It's Time To Impeach The First SCOTUS Judge Since 1804

[Pangean]

You seem to struggle reading what I write. I said "mentally ill left" I did not call you mentally Ill I said go read what people are saying on twitter. Obviously you did not go look or you are having a problem with the definition of the words use on twitter or just like your having a problem with definition of the words I am using.

I Said adoring so Look up adoring. Adoring definition, to regard with the utmost esteem, love, and respect; honor. So you are not reading what I am saying and accusing me of your failure.

I never once said adoration. Thank you.

I was going to do a whole post explaining basic definitions to you and the roots of words but figured why waste it? The reality is you are simply attacking folks with silly claims of worship simply because they have a different view than you. In the end that is what we are discussing and what sadly you are reduced to.

[Starscream101]

I was going to do a whole post explaining basic definitions to you and the roots of words but figured why waste it? The reality is you are simply attacking folks with silly claims of worship simply because they have a different view than you. In the end that is what we are discussing and what sadly you are reduced to.

Weather I agree with them or not has no bearing. People can have different views other than me I am perfectly fine with it like yourself. I guess in the end you are stating nobody is mentally ill gotcha.

Lets agree to disagree on whether people are mentally ill.

What I'm talking about are those who worship her like everything she says is golden, she do can do no wrong she is my Idol no mater what she says she is right,

Those people are followers and worshipers. Just like some of the people behind Hillary Clinton - Trump - Bernie Sanders. All 3 of them are not a good choice. And i have my opinion.

[Venant]

She has committed no impeachable offense. This is nonsense. Re-read the Judicial codes in question.

Why would you think that the rule of law applies to powerful leftists in the United States? You might as well go back to 1948 and try to impeach Joseph Stalin.

[Pangean]

Weather I agree with them or not has no bearing. People can have different views other than me I am perfectly fine with it like yourself. I guess in the end you are stating nobody is mentally ill gotcha.

Lets agree to disagree on whether people are mentally ill.

What I'm talking about are those who worship her like everything she says is golden, she do can do no wrong she is my Idol no mater what she says she is right,

Those people are followers and worshipers. Just like some of the people behind Hillary Clinton - Trump - Bernie Sanders. All 3 of them are not a good choice. And i have my opinion.

You got all that in 144 chars eh? Amusing.

[DeadmanWalking]

First Scotus impeached was because he abused his power to turn the law on people he wanted punished. RBG is guilty off saying things Trump Scrumpers don't like. Off with her head! This thread bleeds ignorance, exactly the kind of people who think Trump is a 'decent human being.'

[Hella clutch]

why do Trump supporters hate free speech so much?

[Xargoth6634]

The old bitch

Keep it classy

[8bithamster]

Cool, come back as she actually publicly endorses or opposes a candidate. She revealed her opinion about a candidate, which is an entirely different thing.

Sssh, don't scare of the Trump fanatics. Sense doesn't work with them, only inane screaming about issues and not coming with any realistic solutions work for them.

Sadly we in Holland have a politician who works the same.

Still wondering how those peeople get voters.

[nextormento]

All I know is they are treated as one and the same as a matter of course.

Some standard is acceptable. The fuss people are trying to make here is... odd... Seriously, it would seem people would be fine with the bias existing so long as they don't have to know about it.

What I find interesting is that this "leave the justices alone" is but an extension of public partisan outlook. This fuss is but a response to the incredibly obtuse public discourse you folks had on that other Italian-American justice that recently died.

I think that confusion should be corrected. I'll note that all this tangent on the private sphere ties in with some exchange we had a few weeks ago about first ladies: I think it's bizarre that the private lives of state officials is so exposed as it is in the States.
Your reading back then (it's part of the national mythos) fits all too well on this one: "the people" have an incredibly lopsided view on power and state organization. I don't think deciding on justices' ethics is or should be part of the people's powers; much less so being part of the public and political discourse.

The people need their checks and balances too. This is the job of journalism. That an op/ed piece is able to throw such major accusations of ethical breaches, without consulting some professional on the subject, is some evidence -though not conclusive- for lack of journalist ethical standards.


If your political landscape were a bit more relaxed, or you had shorter election seasons, justices would be out of the debate. They'd be understood as independent of partisan lines, and left alone. They, of course, are not completely independent and dissociated form society, but they strive to be.
If, again, the landscape was less tense, what people would be fine with is not undisclosed bias (it is understood bias exists): they'd be fine with a body of professionals actively fighting -striving- to curb down such bias (such as by having ethical standards).
What people are never fine with is open rejection of that strive for excellence. This is not an indication that they're fine with the subjacent bias. For the same reason that me mounting a campaign to fix some local glaring injustice is not me being fine with other types of injustices elsewhere. Pretending otherwise is a glorified "whatabout starving children in Africa".


When applied to this case, people are not fine with that transparent rejection of professionalism. Independently of their understanding that bias is unavoidable. Though I remain skeptical that her actions are in breach of anything; and that's for her peers to decide anyway, not some hack journalist.

[TZucchini]

While I agree they already have opinions regardless of what they say out loud about them, public perception IS affected when they say things. With all the hullabaloo about systemic unfairness, it can't be good for the system as a whole to have judges flaunting their political bias to the public via media.

Let me be a bit more clear. "Public perception" is irrelevant. Only facts are relevant. If Ginsberg's opinions on Donald Trump are causing her rulings to be biased, then she should step down. If they're not causing her rulings to be biased, then what the public perceives isn't important.

Stating an opinion you already hold out loud doesn't make the system more or less fair. If people perceive it that way, well, that's their problem. I'd rather not tell sitting Supreme Court Justice's that it's an impeachable offense to discuss politics in a public forum. That's an entirely ridiculous proposal.

If she said this before being appointed, it would seriously jeopardize her chances of being accepted, if not down right eliminate them.

It shouldn't. The only qualifications that should matter is their level of experience, and whether or not they can remain as unbiased as humanly possible.

Regardless of legality, would that be the morally correct thing for a justice to do?

Look. As a point of fact, I think it's a bit off-putting for people in a very influential position to talk badly about other people in a non-constructive manner. But if you want to discuss morals, how about firing someone for the simple expression of political opinion? That seems much more unsavory.

[mvaliz]

What I'm talking about are those who worship her like everything she says is golden, she do can do no wrong she is my Idol no mater what she says she is right,

Those people are followers and worshipers. Just like some of the people behind Hillary Clinton - Trump - Bernie Sanders. All 3 of them are not a good choice. And i have my opinion.

To be fair, for every 1 of people who do that with Hillary, there's 10 who do that with Donald Dump.

[Shadowferal]

pfft...So Ginsburg has an opinion like everyone has. If that's impeachable, then Scalia should have been impeached long before he passed away.

[Tikaru]

Just another great example of why Trump can't be president.

The guy flips out and throws a temper tantrum whens someone says something negative about him.

[Deleted]

why do Trump supporters hate free speech so much?

Because federal judges are prohibited from expressing certain political opinions.
Because the judiciary must be impartial.
Although i do believe those don't apply to Scotus, but that's beside the point.

[TZucchini]

Because the judiciary must be impartial.

What does expressing an opinion you already hold have to do with being impartial?

[Shadowferal]

SCOTUS judges are appointed. Not elected.

[Draco-Onis]

How dare she have a opinion!!! only right wing justices are allowed that.

[Shadowferal]

How dare she have a opinion!!! only right wing justices are allowed that.

I'm sure Scalia is turning over in his grave now. (He and Ginsburg were good friends)

[Deleted]

A couple days ago Ruth Ginsburg made it very clear what her opinion of Trump is with statements to several media outlets (Not that we didnt already know that she was a far left justice who users her political beliefs to make her rulings rather than the rule of law). Regardless of her feelings on Trump, she is not ethically supposed to make them publicly known. This also isnt some right wing witch hunt either, there are people on both sides of the aisle that find her comments to be totally inappropriate and not consistent with how a SCOTUS judge should conduct themselves. Here is an article detailing her comments if you havent heard them.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...711-story.html

Then today she says to CNN:





Im sorry but after those comments Ruth Ginsberg made about Trump, she needs to be impeached for violating the US Judicial Code of Conduct. It states that federal judges shall not publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office. Additionally, if Trump was to become president any rulings where she ruled against him would call into question the integrity of the SCOTUS. Ginsburg should just keep it to herself. Its not like we didnt already know she doesnt like him. But keeping her mouth shut would at least keep the curtain closed.

Anyone defending Trump needs get their head checked. No joke. Unlike this thread.

[Ghostpanther]

What does expressing an opinion you already hold have to do with being impartial?

Think of it this way...

" A judge expressed their dislike of dirt bikes publicly, by stating they are a public health risk and are bad for the environment. You are a dirt bike sales dealer. You are being sued for a accident which involved a customer with a dirt bike and you get word this same judge is to oversee the trial. You would have no valid concerns about how unbiased this judge would be?