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

[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.

He is not a politician. He is the president. As such, yes, he should be impartial as he represents all of the country.

On the other hand, you are lacking a clue. Impartiality is only required in the conduct of their duties.

However...optically, it would be better if the justices refrained from attacking the president refrained from attacking judges, and worse, individual jurists.

You also can't demand free speech rights for the president to attack with impunity and then deny the same for others. Make up your mind.

Nobody is trying to deny them the ability of free speech. They are free to disparage the president all they wish, but if a trump case comes before them, the perception of impartiality will vanish.

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

He is not a politician. He is the president. As such, yes, he should be impartial as he represents all of the country.

On the other hand, you are lacking a clue. Impartiality is only required in the conduct of their duties.

However...optically, it would be better if the justices refrained from attacking the president refrained from attacking judges, and worse, individual jurists.

You also can't demand free speech rights for the president to attack with impunity and then deny the same for others. Make up your mind.

Nobody is trying to deny them the ability of free speech. They are free to disparage the president all they wish, but if a trump case comes before them, the perception of impartiality will vanish.

Right, because in wingnut world full of conspiracies they up until a couple of days ago thought RBG could rule impartially.

 

[Coyote]

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.

He is not a politician. He is the president. As such, yes, he should be impartial as he represents all of the country.

On the other hand, you are lacking a clue. Impartiality is only required in the conduct of their duties.

However...optically, it would be better if the justices refrained from attacking the president refrained from attacking judges, and worse, individual jurists.

You also can't demand free speech rights for the president to attack with impunity and then deny the same for others. Make up your mind.

Nobody is trying to deny them the ability of free speech. They are free to disparage the president all they wish, but if a trump case comes before them, the perception of impartiality will vanish.

Ya well...you know....maybe the president should stop attacking the courts and judges. Right there, he is creating a distrust and a lack of impartiality.

 

[Coyote]

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?

There are a lot of people who need to learn to control themselves.

And being a politician is no excuse.

Except - until now, the argument for Trump was that he WASN'T a politician, hence the apologetics.

He needs to STFU about the judges and jurists and the judges need to STFU up about him.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Is Trump? (Double standard much?)

 

[Coyote]

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.

Cool.

Then why the hell are you lot whining about the judges?

 

[Coyote]

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

Trump Derangement Syndrome mental illness. You haz it.

I think you do as well...

 

[IM2]

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?

Go look for yourself. You know what is being referred to here and you are supportive of trump trying to take over the judicial branch of government and that's against the constitution.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Really? Trump has a long history of attacking judges.

I'm not speaking to the fact he has questioned other judges. That is whataboutism. I'm specifically speaking to the SCJ's sharing their political opinions.

They are sharing their opinion of Trump as president. Is it wrong? No. Is it good? No.

But then I grew up in an era where, despite differences between branches - there was still a respect for the institutions they represent.

I have seen Trump single handedly destroy that, and Congress and now the Judiciary appear to be following in the wake.

 

[blackhawk]

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.

Cool.

Then why the hell are you lot whining about the judges?

How is pointing out both sides can speak their mind and have freedom of speech whinning? Seems like you don't really have any point to make you just want argue for the sake of arguing.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Cool.

Then why the hell are you lot whining about the judges?

How is pointing out both sides can speak their mind and have freedom of speech whinning? Seems like you don't really have any point to make you just want argue for the sake of arguing.

Well, to be fair - I shouldn't have said "you" - I should have said others in this thread. Apologe.

 

[blackhawk]

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.

Cool.

Then why the hell are you lot whining about the judges?

How is pointing out both sides can speak their mind and have freedom of speech whinning? Seems like you don't really have any point to make you just want argue for the sake of arguing.

Well, to be fair - I shouldn't have said "you" - I should have said others in this thread. Apologe.

Accepted.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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?

There are a lot of people who need to learn to control themselves.

And being a politician is no excuse.

Except - until now, the argument for Trump was that he WASN'T a politician, hence the apologetics.

He needs to STFU about the judges and jurists and the judges need to STFU up about him.

Nonsense, politicians can comment on anything they like - Obama certainly wasn't shy about criticizing the Court - and politicians are elected precisely because of the opinions they run on, but Justices are appointed for life and that appointment is made with the understanding that they will judges cases without bias or partiality. When Justices show that their biases are so strong they can't control their public statements they are no longer fit to serve on the Court and if they have any level of respect for the Court or for their own jobs, it is time for them to resign and run for public office. Ginsburg and Sotomayor have shown they are incapable of judging cases involving the President fairly and should either recuse themselves from those cases or quit the Court.

 

[MeBelle]

Link to Trump proclaiming he is Emperor?

That's another one I keep hearing!

But it's not Trump stating such.

It's Dems and Libs that proclaim him Emperor!

Too funny

 

[Ken Mac]

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.

Really? Trump has a long history of attacking judges.

I'm not speaking to the fact he has questioned other judges. That is whataboutism. I'm specifically speaking to the SCJ's sharing their political opinions.

They are sharing their opinion of Trump as president. Is it wrong? No. Is it good? No.

But then I grew up in an era where, despite differences between branches - there was still a respect for the institutions they represent.

I have seen Trump single handedly destroy that, and Congress and now the Judiciary appear to be following in the wake.

Dave is correct. You are full of drama.

 

[Ken Mac]

Link to Trump proclaiming he is Emperor?

That's another one I keep hearing!

But it's not Trump stating such.

It's Dems and Libs that proclaim him Emperor!

Too funny

It's one of many symptoms of TDS

 

[ThisIsMe]

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.

He is not a politician. He is the president. As such, yes, he should be impartial as he represents all of the country.

On the other hand, you are lacking a clue. Impartiality is only required in the conduct of their duties.

However...optically, it would be better if the justices refrained from attacking the president refrained from attacking judges, and worse, individual jurists.

You also can't demand free speech rights for the president to attack with impunity and then deny the same for others. Make up your mind.

Nobody is trying to deny them the ability of free speech. They are free to disparage the president all they wish, but if a trump case comes before them, the perception of impartiality will vanish.

Ya well...you know....maybe the president should stop attacking the courts and judges. Right there, he is creating a distrust and a lack of impartiality.

Yeah, he should not attack them, but he isnt going to be holding any hearings about them, so, impartiality isnt really a concern when it comes to the law and the constitution.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Everyone has bias. Bias does not present a conflict of interest. Look at the AG, he is def. writing opinions, interpretation of the law, based on his personal views.

 

[Lysistrata]

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

This is a totally outrageous demand and one that I have never heard a U.S. president ever make before. This is overstepping by far.

Those who claim that Justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg have obvious and admitted biases seem to forget that we have had "conservative" justices who have expressed biased attitudes openly, and never received demands for recusal. Scalia used to trot around all over the place speaking to biased groups like the Federalist Society, and "conservative" groups constantly call for the appointment of justices who can be relied upon to always rubber-stamp "conservative" views.

There was one case on a controversial law in which, according to the transcript of oral argument, the justices identified as "conservative" asked only a few questions relating to procedural matters regarding the bringing of the action, but never asked one single question regarding to the substantive provisions of the law and how they applied in the real world. Their silence was certainly indicative of pre-judgment bias. Did they even read the briefs, of which there were many and from expert sources?

Now justices are getting demands for recusal from the criminal who sits on the Oval Office who demands to be a dictator? No way! This is totally un-American.

Totally outrageous demand. Except that if it were SCOTUS members calling for Trump's resignation, you'd be all for it calling it appropriate!

How would you even know this? Don't try to put words in another person's mouth. As far as I know, all that you are doing is raising some hypothetical situation that has never occurred.

How do I know that if SCOTUS was attacking Trump, you'd be all for it, Shitstain? Because I read it here everyday from losers like you who'll buy into any anti-Trump rant! I get tired of carrying your ignorant, stupid ass:

https://nypost.com/2016/07/11/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-unhinged-assault-on-trump/

Cruz scorches Sotomayor over court critique, turns tables on her dissent

So apparently no one is allowed to criticize an uncivilized person with no morals, no intellect, no respect for the rule of law, and no patriotism. But calling me "shitstain" does indicate what lack of quality it takes to defend such a person. From the way you speak, I take it that your parents knew each other for approximately 15 minutes.

 

[toobfreak]

So apparently no one is allowed to criticize an uncivilized person with no morals, no intellect, no respect for the rule of law, and no patriotism.

NOT TRUE AT ALL, SHITSTAIN! I criticize you all the time!