Posted on 07/14/2016 6:13:36 AM PDT by artichokegrower
Judges voluntarily give up a measure of their first amendment rights when the take the bench. It is a requirement of office. All judges and justices are bound by the canons. Ginsburg violated Canon 5 of the federal rules.
Hubler knows this, but he hates Trump, thus the rules don’t matter.
Simple for the left—the end always justifies the means. They see themselves as above the law.
They don't even try to hide it.
It’s one thing to criticize a president by name in a Supreme Court decision for his policies involved in a case before the court. Or to criticize a politician in private. It’s another to publicly criticize a presidential candidate in the media.
Ginsburg is biased—it is good when she lets everyone know where she stands—she is a proud member of the Alzheimer’s leftist club.
When is the First Amendment not the First Amendment? Apparently, when a liberal U.S. Supreme Court justice exercises it to voice alarm at the possibility that Donald Trump might become the next president.
Hopefully she will resign after the election and move to a country that is more in tune with her beliefs.
One point that puzzles me however, is why she has not resigned before now to let Obama pick her replacement.
Dje Dje
Ginsburg has gone beyond stating a personal opinion. She is interfering with a public election for POTUS. She can be impeached if members of the US House of Representatives find that her comments violate the "good behavior" required of all federal judges by the US Constitution. I think that they do. Her remarks are biased, unprecedented, and reveal an inability to render impartial judgements. For the sake of the nation, she should apologize for undermining public trust in the nation's courts and resign immediately.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is now 83 years old. She has undergone both chemo and radiation treatments for cancer. Ruth now uses a wheel chair on a regular basis.
Perhaps age is catching up with her. Ruth could be in the early stages of dementia. Dementia causes mood changes, forgetfulness, irritably etc.
The Supreme Court justices answer only to themselves and God when it comes to stepping down from the bench. Once Congress hath joined a nominee and his office, only death or retirement can separate them. They can be impeached though.
Anybody live near the “Bee” can yell a #### you when they pass it for me?
Where did this rag come from. It’s CA’s version of the NY Times.
Trump, to the contrary, is the one who has gone after--aggressively gone after the "politically correct" bullies, who have been stifling free discussion of vital social & political & legal issues, for the past quarter century. The bigots are the ones who insist that all of the rest of us simply accept their insulting views on social, political & ethnic questions.
The bigot in this case is the Justice, who throws over the normal restraints that go with her position, to vilify one who chooses to dissent from her very biased position. The writer is even more pathetic. She is so imbued with an insulting narrative against dissenters, that she seems to actually think it necessary for a sitting Supreme Court Justice to slander a Presidential candidate--because the Ginsburg tirade was indeed slanderous. (Now I know that the Court has held that public figures can be slandered with impunity--but one expects something a little better from the Justices themselves.)
You wrote that “a judge must be impartial, non-political and above perception of bias.”
That is totally correct. I’m stunned that Ginsburg has spoken out the way she has. Totally unprofessional.
“when should Justice Ginsburg have spoken out on Trump?”
As the IRS audits her tax returns next year?
The Code of Conduct for United States Judges includes the ethical canons that apply to federal judges and provides guidance on their performance of official duties and engagement in a variety of outside activities.
Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity
(A) General Prohibitions. A judge should not:
(1) act as a leader or hold any office in a political organization;
(2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office; or
(3) solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution to a political organization or candidate, or attend or purchase a ticket for a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization or candidate.
(B) Resignation upon Candidacy. A judge should resign the judicial office if the judge becomes a candidate in a primary or general election for any office.
(C) Other Political Activity. A judge should not engage in any other political activity.
http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges
I do not know about you, but to me this is very clear! And end of any discussion!
I, an American Jew, born in 1934, see a Judge who has announced to the world that she has not a trace of “impartiality” while sitting on the bench of the highest court in the land.
All the while, she obviously stands with the most corrupt and evil administration this land has seen. Some “JUDGE”
Teaser on FOX: Coming up, Ginsberg regrets her comments.
Waiting to hear the details.
She can say which team she wants to win or prevent from winning the Super Bowl, but no right to then referee the game. Didn’t we all know this before now?
During her tenure on the D.C. Circuit, Ginsburg made 57 hires for law clerk, intern, and secretary positions. At her Supreme Court confirmation hearing, it was revealed that none of those hired had been African-American, a fact for which Ginsburg (an "aggressive support[er] [of] disparate-impact statistics as evidence of intentional discrimination") was sharply criticized.
She is a racist to boot.
Oh, I’m sure she does. Because her comments were completely inappropriate.
Is this that old fashioned and out of date concept called "decorum" that you are talking about?
impartiality only applies to cases being heard by the jurist. I don’t know of any case that is before her regarding Trump—otherwise she has the same 1st Am rights that you have.
Ruth Buzzie should be impeached.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.