging any case that involves the President fairly. To save the Court's reputation, they should recuse themselves from such cases in the future.

Disagree. Judges have opinions. Trump's attempt to game the refs is obvious and atrocious.

When they feel so strongly that they cannot control their behavior, as Sotomayor and Ginsburg have, then we are talking about biases, not just opinions, and that makes them unfit to sit in judgement about any issue they are so biased about. What they did shows contempt for the Court and for their own jobs.

 

[HappyJoy]

They "attack" each other whenever they have a minority opinion. They are not unfit to serve, idiot.

So you have no idea what is going on, but you have strong opinions about it anyway. Sotomayor publicly attacked her more conservative colleagues during an interview, and Ginsburgh made public statements about President Trump that were unrelated to anything before the Court.

Yes, they were unrelated. Glad you caught that.

This was aberrant that shows clearly these women are not capable judging any case that involves the President fairly. To save the Court's reputation, they should recuse themselves from such cases in the future.

Disagree. Judges have opinions. Trump's attempt to game the refs is obvious and atrocious.

When they feel so strongly that they cannot control their behavior, as Sotomayor and Ginsburg have, then we are talking about biases, not just opinions, and that makes them unfit to sit in judgement about any issue they are so biased about. What they did shows contempt for the Court and for their own jobs.

No, opinions.

Control themselves? Have you ever read that slobbering fat ass' twitter feed?

 

[toomuchtime_]

So you have no idea what is going on, but you have strong opinions about it anyway. Sotomayor publicly attacked her more conservative colleagues during an interview, and Ginsburgh made public statements about President Trump that were unrelated to anything before the Court.

Yes, they were unrelated. Glad you caught that.

This was aberrant that shows clearly these women are not capable judging any case that involves the President fairly. To save the Court's reputation, they should recuse themselves from such cases in the future.

Disagree. Judges have opinions. Trump's attempt to game the refs is obvious and atrocious.

When they feel so strongly that they cannot control their behavior, as Sotomayor and Ginsburg have, then we are talking about biases, not just opinions, and that makes them unfit to sit in judgement about any issue they are so biased about. What they did shows contempt for the Court and for their own jobs.

No, opinions.

Control themselves? Have you ever read that slobbering fat ass' twitter feed?

So what you are saying is that Supreme Court Justices should just be regarded as politicians. If that's so, why do we need them?

 

[HappyJoy]

Yes, they were unrelated. Glad you caught that.

This was aberrant that shows clearly these women are not capable judging any case that involves the President fairly. To save the Court's reputation, they should recuse themselves from such cases in the future.

Disagree. Judges have opinions. Trump's attempt to game the refs is obvious and atrocious.

When they feel so strongly that they cannot control their behavior, as Sotomayor and Ginsburg have, then we are talking about biases, not just opinions, and that makes them unfit to sit in judgement about any issue they are so biased about. What they did shows contempt for the Court and for their own jobs.

No, opinions.

Control themselves? Have you ever read that slobbering fat ass' twitter feed?

So what you are saying is that Supreme Court Justices should just be regarded as politicians. If that's so, why do we need them?

Oh, no I'd never consider any recent Supreme Court Justices to be as shitty as the president.

 

[daveman]

I miss the good old days when Presidents didn't criticize the Supreme Court, don't you?

I have no problem with Obama or Trump criticizing decisions made by the Supreme Court, nobody has said otherwise. To demand they recuse themselves for not drinking the kool aid is another matter.

He didn't demand anything.

Words have meanings. You don't get to create new ones.

The mere hint that a justice should recuse themselves from anything involving Trump before the Supreme Court because someone said something not nice about him is uncalled for.

Right. Trump is just supposed to sit there quietly and let people talk shit about him.

Nobody said this. For someone who is so concerned about the choice of words that come out of our mouths you seem to have a strawman stuffed in yours.

Kinda sounds like you're opposed to his First Amendment rights.

Wait, lemme guess -- that's different. Somehow. It just is.

I'm not allowed to disagree with something the president said and you're worried about 1st amendment rights? Interesting, probably over your head too.

Who said you can't disagree with the President? You're allowed to. You're allowed to lie about what he said, too.

Ain't America great?

 

[daveman]

I miss the good old days when Presidents didn't criticize the Supreme Court, don't you?

I have no problem with Obama or Trump criticizing decisions made by the Supreme Court, nobody has said otherwise. To demand they recuse themselves for not drinking the kool aid is another matter.

He didn't demand anything.

Words have meanings. You don't get to create new ones.

The mere hint that a justice should recuse themselves from anything involving Trump before the Supreme Court because someone said something not nice about him is uncalled for.

Right. Trump is just supposed to sit there quietly and let people talk shit about him.

Kinda sounds like you're opposed to his First Amendment rights.

Wait, lemme guess -- that's different. Somehow. It just is.

Why not? Isn’t that what normal, well adjusted people in a position of power do? They have more important things to concern themselves with.

A SCOTUS judge is in a position of power.

So are you saying Sotomayor is not normal and well-adjusted?

Goodness, you guys sure do love your double standards.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Name me one other Justice who has EVER spoken out against a president defaming them

What did Sotomayor write that defamed the Trumpybear.

In their personal lives, yes, they have free speech, in their court opinions, however, they are supposed to side on the law.

Wasn't Sotomayor criticizing the conservatives on the Court more than the President?

It would be the exact same if kavanaugh came out and said I'm 100% on the side of trump.

Not really, that's too much like Mitch. Now if Brett said "I think Trump is honest and I understand why people elected him" that would be closer to the mark.

Either way. I dont care what side of the aisle they sit on. If they have shown bias toward someone who is the subject of a case in front of them, they should recuse. My point being, if they are biased, then how can we be assured that they are rendering opinions based on their interpretation of the law, and not tainted by their own personal views.

 

[daveman]

Trump demanding that Ginsburg and Sotomayor recuse themselves is arrogant, partisan idiocy.

He didn't demand it, despite your leftist programming.

But, hey, you got your hategasm on, so I guess that's all that matters.

 

[daveman]

For those who doubt DJT is not a megalomaniac, and the GOP which has allowed him to become a self proclaimed emperor, please wake up, open you eyes, and read this:

"President Donald Trump lashed out at two liberal Supreme Court justices Tuesday, escalating his battle with the judicial system to new heights despite entreaties by his attorney general to refrain from Twitter blasts that complicate the administration’s legal fights.

"Weighing in on a domestic matter before embarking on a day of ceremony and meetings in India, Trump seized on an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and a years-old comment by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to demand that the two Democratic-appointed jurists recuse themselves from any cases involving him."

Trump Demands Two Liberal Justices Recuse Themselves From His Cases

Link to Trump proclaiming he is Emperor?

Self proclaimed, he is a megalomaniac. He rejects the Separation of Powers and actually believes he is above the law. It is people like you who feed his ego, and those Senators who have given him a pass, making trump and infusing future presidents with the belief that they too can do what they please without interference from the Courts and the Congress.

It is up to us to reign in the presidency, notwithstanding anything trump has done which some of you believe is in our countries best interests, his behavior and divisive rhetoric is both sufficient and necessary for him to be a one term president; he is beyond a doubt unfit to remain in office, having abused the power of the office & violated the trust which he seems to believe is his divine right.

Gosh. You probably shouldn't vote for him, then.

"Probably"? I wouldn't vote for trump in any capacity for an office of trust. Why anyone would given his performance is beyond belief.

Would you buy a used care from someone as corrupt as DJT?

You wouldn't vote for Trump because you're been programmed to hate him. Period.

Given the performance of all the Democrat candidates, they can't be trusted with power.

But you're going to vote for one of them. Guaranteed. Their performance doesn't matter to you.

 

[daveman]

For those who doubt DJT is not a megalomaniac, and the GOP which has allowed him to become a self proclaimed emperor, please wake up, open you eyes, and read this:

"President Donald Trump lashed out at two liberal Supreme Court justices Tuesday, escalating his battle with the judicial system to new heights despite entreaties by his attorney general to refrain from Twitter blasts that complicate the administration’s legal fights.

"Weighing in on a domestic matter before embarking on a day of ceremony and meetings in India, Trump seized on an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and a years-old comment by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to demand that the two Democratic-appointed jurists recuse themselves from any cases involving him."

Trump Demands Two Liberal Justices Recuse Themselves From His Cases

You are a moron....

They are not above criticism...

When he....

Arrests the judges.

Executes the judges.

Arrests journalists.

Executes journalists.

Confiscates homes and property of private citizens and sends them to bernie sanders gulags....

Then get back to us...till then, you should really grow up...

The president has no authority to tell judges what to do. It's an authoritarian fantasy Trump has, or he literally doesn't understand how our Constitution works. He needs to back off.

It's a BIG LIE, one which the Chief Justice responded to when Trump called out "Obama Judges". Now we have seen more intrusion into the Judiciary:

Trump Demands Two Liberal Justices Recuse Themselves From His Cases

Is there any doubt trump is a person who is obsessed with their own power?

Trump didn't demand anything, you sissy bedwetter.

Idiot-gram ^^^, variety, Sophistry with an ad hominem.

For the readers with an open mind, consider the Bully Pulpit, or in the case of DJT, The Bullshit Pulpit.

The very last thing you want are readers with an open mind, because they won't agree with your bullshit.

Meanwhile, Trump didn't demand anything. Your wishful thinking victimhood fetish means nothing.

 

[ThisIsMe]

SC Justices have the same free speech rights as Trumpybear and his Banana Republicans. Why do they oppose Free Speech?

In their personal lives, yes, they have free speech, in their court opinions, however, they are supposed to side on the law. Personal political bias should not be reflected in any of their decisions, on either side.

Again, I say the whole supreme court is a farce. Justices are appointed by whatever president is in office hoping they will side with either the right or the left. This should not happen.

The left is all up in arms because trump is appointing so many right wing judges, yet, if the left were in the same spot, they'd be appointing all left wing judges. It's just the nature of the game, and its bogus.

I'd prefer if people in the judicial system were not allowed to disclose their political affiliation, especially those who may be appointed to the SC.

Two comments:

1. The Supreme Court's Seven Justices are the only members of the Judiciary which does not have a Code of Ethics
2. A quote from The Court Years, 1939 - 1975: The Autobiography of William O. Douglas

Page 8:

It was shortly after that episode that Hughes (Chief Justice) made a statement to me which at the time was shattering but which over the years turned out to be true, "Justice Douglas, you must remember one thing. At the Constitutional level where we work, ninety percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections".

I've not read the book, so I cant comment directly on it. However, "emotional" doesnt necessarily mean biased. Emotional could simply mean "interpretation", as in "I feel this is what the constitution means"

Regardless, I think that justice is supposed to be blind. To me, blind means free from discrimination, presupposition, and bias.

I'm not naive enough to believe that is realistic in every situation, but one would think if you have the character to make it to the SC, then you would have the integrity to suppress your own personal biases.

 

[daveman]

Trump didn't demand anything, you sissy bedwetter.

It's the title of an article, the very conservative moony times also used the same language.

President demands that two liberal Supreme Court justices recuse themselves from 'Trump related' matters

Is this where you expect me to say, "Oh, well, if THEY said it, it must be true!!"?

How do you think that's going to work out for you?

I'm saying the word 'demands' is used in multiple articles and is a single word that you're going to hang your hat on rather than the fact that the president of the United States even insinuating that a justice should recuse themselves because they spoke up against him is troubling.

Face it Skippy: You're "troubled" only because Trump said it.

Meanwhile, the reality remains that he didn't demand anything.

LOL another concrete thinker (and another overstatement). Emotions cloud thinking.

In your case, as is common on the left, emotions preclude thinking.

 

[ThisIsMe]

What is he doing to suppress their free speech?

He has no mechanism to make them recuse.

By demanded they recuse. Had they lavished praise on the Trumpybear, I don't think he would have made any such demand.

You're right. He has no authority over the Court. He can announce what he thinks of them, and they can announce what they think of him.

And that would have been equally wrong. Any judge that shows bias one way or another to the subject of the case before them should recuse themselves.

An example of this bias would really be kind of a good thing to post about now.

Take what Ginsberg said. "Trump is a faker" and "I cannot see how he could be president".

Those statements show she obviously does not like trump, and apparently does not agree with him as president.

It would be the exact same if kavanaugh came out and said I'm 100% on the side of trump. Any cases involving trump that comes before him, he should recuse himself because it would be hard to know if he was giving a law driven opinion, or a personally biased opinion.

So Trump can exercise his free speech but judges can't exercise theirs to Islam the president? Maybe both should be more circumspect.

Judges are free to exercise their free speech all they want, but if your free speech shows a bias, then you shouldnt sit in judgment against that person.

 

[daveman]

Trump didn't demand anything, you sissy bedwetter.

It's the title of an article, the very conservative moony times also used the same language.

President demands that two liberal Supreme Court justices recuse themselves from 'Trump related' matters

Is this where you expect me to say, "Oh, well, if THEY said it, it must be true!!"?

How do you think that's going to work out for you?

I'm saying the word 'demands' is used in multiple articles and is a single word that you're going to hang your hat on rather than the fact that the president of the United States even insinuating that a justice should recuse themselves because they spoke up against him is troubling.

What is even more troubling is a SCJ speaking up against any party. It's not for them to "Judge". Trump was right to push back and put them in their place. They are supposed to be neutral to ideology and compliant with the constitution. When your ideology rises up to the level of speaking out against someone or some platform, your bias is tainting your neutrality to uphold the constitution.

Trump was very far right when he attacked the Judiciary, something he has done repeatedly. It is mindful of something Mussolini may had done, given how his words and not actions impacted the silence of the Pope.

"Mussolini".

You buffoonish drama queen.

 

[daveman]

If the Justices can speak out against Trump he has just as much right to speak out against them in turn free speech cuts both ways.

He has. Multiple times attacking judges. I guess they are finally speaking up.

As I said freedom of speech cuts both ways judges can speak their mind so can the President. Far to many people seem to have a hard time grasping this concept.

The people who can't grasp it tend not to support free speech to begin with.

 

[ThisIsMe]

And that would have been equally wrong. Any judge that shows bias one way or another to the subject of the case before them should recuse themselves.

An example of this bias would really be kind of a good thing to post about now.

Take what Ginsberg said. "Trump is a faker" and "I cannot see how he could be president".

Those statements show she obviously does not like trump, and apparently does not agree with him as president.

It would be the exact same if kavanaugh came out and said I'm 100% on the side of trump. Any cases involving trump that comes before him, he should recuse himself because it would be hard to know if he was giving a law driven opinion, or a personally biased opinion.

So Trump can exercise his free speech but judges can't exercise theirs to Islam the president? Maybe both should be more circumspect.

SC Judges are supposed to be impartial Politicians, not so much.

Get a clue.

Impartial for any cases before the court. They are not required to be impartial on their views of the president or anyone else.

Correct, but how can they be impartial to a case involving trump if they have openly shown their bias against him?

 

[daveman]

Is this where you expect me to say, "Oh, well, if THEY said it, it must be true!!"?

How do you think that's going to work out for you?

I'm saying the word 'demands' is used in multiple articles and is a single word that you're going to hang your hat on rather than the fact that the president of the United States even insinuating that a justice should recuse themselves because they spoke up against him is troubling.

What is even more troubling is a SCJ speaking up against any party. It's not for them to "Judge". Trump was right to push back and put them in their place. They are supposed to be neutral to ideology and compliant with the constitution. When your ideology rises up to the level of speaking out against someone or some platform, your bias is tainting your neutrality to uphold the constitution.

Trump was very far right when he attacked the Judiciary, something he has done repeatedly. It is mindful of something Mussolini may had done, given how his words and not actions impacted the silence of the Pope.

It was justified.

You're an idiot too.

I'd suggest that your use of a logical fallacy, the infamous ad hominem, is that you believe you are articulate, urbane and informed. One more example of an inflated ego wrapped in someone seeking attention and affection. Sad, I do so pity you.

Are you talking to a mirror? Because, dood -- that's you.