Donald Trump Versus Hillary Clinton

[turtlespeed 212]

gowlerk

***She is being very partisan, and will probably regret it. Kind of makes you wonder if there should be a mandatory retirement age for SC judges. There is in Canada.

As I thought:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/14/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-i-regret-making-donald-trump-remarks/index.html

The damage is done - no more impartiality for her.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[wmw999 2,123]

I was just posting something about that ship having already sailed

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[turtlespeed 212]

wmw999

I was just posting something about that ship having already sailed

Wendy P.

Hmm - I guess even a blind turtle finds some fish now and again.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 3]

turtlespeed

The damage is done - no more impartiality for her.

Does the situation require her to remain impartial no matter how buffoonish a demagogue the potential candidate might be?

Does it?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 212]

quade

***The damage is done - no more impartiality for her.

Does the situation require her to remain impartial no matter how buffoonish a demagogue the potential candidate might be?

Does it?

If he is called upon to rule on any election dispute - yes.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 3]

turtlespeed

******The damage is done - no more impartiality for her.

Does the situation require her to remain impartial no matter how buffoonish a demagogue the potential candidate might be?

Does it?

If he is called upon to rule on any election dispute - yes.

So, your thinking and comments are more along the line of a future crime based on your extensive pre-cog training.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,400]

>So, your thinking and comments are more along the line of a future crime based on
>your extensive pre-cog training.

I have zero doubt that if another member of the Supreme Court was blathering about "lying Hillary" he would be applauding their honesty and rejoicing that justices could put the good of the country above petty political issues like impartiality.

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

>I have zero doubt that if another member of the Supreme Court was blathering about "lying Hillary" he would be applauding their honesty and rejoicing that justices could put the good of the country above petty political issues like impartiality.

Nicely done in the spirit of Speaker's Corner - as the domain of the strawman/insult/PA. The only comment remotely of that type that has so far been ACTUALLY made and not just hypothesized is as follows:

"Does the situation require her to remain impartial no matter how buffoonish a demagogue the potential candidate might be?"

We can agree with the comments. However, still note how absolutely wrong it is for a justice to do that. And the justices all agree with that (including Ruth).

Where the hell is Jerry, he 'gets' this stuff like no one else did.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[gowlerk 1,914]

Reality check. She was unwise to publicly state her feelings. But.... she is a lifetime appointee, she alone will decide whether or not to recuse herself if a Trump case comes up. That is her privilege as an SC justice.

She has made an error, but other than suffering in public opinion, she will face no real consequence for it.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[quade 3]

gowlerk

Reality check. She was unwise to publicly state her feelings. But.... she is a lifetime appointee, she alone will decide whether or not to recuse herself if a Trump case comes up. That is her privilege as an SC justice.

She has made an error, but other than suffering in public opinion, she will face no real consequence for it.

And I'm not sure she'd have to recuse herself from ALL cases involving Trump; probably just ones involving the possibility of him sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[headoverheels 291]

quade

And I'm not sure she'd have to recuse herself from ALL cases involving Trump; probably just ones involving the possibility of him sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office.

Why would she recuse herself? Did the justices who had voted for President recuse themselves in the Gore-Bush Florida case? They just had not made public their biases, but they obviously had them.

[quade 3]

headoverheels

***
And I'm not sure she'd have to recuse herself from ALL cases involving Trump; probably just ones involving the possibility of him sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office.

Why would she recuse herself? Did the justices who had voted for President recuse themselves in the Gore-Bush Florida case? They just had not made public their biases, but they obviously had them.

Because being a member of the SCOTUS obviously means you give up your first amendment rights. That's clearly the answer some people are looking for.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Where the hell is Jerry, he 'gets' this stuff like no one else did.

I've got to admit I don't get it, at least in terms of recusing herself because she said it.

If she hadn't said it, she'd still think it. Several other Justices probably think the same thing - probably in roughly the same proportion that other people trained to recognise good and bad logic do. Are they OK to rule on him because they think he's a buffoon but haven't said he's a buffoon? The bias is still there just the same.

Is it about justice or the appearance of justice?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[gowlerk 1,914]

Quote

Is it about justice or the appearance of justice?

The appearance of justice is very important. You don't want "bring the administration of justice into disrepute". So yes, it is very much about the appearance.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[rehmwa 2]

gowlerk

Quote

Is it about justice or the appearance of justice?

The appearance of justice is very important. You don't want "bring the administration of justice into disrepute". So yes, it is very much about the appearance.

This is true, but, I do think it's deeper even. I think the measure of a 'judge', is their ability to be objective in the presence of their real biases - 'despite' their biases. Not that they have no biases. no one is perfectly without bias....

So if a judge can't control herself enough to keep from even talking about it, then one has to question their ability to control their biases in the conduct of their duty.

(i.e., if you can't even ACT objective, how can you suspend your prejudices to do the job objectively?)

How do you even set the standard for all other judges even?

(It's hard enough when a SC judge seems to be nominated with the absolute HOPE that they will be biased....instead of their legal purity)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[gowlerk 1,914]

All true. she's 83, that may or may not be a factor in her judgement. She was right about Trump, but that's not the point. My guess is she just slipped up like an ordinary human.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

>So, your thinking and comments are more along the line of a future crime based on
>your extensive pre-cog training.

I have zero doubt that if another member of the Supreme Court was blathering about "lying Hillary" he would be applauding their honesty and rejoicing that justices could put the good of the country above petty political issues like impartiality.

And You couldn't be more wrong.

But we are used to that - you must dislike me as much as I dislike Hillary.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 1,625]

Hmmm - maybe Comey wasn't 100% truthful (or just very careless).

www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

So if a judge can't control herself enough to keep from even talking about it, then one has to question their ability to control their biases in the conduct of their duty.

I think she made a huge mistake discussing the subject.

However, I don't agree with this reasoning. SC rulings are not made on a whim and are thought about over a period of time.

I am sure we have all said something that we regret, something we probably wouldn't have said if we had taken a day to think about it.

[turtlespeed 212]

SkyDekker

Quote

So if a judge can't control herself enough to keep from even talking about it, then one has to question their ability to control their biases in the conduct of their duty.

I think she made a huge mistake discussing the subject.

However, I don't agree with this reasoning. SC rulings are not made on a whim and are thought about over a period of time.

I am sure we have all said something that we regret, something we probably wouldn't have said if we had taken a day to think about it.

True, but how many are responsible for decisions that potentially affect hundreds of millions of people.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rehmwa 2]

SkyDekker

SC rulings are not made on a whim and are thought about over a period of time.

that's how it 'should' be - they should ignore their personal prejudices and interpret the law according to its original intent. But the system is set up to put just the opposite into those positions - so decisions might not be on a 'whim', but might actively be very twisted to their personal positions and prejudices

the ONLY "litmus" test a judge should have is objectivity and ability to disregard their political and personal leanings in favor of doing the job right - too bad that's the opposite of the nomination and approval process


I'm grateful she walked her comments back upon reflection - I'm sure she figured it out on her own. I'm sure the other justices just as likely 'advised' her on it too.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[turtlespeed 212]

rehmwa

***SC rulings are not made on a whim and are thought about over a period of time.

that's how it 'should' be - they should ignore their personal prejudices and interpret the law according to its original intent. But the system is set up to put just the opposite into those positions - so decisions might not be on a 'whim', but might actively be very twisted to their personal positions and prejudices

the ONLY "litmus" test a judge should have is objectivity and ability to disregard their political and personal leanings in favor of doing the job right - too bad that's the opposite of the nomination and approval process


I'm grateful she walked her comments back upon reflection - I'm sure she figured it out on her own. I'm sure the other justices just as likely 'advised' her on it too.

Which lends to the argument - She is How old? A longer life of being in the field of law and many years as a justice, and her hate for Trump was so strong that she couldn't stop herself from speaking her opinion and going further in degrading him. And that, despite the lifetime of practice being neutral.

Pretty telling.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[wmw999 2,123]

This. I'm not big on me-too posts, but this pretty much nails it.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

the ONLY "litmus" test a judge should have is objectivity and ability to disregard their political and personal leanings in favor of doing the job right - too bad that's the opposite of the nomination and approval process

If you already think that's how the Justices work then it doesn't really matter if they voice their opinions or not, does it?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 1,625]

rehmwa

***SC rulings are not made on a whim and are thought about over a period of time.

that's how it 'should' be - they should ignore their personal prejudices and interpret the law according to its original intent. But the system is set up to put just the opposite into those positions - so decisions might not be on a 'whim', but might actively be very twisted to their personal positions and prejudices

the ONLY "litmus" test a judge should have is objectivity and ability to disregard their political and personal leanings in favor of doing the job right - too bad that's the opposite of the nomination and approval process


I'm grateful she walked her comments back upon reflection - I'm sure she figured it out on her own. I'm sure the other justices just as likely 'advised' her on it too.

Alito has not been at all hesitant to let his political views be known, and he has been openly rude to Obama during a SOTU address. How much outrage do you feel about Alito?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.