Should SCOTUS speak on POTUS?

[*bfine32*]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-no-fan-of-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.html?_r=0

Quote:“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” she said. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

[GMDino]

(07-13-2016, 02:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-no-fan-of-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.html?_r=0

I wondered the same.

I think they have a right to speak as they see fit with the same consequences that any of us would face.

Scalia certainly spoke out on a variety of controversial topics although I don't know that he mentioned a specific candidate at any given time.  Also I thought he had a policy of not allowing recording instruments into his speeches.  So we may never know.

[BmorePat87]

Yes. The end.

[Au165]

Should they? IDK it's up to them. Do I have a problem with it? No. They can say whatever they want just like any other person can.

[*bfine32*]

(07-13-2016, 02:53 PM)Au165 Wrote: Should they? IDK it's up to them. Do I have a problem with it? No. They can say whatever they want just like any other person can.

It's just something about the "Justice being blind" part. We all know different Justices lean in different directions. i just think it is inappropriate for a sitting Justice to voice her bias. For instance I had zero problem with her speaking on Congress not acting on the vacant Justice seat.  

[*Nately120*]

(07-13-2016, 02:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's just something about the "Justice being blind" part. We all know different Justices lean in different directions. i just think it is inappropriate for a sitting Justice to voice her bias. For instance I had zero problem with her speaking on Congress not acting on the vacant Justice seat.  

That makes sense, but I think the whole Trump campaign prides itself on shaking all the norms up; even when it's inspiring people of power to implore the US populace to NOT elect him.

[GMDino]

(07-13-2016, 02:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's just something about the "Justice being blind" part. We all know different Justices lean in different directions. i just think it is inappropriate for a sitting Justice to voice her bias. For instance I had zero problem with her speaking on Congress not acting on the vacant Justice seat.  

Again, other Justices have spoke on other issues.

Trump is just upset he can't fire her.

[Mike M (the other one)]

I think they should not speak out about candidates, only the cases and the issues of the cases involved.
They are supposed to remain neutral. What happens if Trump wins? Now she has to work with him or retire and move to New Zealand, because if I was Trump, I would definitely be calling for her head because I already know that she's incapable of being "unbiased".

[BmorePat87]

(07-13-2016, 03:53 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I think they should not speak out about candidates, only the cases and the issues of the cases involved.
They are supposed to remain neutral. What happens if Trump wins? Now she has to work with him or retire and move to New Zealand, because if I was Trump, I would definitely be calling for her head because I already know that she's incapable of being "unbiased".

Who says they are to remain neutral on who is in office or is running for office?

[Millhouse]

No, unless they speak out against someone I dont like.

[Belsnickel]

Everyone has the right to free speech, including SCOTUS. I get the concerns, that the bench should be apolitical. But being that the justices are people, they have political leanings and they are entitled to voice their opinions just as anyone else. In truth her comments prove nothing other than who she will be voting for in November. I'd actually like to hear more from the other justices on their opinions of political candidates. I know it's seen as taboo, but it would be some interesting and insightful commentary, I am sure.

I also always find it interesting that when one side gets political with the court or the court gets political with one side, the opposite side cries foul and the side the justice(s) was on says nothing. Then when there is a reversal of fortune in this regard the roles reverse.

[McC]

(07-13-2016, 03:10 PM)Nately120 Wrote: That makes sense, but I think the whole Trump campaign prides itself on shaking all the norms up; even when it's inspiring people of power to implore the US populace to NOT elect him.

That sounds like a good reason TO elect him.  The people in power are the idiots who  made this mess in which we find ourselves.

[McC]

(07-13-2016, 04:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Everyone has the right to free speech, including SCOTUS. I get the concerns, that the bench should be apolitical. But being that the justices are people, they have political leanings and they are entitled to voice their opinions just as anyone else. In truth her comments prove nothing other than who she will be voting for in November. I'd actually like to hear more from the other justices on their opinions of political candidates. I know it's seen as taboo, but it would be some interesting and insightful commentary, I am sure.

I also always find it interesting that when one side gets political with the court or the court gets political with one side, the opposite side cries foul and the side the justice(s) was on says nothing. Then when there is a reversal of fortune in this regard the roles reverse.

Which is exactly why they should button their lips and not engage in sound bytes.

At least she didn't say she would move to Canada if he is elected.

[Au165]

(07-13-2016, 03:53 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Now she has to work with him or retire and move to New Zealand, because if I was Trump, I would definitely be calling for her head because I already know that she's incapable of being "unbiased".

I'm not sure you understand how the Supreme Court works.

[Belsnickel]

(07-13-2016, 04:16 PM)McC Wrote: That sounds like a good reason TO elect him.  The people in power are the idiots who  made this mess in which we find ourselves.

Except, you know, he is one of the ones that has been putting these people in power. People make Trump out to be an outsider, but he's not. He has even admitted to buying politicians. He is just as much a part of the establishment as a career politician, he just isn't the front facing part. It is foolish to think otherwise.

(07-13-2016, 04:18 PM)McC Wrote: Which is exactly why they should button their lips and not engage in sound bytes.

At least she didn't say she would move to Canada if he is elected.

This comment doesn't really make sense to me. I said several things, so what do you perceive as a reason for justices to not speak about political things?

[*Nately120*]

(07-13-2016, 04:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Except, you know, he is one of the ones that has been putting these people in power. People make Trump out to be an outsider, but he's not. He has even admitted to buying politicians.  He is just as much a part of the establishment as a career politician, he just isn't the front facing part. It is foolish to think otherwise.

+rep

I honestly don't know where people get the notion that Trump is some sort of political outsider who is here to shake things up, but that's great marketing on his campaign's part.  I do find it amusing that the side of the political spectrum that warned us that Obama wasn't enough of a career politician to be trusted over McCain or Romney now fluff themselves over the notion of an "outsider" being the very thing this country needs.

Lordy, make up your mind.

[*bfine32*]

(07-13-2016, 04:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Everyone has the right to free speech, including SCOTUS. I get the concerns, that the bench should be apolitical. But being that the justices are people, they have political leanings and they are entitled to voice their opinions just as anyone else. In truth her comments prove nothing other than who she will be voting for in November. I'd actually like to hear more from the other justices on their opinions of political candidates. I know it's seen as taboo, but it would be some interesting and insightful commentary, I am sure.

I also always find it interesting that when one side gets political with the court or the court gets political with one side, the opposite side cries foul and the side the justice(s) was on says nothing. Then when there is a reversal of fortune in this regard the roles reverse.

As I said: I have no problem with Justices speaking on issues and I agree with her when she states Congress is not doing their job by vetting the  recommended to fill the vacancy. 

Your point about sides are noted and just as you suggest those opposed cry foul, those in favor seem to make exceptions. 

Of course it is America and there is no law against her defaming a Presidential Candidate. It just shows bias on her part. The ironic thing is I thought Trump was ridiculous when he claimed the Judge that ruled on his case Was bias because he was Mexican; when one of the highest Justices in the land has clearly shown bias toward him.

It is just my opinion; however, it appears the usual sides have been taken. 

 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-13-2016, 03:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Who says they are to remain neutral on who is in office or is running for office?

I never said the couldn't have an opinion. Just that they should not share it with the media.

(07-13-2016, 04:22 PM)Au165 Wrote: I'm not sure you understand how the Supreme Court works.

Sure I do, they are supposed to be selected because of their ability to interpret the laws, not politics. It is sad though how a majority of the time, they put politics ahead of the law when it's time to rule on a case.

[BmorePat87]

(07-13-2016, 06:30 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I never said the couldn't have an opinion. Just that they should not share it with the media.


Sure I do, they are supposed to be selected because of their ability to interpret the laws, not politics. It is sad though how a majority of the time, they put politics ahead of the law when it's time to rule on a case.

You said they are suppose to stay neutral. I'm asking where this was established.

[*bfine32*]

(07-13-2016, 07:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You said they are suppose to stay neutral. I'm asking where this was established.

The same place where is states that being a Doctor is not enough experience to be POTUS. Most likely just dude's opinion.