Should SCOTUS speak on POTUS?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-14-2016, 10:15 AM)Au165 Wrote: Sure, but if he gets elected he better gets lamb basted for A. Not building his magical wall, and B. Not making Mexico pay for it. It was a great rallying cry for the dumb and racist, but any rationale person knows neither are ever happening. Can he patch what is there? Yea, sure, but his whole early gimmick of this massive monstrosity is never happening.

He doesn't have to, as long as he beefs up the border security and starts passing executive orders to get illegals deported faster. Besides, I've already shown how he can get the money to cover the cost of the wall in 1 year.

[GMDino]

(07-14-2016, 10:29 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: He doesn't have to, as long as he beefs up the border security and starts passing executive orders to get illegals deported faster. Besides, I've already shown how he can get the money to cover the cost of the wall in 1 year.

But if are going to hold everyone else to their literal statements why not Trump?

Besides people saying that are moving out of the country is way overblown.

Limbaugh said he'd move if the ACA passed and went into law and got past the Supreme Court.  Last I heard he was still here.

[*PhilHos*]

(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

Should they speak about the candidates? No, they shouldn't. They do have the RIGHT to if they really wanted but, IMO, they probably shouldn't. I mean, if Trump gets elected and some piece of legislation like "Trump-a-care" gets in front of the Supreme Court, Trump's lawyers can make a great argument that she'd have to recuse herself; not that would necessarily get them anywhere, but it gives her extra trouble that could've been avoided just by not saying anything (assuming Trump actually gets elected, of course).

[BmorePat87]

Justices are suppose to make interpretations based on what they believe the Constitution says. That's 100% fueled by their ideology, and they are selected for that ideology.

This is a very different concept from suggesting that justice should be blind as we are not referring to due process in a criminal trial where all defendants should have an equal application of the law.

She can speak her mind on this. It's not directly related to the Constitution, and, even if it were, she's free to discuss her views on that too. Is anyone surprised that one of the most liberal justices who is a woman doesn't like Trump?

[Au165]

(07-14-2016, 10:29 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: He doesn't have to, as long as he beefs up the border security and starts passing executive orders to get illegals deported faster. Besides, I've already shown how he can get the money to cover the cost of the wall in 1 year.

As it was already said, you want to hold people accountable for what they say then that would need to be done here as well. His is more egregious though as his doesn't just effect him, like saying you are leaving, he built his campaign and a lot of his popularity early on with these claims that appeal to the lower end sheep that will believe anything.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-14-2016, 10:49 AM)GMDino Wrote: But if are going to hold everyone else to their literal statements why not Trump?

Besides people saying that are moving out of the country is way overblown.

Limbaugh said he'd move if the ACA passed and went into law and got past the Supreme Court.  Last I heard he was still here.

And no loss there if he were to move out.

[Rotobeast]

(07-14-2016, 09:25 AM)GMDino Wrote: *An* interpretation maybe?

My point is most Justices have made their political views known.  And some quite clearly.

For one to say they don't like someone who is running for President isn't much of a leap from saying they stopped getting a particu newspaper because it was "too liberal".

AS others have said: They are human.  They will have a bias.  Yet we see them agree on many, many things so I think those biases are less in play than with say an elected official.

FWIW I think she has every right to speak her mind.
I don't think it was the classiest route to take, but who am I ?
Pat addressed the point I was getting at, quite well.
They are all on the SC to provide balance, due to their interpretations of the laws.

[fredtoast]

(07-13-2016, 06:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

You can't seriously be comparing a disagreement over policy to a claim of bias based on race?

Tell me Bfine, would you admit that you are "biased" against me just because you disagree with me on many issues? I don't see any "bias" in disagreeing over policy issues.

[*bfine32*]

(07-14-2016, 12:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You can't seriously be comparing a disagreement over policy to a claim of bias based on race?

Tell me Bfine, would you admit that you are "biased" against me just because you disagree with me on many issues?  I don't see any "bias" in disagreeing over policy issues.

You seriously can be comparing me to a SCOTUS Justice?

By it's nature I would be biased on you when facing those issues; especially if I attacked your nature and not the points. 

Do you thing RBG should have made the comments about Trump. Calling him a faker among other things?

It might have been more understandable if she would have just said I disagree with many of his stances on issues, but when you attack the character you have shown bias. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-14-2016, 11:05 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Justices are suppose to make interpretations based on what they believe the Constitution says. That's 100% fueled by their ideology, and they are selected for that ideology.

This is a very different concept from suggesting that justice should be blind as we are not referring to due process in a criminal trial where all defendants should have an equal application of the law.

She can speak her mind on this. It's not directly related to the Constitution, and, even if it were, she's free to discuss her views on that too. Is anyone surprised that one of the most liberal justices who is a woman doesn't like Trump?

Once again no one is arguing her right to speak on the subject, She is a SCJ, she's pretty much above the law. The question at hand was should she especially given her comments directed at the character of the Candidate and that she suggested that she would relinquish her duty to the Nation if he were elected.

My opinion is that she should not have spoken; as it breaks long standing precedence among the Justices and the pettiness of her comments simply add to the issue. 

[JustWinBaby]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. We know Justices are political, as it plays into the nomination process to begin with (at least the past few decades). Making a comment doesn't change who they are.

And the simple fact is, being appointed for life means they are immune to political influences. That is very different than having political leanings.

I'm not sure why anything they say publicly would have any bearing on how they rule. And although much work is done to discern their politics thru an analysis of rulings, when they make it clear where they stand (as if there was ever any doubt), then that's probably a good thing.

A better question is if it's inappropriate to comment on cases pending in lower courts. I would tend to say THAT is wrong, because one or two comments don't necessarily reflect the view of the entire SCOTUS. And if a case is going to find it's way to the SCOTUS, it's important they rule on it (along with consenting and dissenting opinions) to clarify nuances and establish qualifications and boundaries.

[BmorePat87]

(07-14-2016, 03:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Once again no one is arguing her right to speak on the subject, She is a SCJ, she's pretty much above the law. The question at hand was should she especially given her comments directed at the character of the Candidate and that she suggested that she would relinquish her duty to the Nation if he were elected.

My opinion is that she should not have spoken; as it breaks long standing precedence among the Justices and the pettiness of her comments simply add to the issue. 

I answers yes to that question earlier. I was a little quick to say "the end" with regards to my opinion, so I decided to add more to my opinion on why she should. She's not apolitical.

[Bengalzona]

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-14-2016, 03:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Once again no one is arguing her right to speak on the subject, She is a SCJ, she's pretty much above the law. The question at hand was should she especially given her comments directed at the character of the Candidate and that she suggested that she would relinquish her duty to the Nation if he were elected.

My opinion is that she should not have spoken; as it breaks long standing precedence among the Justices and the pettiness of her comments simply add to the issue. 

Huh?

Quote:Justice Ginsburg, 83, said she would not leave her job “as long as I can do it full steam.”

[SunsetBengal]

(07-13-2016, 10:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: Because she rules on law...not opinion.

Funny, how she walked all of her opinion back today..

[*michaelsean*]

Doesn't bother me.

[JustWinBaby]

I was going to say it isn't appropriate for the SCOTUS to criticize the POTUS (or candidates) and vice versa....but I guess Obama already broke that precedent.

[Belsnickel]

(07-14-2016, 07:49 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I was going to say it isn't appropriate for the SCOTUS to criticize the POTUS (or candidates) and vice versa....but I guess Obama already broke that precedent.

It was broken well before Obama was in office.

[*bfine32*]

Seems Ginsburg doesn't think she should have made the comments:

http://wtkr.com/2016/07/14/ruth-bader-ginsburg-i-regret-making-donald-trump-remarks/

Quote:On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” Ginsburg said in a statement. “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.”

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-14-2016, 11:15 AM)Au165 Wrote: As it was already said, you want to hold people accountable for what they say then that would need to be done here as well. His is more egregious though as his doesn't just effect him, like saying you are leaving, he built his campaign and a lot of his popularity early on with these claims that appeal to the lower end sheep that will believe anything.

Ok good grief. I know dang well that they are all spouting off at the mouth and that none of them will be accountable when it comes time to be. Jeesh. By the way, you don't really know if he can or can't build a wall yet. So you might want to wait that one out. Seems he's getting a lot of intel about how to effectively build a wall from Israel. So I don't think he's going to let that one go so easily. Some of the rest of it, like getting Mexico to pay for it, that might be a little unrealistic, but you never know.