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

[Orlong]

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.

In an interview with The New York Times, Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, "I can't imagine what this place would be — I can't imagine what this country would be — with Donald Trump as our president." She recalled something her late husband used to say: "Maybe it's time for us to move to New Zealand."

The issue here isn't Trump's fitness for the presidency — we're beyond dubious — nor is it Ginsburg's freedom to think whatever she wishes of him.

But to say her public comments are unusual is like saying dancing cows are scarce. Supreme Court justices don't — at least until now — take public stands on presidential or other elections. One reason is that they are barred from doing so by the federal code of judicial conduct, which states that as a general rule, judges shall not "publicly endorse or publicly oppose another candidate for public office." They also aren't allowed to make speeches on behalf of political organizations or give money to candidates.

The reasons for the ban are clear and sensible. Judges who sit on the federal bench are protected from political pressures by the life tenure provided in the Constitution. Courts are often asked to rule on matters of public controversy, and the litigants on either side are entitled to expect that the presiding judges will evaluate their arguments fairly.

Nowhere is that impartiality more important than in the highest court in the land, which has the final word on a host of grave questions. For justices to descend into partisan election campaigns would undermine public faith in their willingness to assess each case strictly on its legal merits. It would also encourage justices to let their political biases affect, if not determine, their decisions.

Yet here was Ginsburg plainly indicating how she will vote in this election. "I am not aware of any justice ever expressing views on the merits or demerits of a presidential candidate in the midst of the campaign," Ed Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, told The Washington Post. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley told us her comment "showed manifestly bad judgment and undermined the integrity of the Court."

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

Then today she says to CNN:

“He is a faker."

"He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. ...

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.

[Garnier Fructis]

Not a bad deal. Get rid of Ginsburg, elect Hillary, and let her pick 2 liberal justices. That way we won't have to worry about Ginsburg surviving another 4 years only to croak under a Republican after Hillary.

[Eviscero]

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.

[Reeve]

Making a comment on a person isn't an impeachable offense.

It's perhaps generally considered inappropriate, since it makes explicit the political views of the person (which we all knew anyway), in a position that's supposed to be about impartially reviewing law, but that doesn't make it impeachable.

It's important to note that she never did so for any of the previous GOP candidates. Trump represents something to her, and to many of us, far more dangerous than just a person whose political views are counter to ours.

[Belloc]

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.

Revealing a negative opinion about Trump doesn't sound like an entirely different thing from publicly opposing him.

[Orlong]

Making a comment on a person isn't an impeachable offense.

No but breaking the Judicial code of conduct is which these comments violate

[zenkai]

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016...ticism-n608006

[Heladys]

Bullshit, make her chief justice. She's the only one with the cojones to speak the truth.

[Stormspellz]

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.

where was your false outrage when a certain judge (schilia) went hunting with the vice president (chenny) WHILE the court was hearing his case? Or Alito visably disagring with the president during a speech? She isn't a federal circuit judge, she's a supreme court judge, its custom not rule or law that the judges don't get political

[Ealyssa]

Making a comment on a person isn't an impeachable offense.

but...

but...

but...

It's a republican ? It counts for more obviously ?

[Reeve]

No but breaking the Judicial code of conduct is which these comments violate

Does it though? What's the test to say what "publicly oppose another candidate for public office" constitutes? You'll note she never directly tells people not to vote for Trump.

And does the judicial code of conduct, which only stated the part in question "as a general rule" according to your OP, have any actual binding legal implications? Can it result in impeachment, or is it just a set of guidelines?

[Independent voter]

Only the Supreme Court can impeach a justice, I think. Good luck with that.

[I Push Buttons]

"But according to Hudak, the Brookings fellow, the argument that Ginsburg's remarks somehow undermine the integrity of the Supreme Court is an overstatement. "It's no secret she's a liberal. It's no secret she would oppose a Donald Trump candidacy personally as a voter. That it would change the way she's going to vote as a Supreme Court justice is a bit far-fetched.""

[Orlong]

So let me get this straight. As long as a justice doesn't voice their opinions, even though you can be damn sure they have them, we can sleep soundly at night knowing they are immune to basic human failings of partiality, despite the fact that partisan politics have quite clearly been coloring rulings for at least as long as I've been alive?

But the moment they make those opinions known, not that you couldn't have reasonably guessed them without even asking, now they're suddenly the very avatar of bias?

Orlong, I know better than to ever take you seriously, but I have no doubt that in this case your words do indeed reflect the views of at least some others.

Do you mean like Democrat Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut when he said:

“We all know that the justices on the Supreme Court have political views. I’m not sure we’re well served by them airing them out in the open,”

Or when Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse says

“That’s not the ordinary type of thing Supreme Court justices say, but I can’t fault her accuracy, I hesitate to criticize this. We’ve had judges attend the Koch brothers’ donor fest. By those standards it does not seem out of line, but I do think there’d be more respect for the court if the public felt it was less politicized.”

Or how about when Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin says:

“She may have got out over her skis a little bit and [been] more forthright and political than she should have been. It’s very unusual,”

Im not a fan of Senate Leader Mitch McConnel but he hits the nail on the head here with:

“It raises the level of skepticism that the American people have from time to time about just how objective the Supreme Court is, whether they’re over there to call the balls and strikes or to weigh in on one side or the other,” So I think Justice Ginsburg’s remarks were totally inappropriate and I wish she hadn’t said that.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...g-trump-225423


Its about protecting what integrity the SCOTUS even has left at this point

[Pangean]

No but breaking the Judicial code of conduct is which these comments violate

Supreme Court is not covered by the code.

"This Code applies to United States circuit judges, district judges, Court of International Trade judges, Court of Federal Claims judges, bankruptcy judges, and magistrate judges. Certain provisions of this Code apply to special masters and commissioners as indicated in the “Compliance” section. The Tax Court, Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces have adopted this Code."

[unfilteredJW]

I like how THIS is what shows Supreme Court "bias".

[Orlong]

where was your false outrage when a certain judge (schilia) went hunting with the vice president (chenny) WHILE the court was hearing his case? Or Alito visably disagring with the president during a speech? She isn't a federal circuit judge, she's a supreme court judge, its custom not rule or law that the judges don't get political

Had you known me then, you wouldve heard me flipping out over it. I was extremely pissed off about it. Alito didnt say a word. All he did was shake his head in disagreement. You can disagree with someones opinion, but you cannot show favoritism as a judge

[Noxx79]

Nah, it's OK. Since she's not Hispanic, there's no bias there.

[Bollocks]

"But according to Hudak, the Brookings fellow, the argument that Ginsburg's remarks somehow undermine the integrity of the Supreme Court is an overstatement. "It's no secret she's a liberal. It's no secret she would oppose a Donald Trump candidacy personally as a voter. That it would change the way she's going to vote as a Supreme Court justice is a bit far-fetched.""

[Jingoism]

Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan. They should all be out.