OT: Should Ginsburg recuse herself?

[thc6795]

Based off comments she made about President Trump can she make an impartial ruling in President Trumps travel ban case? The AG needed to recuse himself so did Nunez. What about Ginsburg?

For the record I believe the Surpreme court will reverse the lower courts decision either way.

[aZjimbo]

She might not make it that long. 

[thc6795]

6 minutes ago, aZjimbo said:

She might not make it that long. 

Damn Jim 

[aZjimbo]

11 minutes ago, thc6795 said:

Damn Jim 

She's sick as hell is she not?

[thc6795]

3 minutes ago, aZjimbo said:

She's sick as hell is she not?

I'm not sure I thought she was just old as dirt

[playballintxandmi]

No.

[thc6795]

1 minute ago, playballintxandmi said:

No.

Why

[zulu1128]

She most certainly should...but it's unlikely that she will. 

[playballintxandmi]

My caveat is that my first sentence is the shortest Legal answer I'm willing to provide without performing serious legal research and like everybody else here I'm not willing to put in the time nor inclination to do the legal research: Anyway my answer is the level of deference historically given to Supreme Court Justices in suits involving themselves (directly in Souter's case--recent example--and I'm sure there are more egregious examples in the past--dig them up if you want to.I'd be happy to see your findings.).

The belief is that our Supreme Court Justices impartiality has been established at various levels of the democratic process (and some would argue is part of the sum total of what makes america great, a lifetime of vetting for SCOTUS Justices, the ability to bitch and moan about life's travails incessantly, the ability to start your own obscure HSFB message board, secede from the union, fly flags, drink booze, smoke weed, whatever floats your boat that you do that some level of government allows, etc.). The SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of our laws. If impartiality for trivial matters was at issue with presdiential nominees for SCOTUS Justice, Congressional approval  would have prevented it (would have been the time to ask. you had your chance at the bat, too late now) and is a consequence (or reward) of our president.  It is arguably a president's most enduring legacy (and by extension a necessary chapter in presidential ratings rulebooks) because a president SCOTUS picks survive until they no longer want to or can. It's how it's done. Don't like it Amend the Constitution to impose judicial term limits. Right now the system as exists is supposed to ensure that a lifetime of vetting has prepped a justice for their responsibility(even if the vetting was growing up with the president)--a justice has basically taken an oath that they are inherently impartial. A SCOTUS Justice has earned a level of deference regarding statutory interpretation higher than most; in other words their analysis is based on law (good or bad). Ginsburg can and will rule (assuming she is physically able to) on that case.

My life as it intersects with Ginsburgs: In law school  I was a student in Professor Antonin Scalia's administrative law class (and it was actually the class I was enrolled in;I wasn't one of those people sneaking in because "Scalia was teaching it.") at the University of Michigan Law School and I was taking the class for a grade. I'll never forget the first day of class. I expected Scalia to be a sinister individual or at least someone I would fear at the podium. I was familiar with his legal opinions but knew nothing about the man so those were my prejudices showing. I thought he might open up with serious socratic-method style questions on all of us and everyone feared that he would. Their was an incident at a public speaking Prof Scalia delivered a couple nights before that was open to the entire student body; the most talked about incident of the speaking engagement was that one of my classmates referred to Clarence Thomas as "robin to your batman"  when addressing Scalia directly. Anyway . . . the first day I think everyone in the room at Hutchins Hall was prepared to debate the constitution with (or against) Scalia if they had to be (some people in the room were applying to be his law clerk as an example; me not wanting to look like an Idiot as another--go blue.) and I'll never forget that he opened up with an anecdote about the law and how he wanted to express that sometimes there was often no right or wrong answer morally for all people but there was a right or wrong answer constitutionally depending on who you ask (we all laughed at that), and then he said that his personal opinion was that people should work more at being kind than being right when talking amongst their friends with issues we would talk about in class and then he asked if there were any questions: Someone in the class asked him what was something about him that we probably wouldn't expect or didn't know. He stated that it wasn't well known or publicized, but that of all the justices on the SCOTUS his closest friend was Ginsburg. He talked about their intellectual discussions aboard an elephant while traveling through India as being the impetus for his friendship with Ginsburg. He also mentioned that they agreed on almost everything except constitutional interpretation (we all thought that was funny too). He said he considered her a very capable jurist, but held reservations about others on the SCOTUS (he gave no opinion as to who they were).

In any case I never met Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but I respected Scalia (and his opinion) even though we had "fundamental disagreements." He was an impressively funny and intelligent man; he was honest and he didn't hold back from telling you his truth. Scalia didn't mention Ginsburg again, but his anecdote was enough for me to have confidence that Ginsburg's a competent jurist and she wouldn't allow something petty to influence her position (or at least no more so than is inherent with her position; and "Yes" is the answer to whether or not I've read her opinions in their entirety"). I believe her to be an intelligent competent judge in the sense that there are fundamental disagreements me and others have with some of her decisions, and I take refuge in the fact that she's undergone a lifetime of vetting. If she was that bad she would have been "weeded out," but for many people if you start from the same fundamental premise RBG considers the constitution to represent you'd come to the same conclusion as RBG. The cliche 6 vs 9 picture is as close as we can get to actually unanimity; you just need someone intelligent on the otherside of the fence (the intelligent "person from the other side" is there for both liberals and conservatives, but too much confirmation bias, and not enough looking to see the wisdom of either side takes place). That's why Scalia respected her (I gave a convoluted paraphrase of his words), there is a lifetime worth of obstacles that she overcame to sit in that seat, and why she earned (or we gave her) the power to decide on The Travel Ban/Muslim Ban.

More Personal: No one in my class that day clerked for Scalia or Ginsburg (a few clerked for the scotus but thats a story for another time). I graduated in 2006 and Scalia's next Michigan Law Clerk was a 2008 grad in 2010. Ginsberg's Law Clerk in 2005 was a UofM grad from c/o 2003 or at least that's what a quick look at the clerks of Scalia and Ginsburg on wikipedia indicate.

My nihilism: Even money or better Trump's Actions or statements are put into the opinion by the notorious RBG's law clerk, and Trump mentions Ginsburg by name on Twitter immediately afterwards.

Apologies to eveyone for the rant and to the OP apologies for the seemingly endless nonsequitors. This was more cathartic convulted and verbose than I expected.

[NYHSFAN33]

8 minutes ago, zulu1128 said:

She most certainly should...but it's unlikely that she will. 

Agreed.  Can't make public comments like that in a position she's in and weigh in objectively.  But that doesn't mean much.

[NYHSFAN33]

4 minutes ago, playballintxandmi said:

My caveat is that my first sentence is the shortest Legal answer I'm willing to provide without performing serious legal research and like everybody else here I'm not willing to put in the time nor inclination to do the legal research: Anyway my answer is the level of deference historically given to Supreme Court Justices in suits involving themselves (directly in Souter's case--recent example--and I'm sure there are more egregious examples in the past--dig them up if you want to.I'd be happy to see your findings.).

The belief is that our Supreme Court Justices impartiality has been established at various levels of the democratic process (and some would argue is part of the sum total of what makes america great, a lifetime of vetting for SCOTUS Justices, the ability to bitch and moan about life's travails incessantly, the ability to start your own obscure HSFB message board, secede from the union, fly flags, drink booze, smoke weed, whatever floats your boat that you do that some level of government allows, etc.). The SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of our laws. If impartiality for trivial matters was at issue with presdiential nominees for SCOTUS Justice, Congressional approval  would have prevented it (would have been the time to ask. you had your chance at the bat, too late now) and is a consequence (or reward) of our president.  It is arguably a president's most enduring legacy (and by extension a necessary chapter in presidential ratings rulebooks) because a president SCOTUS picks survive until they no longer want to or can. It's how it's done. Don't like it Amend the Constitution to impose judicial term limits. Right now the system as exists is supposed to ensure that a lifetime of vetting has prepped a justice for their responsibility(even if the vetting was growing up with the president)--a justice has basically taken an oath that they are inherently impartial. A SCOTUS Justice has earned a level of deference regarding statutory interpretation higher than most; in other words their analysis is based on law (good or bad). Ginsburg can and will rule (assuming she is physically able to) on that case.

My life as it intersects with Ginsburgs: In law school  I was a student in Professor Antonin Scalia's administrative law class (and it was actually the class I was enrolled in;I wasn't one of those people sneaking in because "Scalia was teaching it.") at the University of Michigan Law School and I was taking the class for a grade. I'll never forget the first day of class. I expected Scalia to be a sinister individual or at least someone I would fear at the podium. I was familiar with his legal opinions but knew nothing about the man so those were my prejudices showing. I thought he might open up with serious socratic-method style questions on all of us and everyone feared that he would. Their was an incident at a public speaking Prof Scalia delivered a couple nights before that was open to the entire student body; the most talked about incident of the speaking engagement was that one of my classmates referred to Clarence Thomas as "robin to your batman"  when addressing Scalia directly. Anyway . . . the first day I think everyone in the room at Hutchins Hall was prepared to debate the constitution with (or against) Scalia if they had to be (some people in the room were applying to be his law clerk as an example; me not wanting to look like an Idiot as another--go blue.) and I'll never forget that he opened up with an anecdote about the law and how he wanted to express that sometimes there was often no right or wrong answer morally for all people but there was a right or wrong answer constitutionally depending on who you ask (we all laughed at that), and then he said that his personal opinion was that people should work more at being kind than being right when talking amongst their friends with issues we would talk about in class and then he asked if there were any questions: Someone in the class asked him what was something about him that we probably wouldn't expect or didn't know. He stated that it wasn't well known or publicized, but that of all the justices on the SCOTUS his closest friend was Ginsburg. He talked about their intellectual discussions aboard an elephant while traveling through India as being the impetus for his friendship with Ginsburg. He also mentioned that they agreed on almost everything except constitutional interpretation (we all thought that was funny too). He said he considered her a very capable jurist, but held reservations about others on the SCOTUS (he gave no opinion as to who they were).

In any case I never met Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but I respected Scalia (and his opinion) even though we had "fundamental disagreements." He was an impressively funny and intelligent man; he was honest and he didn't hold back from telling you his truth. Scalia didn't mention Ginsburg again, but his anecdote was enough for me to have confidence that Ginsburg's a competent jurist and she wouldn't allow something petty to influence her position (or at least no more so than is inherent with her position; and "Yes" is the answer to whether or not I've read her opinions in their entirety"). I believe her to be an intelligent competent judge in the sense that there are fundamental disagreements me and others have with some of her decisions, and I take refuge in the fact that she's undergone a lifetime of vetting. If she was that bad she would have been "weeded out," but for many people if you start from the same fundamental premise RBG considers the constitution to represent you'd come to the same conclusion as RBG. The cliche 6 vs 9 picture is as close as we can get to actually unanimity; you just need someone intelligent on the otherside of the fence (the intelligent "person from the other side" is there for both liberals and conservatives, but too much confirmation bias, and not enough looking to see the wisdom of either side takes place). That's why Scalia respected her (I gave a convoluted paraphrase of his words), there is a lifetime worth of obstacles that she overcame to sit in that seat, and why she earned (or we gave her) the power to decide on The Travel Ban/Muslim Ban.

More Personal: No one in my class that day clerked for Scalia or Ginsburg (a few clerked for the scotus but thats a story for another time). I graduated in 2006 and Scalia's next Michigan Law Clerk was a 2008 grad in 2010. Ginsberg's Law Clerk in 2005 was a UofM grad from c/o 2003 or at least that's what a quick look at the clerks of Scalia and Ginsburg on wikipedia indicate.

My nihilism: Even money or better Trump's Actions or statements are put into the opinion by the notorious RBG's law clerk, and Trump mentions Ginsburg by name on Twitter immediately afterwards.

Apologies to eveyone for the rant and to the OP apologies for the seemingly endless nonsequitors. This was more cathartic convulted and verbose than I expected.

That's a cool andectode.  Good stuff.

[thc6795]

9 minutes ago, playballintxandmi said:

My caveat is that my first sentence is the shortest Legal answer I'm willing to provide without performing serious legal research and like everybody else here I'm not willing to put in the time nor inclination to do the legal research: Anyway my answer is the level of deference historically given to Supreme Court Justices in suits involving themselves (directly in Souter's case--recent example--and I'm sure there are more egregious examples in the past--dig them up if you want to.I'd be happy to see your findings.).

The belief is that our Supreme Court Justices impartiality has been established at various levels of the democratic process (and some would argue is part of the sum total of what makes america great, a lifetime of vetting for SCOTUS Justices, the ability to bitch and moan about life's travails incessantly, the ability to start your own obscure HSFB message board, secede from the union, fly flags, drink booze, smoke weed, whatever floats your boat that you do that some level of government allows, etc.). The SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of our laws. If impartiality for trivial matters was at issue with presdiential nominees for SCOTUS Justice, Congressional approval  would have prevented it (would have been the time to ask. you had your chance at the bat, too late now) and is a consequence (or reward) of our president.  It is arguably a president's most enduring legacy (and by extension a necessary chapter in presidential ratings rulebooks) because a president SCOTUS picks survive until they no longer want to or can. It's how it's done. Don't like it Amend the Constitution to impose judicial term limits. Right now the system as exists is supposed to ensure that a lifetime of vetting has prepped a justice for their responsibility(even if the vetting was growing up with the president)--a justice has basically taken an oath that they are inherently impartial. A SCOTUS Justice has earned a level of deference regarding statutory interpretation higher than most; in other words their analysis is based on law (good or bad). Ginsburg can and will rule (assuming she is physically able to) on that case.

My life as it intersects with Ginsburgs: In law school  I was a student in Professor Antonin Scalia's administrative law class (and it was actually the class I was enrolled in;I wasn't one of those people sneaking in because "Scalia was teaching it.") at the University of Michigan Law School and I was taking the class for a grade. I'll never forget the first day of class. I expected Scalia to be a sinister individual or at least someone I would fear at the podium. I was familiar with his legal opinions but knew nothing about the man so those were my prejudices showing. I thought he might open up with serious socratic-method style questions on all of us and everyone feared that he would. Their was an incident at a public speaking Prof Scalia delivered a couple nights before that was open to the entire student body; the most talked about incident of the speaking engagement was that one of my classmates referred to Clarence Thomas as "robin to your batman"  when addressing Scalia directly. Anyway . . . the first day I think everyone in the room at Hutchins Hall was prepared to debate the constitution with (or against) Scalia if they had to be (some people in the room were applying to be his law clerk as an example; me not wanting to look like an Idiot as another--go blue.) and I'll never forget that he opened up with an anecdote about the law and how he wanted to express that sometimes there was often no right or wrong answer morally for all people but there was a right or wrong answer constitutionally depending on who you ask (we all laughed at that), and then he said that his personal opinion was that people should work more at being kind than being right when talking amongst their friends with issues we would talk about in class and then he asked if there were any questions: Someone in the class asked him what was something about him that we probably wouldn't expect or didn't know. He stated that it wasn't well known or publicized, but that of all the justices on the SCOTUS his closest friend was Ginsburg. He talked about their intellectual discussions aboard an elephant while traveling through India as being the impetus for his friendship with Ginsburg. He also mentioned that they agreed on almost everything except constitutional interpretation (we all thought that was funny too). He said he considered her a very capable jurist, but held reservations about others on the SCOTUS (he gave no opinion as to who they were).

In any case I never met Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but I respected Scalia (and his opinion) even though we had "fundamental disagreements." He was an impressively funny and intelligent man; he was honest and he didn't hold back from telling you his truth. Scalia didn't mention Ginsburg again, but his anecdote was enough for me to have confidence that Ginsburg's a competent jurist and she wouldn't allow something petty to influence her position (or at least no more so than is inherent with her position; and "Yes" is the answer to whether or not I've read her opinions in their entirety"). I believe her to be an intelligent competent judge in the sense that there are fundamental disagreements me and others have with some of her decisions, and I take refuge in the fact that she's undergone a lifetime of vetting. If she was that bad she would have been "weeded out," but for many people if you start from the same fundamental premise RBG considers the constitution to represent you'd come to the same conclusion as RBG. The cliche 6 vs 9 picture is as close as we can get to actually unanimity; you just need someone intelligent on the otherside of the fence (the intelligent "person from the other side" is there for both liberals and conservatives, but too much confirmation bias, and not enough looking to see the wisdom of either side takes place). That's why Scalia respected her (I gave a convoluted paraphrase of his words), there is a lifetime worth of obstacles that she overcame to sit in that seat, and why she earned (or we gave her) the power to decide on The Travel Ban/Muslim Ban.

More Personal: No one in my class that day clerked for Scalia or Ginsburg (a few clerked for the scotus but thats a story for another time). I graduated in 2006 and Scalia's next Michigan Law Clerk was a 2008 grad in 2010. Ginsberg's Law Clerk in 2005 was a UofM grad from c/o 2003 or at least that's what a quick look at the clerks of Scalia and Ginsburg on wikipedia indicate.

My nihilism: Even money or better Trump's Actions or statements are put into the opinion by the notorious RBG's law clerk, and Trump mentions Ginsburg by name on Twitter immediately afterwards.

Apologies to eveyone for the rant and to the OP apologies for the seemingly endless nonsequitors. This was more cathartic convulted and verbose than I expected.

Jesus bro? Thanks I guess

[HawgGoneIt]

I think I agree with playballintxandmi. The vetting process is supposed to clear up any questions we have about whether a justice can remain objective on a case. The one I'm worried about is the new one that wasn't properly vetted due to clearing the process via the simple majority. 

Maybe he should recuse himself. 

[zulu1128]

21 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

I think I agree with playballintxandmi. The vetting process is supposed to clear up any questions we have about whether a justice can remain objective on a case. The one I'm worried about is the new one that wasn't properly vetted due to clearing the process via the simple majority. 

Maybe he should recuse himself. 

The vetting is the confirmation hearing. Hence, he was properly vetted, just like every other SCOTUS nominee in history. 

Hope this helps. 

[HawgGoneIt]

Just now, zulu1128 said:

The vetting is the confirmation hearing. Hence, he was properly vetted, just like every other SCOTUS nominee in history. 

Hope this helps. 

I disagree. His vetting wasn't satisfactory hence the need for the nuclear option. He cleared the vetting of the right wingers and that's all. 

[thc6795]

2 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

I disagree. His vetting wasn't satisfactory hence the need for the nuclear option. He cleared the vetting of the right wingers and that's all. 

Great you can start a thread on that

[HawgGoneIt]

Nah, I think it fits just fine in the should a justice whose politics I disagree with recuse their self  thread. 

[thc6795]

29 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Nah, I think it fits just fine in the should a justice whose politics I disagree with recuse their self  thread. 

Bro read it again. I asked if she should

[aZjimbo]

2 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said:

I disagree. His vetting wasn't satisfactory hence the need for the nuclear option. He cleared the vetting of the right wingers and that's all. 

Nuclear option? Gee who comes to mind there? Oh yea good old scumbag himself "harry black eyes reid".

[zulu1128]

9 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said:

I disagree. His vetting wasn't satisfactory hence the need for the nuclear option. He cleared the vetting of the right wingers and that's all. 

You're either confused as to the definition of the word "vetting," or simply mad that Gorsuch was confirmed.

Carry on.

[zulu1128]

9 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Nah, I think it fits just fine in the should a justice whose politics I disagree with recuse their self  thread. 

It's a neat deflection, but that's about it.

The topic at hand is whether a justice who is on record making disparaging comments about the POTUS during the campaign should consider recusing herself from hearing a case -  where the argument is whether his comments during said campaign are enough to prevent him from faithfully executing the powers legally granted to the office.

Politics has little do do with it. It's simply a question of applying a legal standard consistently.

[maxchoboian]

10 hours ago, zulu1128 said:

The vetting is the confirmation hearing. Hence, he was properly vetted, just like every other SCOTUS nominee in history. 

Hope this helps. 

It helps me when people end their posts with 'Hope this helps', and I think it should be done more often because too many times a post doesn't help me. And I need help.

 

Hope this helps.

[zulu1128]

8 minutes ago, maxchoboian said:

It helps me when people end their posts with 'Hope this helps', and I think it should be done more often because too many times a post doesn't help me. And I need help.

 

Hope this helps.

We all need a little help sometimes. I like to feel as though I'm doing my part.

[maxchoboian]

1 minute ago, zulu1128 said:

We all need a little help sometimes. I like to feel as though I'm doing my part.  

Hope this helps.

I helped you out and FIFY.

Hope this helps.

[zulu1128]

So much helping.