My initial reaction was that she shouldn't make comments.

 

However, I'm not really sure why she can't. Does it impact her ability to be an impartial jurist? Any moreso than being appointed by a particular POTUS?

IMO it impacts her judgement on issues of if it's going to pertain to Trump and something he does.

IMO it impacts her judgement on issues of if it's going to pertain to Trump and something he does.

 

Wouldn't we say the same about a case involving the POTUS that appointed her?

My initial reaction was that she shouldn't make comments.

 

However, I'm not really sure why she can't. Does it impact her ability to be an impartial jurist? Any moreso than being appointed by a particular POTUS?

 

Is RBG pulling a Trump?

I just want jurist to apolitical and to focus on the Rule of Law, I know that is a rather Pollyanna view. How could she ever sit on a case in which Trump is a party to the case after statements like this. At best she would only appear biased at worst she actually would be biased.

IMO it impacts her judgement on issues of if it's going to pertain to Trump and something he does.

 

Does she get to vote for the president? ...or have the opportunity to vote against Trump in the presidential election?

I just want jurist to apolitical and to focus on the Rule of Law, I know that is a rather Pollyanna view. How could she ever sit on a case in which Trump is a party to the case after statements like this. At best she would only appear biased at worst she actually would be biased.

 

I'll ask again. How can she be unbiased in a case that supports the POTUS that appointed her?

I'll ask again. How can she be unbiased in a case that supports the POTUS that appointed her?

You tell me? That would go for all Justices.

You tell me? That would go for all Justices.

 

Exactly.

 

So how is this different?

Is it an written or unwritten rule that justices can not oppose nor endorse a political candidate? In the code of conduct or something like that? They should impeach her.

Edited July 13, 201610 yr by Colonels_Wear_Blue
Grammar

Is it an written or unwritten rule that justices can not oppose nor endorse a political candidate? In the code of conduct or something like that? They should impeach her.

 

If it's an unwritten rule how can it be in the code of conduct?

I'll ask again. How can she be unbiased in a case that supports the POTUS that appointed her?

 

I think the NY times editorial board said it best when criticizing Ginsburg on these comments.

 

Imagine this election ending in a scenario similar to the 2000 election. There is no way in the public eye for Ginsburg to make an impartial ruling as a matter of law.

 

There is no rule against it but it has been common practice for the Supreme Court not to make their opinions public during an election on a particular candidate.

@Getslow, it depends... is the FBI asking the question or is Congress and the American people asking the question?

 

There is a document called Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

 

 

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.

 

© Other Political Activity. A judge should not engage in any other political activity. This provision does not prevent a judge from engaging in activities described in Canon 4.

 

COMMENTARY

 

The term “political organization” refers to a political party, a group affiliated with a political party or candidate for public office, or an entity whose principal purpose is to advocate for or against political candidates or parties in connection with elections for public office.

 

Here's the link: Code of Conduct for United States Judges | United States Courts

I think the NY times editorial board said it best when criticizing Ginsburg on these comments.

 

Imagine this election ending in a scenario similar to the 2000 election. There is no way in the public eye for Ginsburg to make an impartial ruling as a matter of law.

 

There is no rule against it but it has been common practice for the Supreme Court not to make their opinions public during an election on a particular candidate.

 

I get the optics of it but I still argue it's no different than the other side of the equation.

I'm of the belief that there is no such thing as an impartial justice/judge/jurist anyway. Misnomer if you aks me.