Justice Ginsburg Makes TRAGIC Announcement
Hello June 26, 2017, 02:07:41 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
 
   Home   Help Arcade Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Justice Ginsburg Makes TRAGIC Announcement  (Read 355 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
(Hidden)

« on: June 09, 2017, 07:18:26 am »

She just learned that she may have to recuse herself from the upcoming Trump Travel Ban case over her open bias against President Trump. Federal law requires “any justice …shall disqualify himself [or herself] in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. He shall also disqualify himself … where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.”

http://www.usanewspolitics.com/2017/06/08/ruth-bader-ginsburg-makes-tragic-announcement/

Very TRAGIC. For Liberals.
Logged
2x Thumb Down


(Hidden)

« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2017, 07:29:46 am »

That may be so, but Trump should not count on the vote of his own nominee to the Court:  http://time.com/4705858/neil-gorsuch-religious-minorities/
Logged
2x Thumb Up


(Hidden)

« Reply #2 on: June 09, 2017, 08:35:03 am »

Accept this case doesn't have anything to do with religious minorities. That's just what you guys wanna make it about because you see things from a skewed and fake perspective.
Logged
2x Thumb Down


(Hidden)

« Reply #3 on: June 09, 2017, 12:45:26 pm »

She just learned that she may have to recuse herself from the upcoming Trump Travel Ban case over her open bias against President Trump. Federal law requires “any justice …shall disqualify himself [or herself] in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. He shall also disqualify himself … where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.”

http://www.usanewspolitics.com/2017/06/08/ruth-bader-ginsburg-makes-tragic-announcement/

Very TRAGIC. For Liberals.

She damn well better recuse herself.  However whether she does or not doesn't really matter.
There are 9 justices.  4 conservative, 4 liberal, and 1 who is a toss up (Kennedy).
If there is a tie, the liberals would win because the lower court's block of the ban would hold.

If Ginsburg does vote it will be
5L vs 4C  if Kennedy votes with the liberals
4L vs 5C  if Kennedy votes with the conservatives

If Ginsburg does NOT vote, it will be:
4L vs 4C if Kennedy votes with the liberals
3L vs 5C if Kennedy votes with the conservatives

So, whether Ginsburg votes or not doesn't matter.  It's all up to Kennedy.

Kennedy does tend to vote conservative though. 

Ginsburg is 84 years old.  Trump is going to shape the Supreme Court for the next 20 years. 
Logged
2x Thumb Down


(Hidden)

« Reply #4 on: June 09, 2017, 09:23:42 pm »

Accept this case doesn't have anything to do with religious minorities. That's just what you guys wanna make it about because you see things from a skewed and fake perspective.
In the words of our President, It is a Muslim ban.
Logged
2x Thumb Up


(Hidden)

« Reply #5 on: June 10, 2017, 12:17:48 am »

Actually, the judicial canons that apply to federal judges do not apply to justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. They are not bound by any particular required code of ethics or rules of ethics, and the only check on a Supreme Court justice is impeachment. No federal Supreme Court justice is ever technically required to recuse herself from any case.

I'm not trying to pick a liberal vs. conservative fight. I'm just pointing out that there is an exception carved out for Supreme Court justices.
Logged
3x Thumb Up


(Hidden)

« Reply #6 on: June 10, 2017, 05:20:23 am »

Actually, the judicial canons that apply to federal judges do not apply to justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. They are not bound by any particular required code of ethics or rules of ethics, and the only check on a Supreme Court justice is impeachment. No federal Supreme Court justice is ever technically required to recuse herself from any case.

I'm not trying to pick a liberal vs. conservative fight. I'm just pointing out that there is an exception carved out for Supreme Court justices.

You are correct.  Any judge would have to recuse themselves, but a judge makes decisions all on their own.  A supreme court justice is supposed to recuse themselves, but of course, Ginsburg won't, because she is a corrupt, biased, bitch.  A Justice can't really make any decision on their own - which is their "check" in power.  They are but 1 of 9.

However, as I pointed out yesterday.. it doesn't matter what Ginsburg does.  If Kennedy votes conservative, the vote will be either a 5 to 3 or 5 to 4 win for the conservatives depending on whether Ginsburg recuses itself or not.  Kennedy tends to vote conservative.
Logged
2x Thumb Down


(Hidden)

« Reply #7 on: June 10, 2017, 05:53:43 am »

I think Frederick oversimplifies the dynamics of a supreme court case. While each justice has a dominant ideology, they rightly should consider each case on its merits and it would be premature to predict how any would vote in any particular case.  A big hint ill come as to how they rule on the motion to put the ban into effect until they rule on the merits.  And remember, they may decide not to hear the case at all, which would leave the lower court orders in place, or may wait until the lower courts rule on the merits.

BTW, all you Trump supporters out there, answer me this:  the original Executive order placed a temporary 120 day hold on immigration from 7 countries while stronger vetting measures could be developed.  More than 120 days have passed since then.  Where are the stronger vetting measures?  He was just trying to fulfill a campaign promise.
Logged
2x Thumb Up


(Hidden)

« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2017, 07:26:34 am »

That's a tragically uninformed article from a tragically biased source, lol.
Logged
2x Thumb Up


(Hidden)

« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2017, 07:47:47 am »

I think Frederick oversimplifies the dynamics of a supreme court case. While each justice has a dominant ideology, they rightly should consider each case on its merits and it would be premature to predict how any would vote in any particular case.  A big hint ill come as to how they rule on the motion to put the ban into effect until they rule on the merits.  And remember, they may decide not to hear the case at all, which would leave the lower court orders in place, or may wait until the lower courts rule on the merits.

BTW, all you Trump supporters out there, answer me this:  the original Executive order placed a temporary 120 day hold on immigration from 7 countries while stronger vetting measures could be developed.  More than 120 days have passed since then.  Where are the stronger vetting measures?  He was just trying to fulfill a campaign promise.

Ideally, all the justices should base each case on it's own merit.. but unfortunately, that is not the way it works.  Both parties are guilty of "going with the pack" but the democraps are far more guilty of it.  Democraps RARELY split from the pack and vote their own conscience.  That goes for congress as well.

The original executive order indefinitely barred Syrian refugees from entering the United States, suspended all refugee admissions for 120 days and blocked citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries, refugees or otherwise, from entering the United States for 90 days: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.  However, that order was blocked.   He revised the order, and the revised order also got blocked.  Until the blocks are cleared, nothing can be done. I don't think you will be seeing a whole lot more blocks, because the moonbats are retreating back into their caves.
Logged
2x Thumb Down


(Hidden)

« Reply #10 on: June 10, 2017, 10:00:23 am »

I think Frederick oversimplifies the dynamics of a supreme court case. While each justice has a dominant ideology, they rightly should consider each case on its merits and it would be premature to predict how any would vote in any particular case.  A big hint ill come as to how they rule on the motion to put the ban into effect until they rule on the merits.  And remember, they may decide not to hear the case at all, which would leave the lower court orders in place, or may wait until the lower courts rule on the merits.

BTW, all you Trump supporters out there, answer me this:  the original Executive order placed a temporary 120 day hold on immigration from 7 countries while stronger vetting measures could be developed.  More than 120 days have passed since then.  Where are the stronger vetting measures?  He was just trying to fulfill a campaign promise.

Ideally, all the justices should base each case on it's own merit.. but unfortunately, that is not the way it works.  Both parties are guilty of "going with the pack" but the democraps are far more guilty of it.  Democraps RARELY split from the pack and vote their own conscience.  That goes for congress as well.

The original executive order indefinitely barred Syrian refugees from entering the United States, suspended all refugee admissions for 120 days and blocked citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries, refugees or otherwise, from entering the United States for 90 days: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.  However, that order was blocked.   He revised the order, and the revised order also got blocked.  Until the blocks are cleared, nothing can be done. I don't think you will be seeing a whole lot more blocks, because the moonbats are retreating back into their caves.
So immigration policy cannot be reviewed until the travel ban is in place?   That makes no sense at all.
Logged
2x Thumb Up


Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  

* Permissions
You can't post new topics.
You can't post replies.
You can't post attachments.
You can't modify your posts.
BBCode Enabled
Smilies Enabled
[img] Enabled
HTML Disabled

 
Jump to:  

Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
Obama Administration Makes Stunning Announcement On Gay Rights Gay News leatherbear 1 537 Last post February 18, 2012, 05:44:03 am
by fancydude
The Tragic Story of Local Porn Star Joey Stefano Gay News andymyn 1 1106 Last post January 07, 2015, 11:03:57 am
by cannonmc
First Anthony Weiner, now Ruth Bader Ginsburg Politics & Debate « 1 2 » Frederick 21 382 Last post June 01, 2017, 11:46:20 am
by Frederick