Do you think Justice Ruth Bader should resign?

1. 80

   jackclee lmposted 7 years ago

   Do you think Justice Ruth Bader should resign?
   
   Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg calls Trump a 'faker,' and injected herself into the Presidential race. Is this proper behavior for a Supreme Court Justice?
   She was nominated and appointed to the court by President Bill Clinton.

   replyreport
2. 39

   ChristinSposted 7 years ago

   Yes, she should totally throw out all her years of dedicated service because she dared to have a personal opinion unrelated to a court case.  Are you actually serious?

   replyreport
   1. 80

      jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, I am serious. As a judge, she is suppose to be impartial. She can have an opinion but it should be private. I hope you see the difference. I would say the same if it was any other justice. She should know better.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Dont Taze Me Broposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      It's not the first time for her revealing she is not an impartial Justice.. I think her age is showing.

      replyreport
   3. 80

      jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      She finally saw the light -
      http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ … 4-10-16-40

      replyreport
3. 60

   Dont Taze Me Broposted 7 years ago

   
   
   Well you know what Bill Clinton would do. We have George H. W. Bush to thank for Ginsburg's appointment! Had he been a true conservative like Reagan he'd have won re-election and we never would have had to suffer Clinton, his wife and his appointments. The whole world would be a better place. I blame that Bush.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Haha, I haven't heard that one for a while, it's Bush's fault...
      But seriously, I think Supreme Court justices should be term limited. I don't want important decisions being made by people who are too old and may not have all their faculties in plac

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Dont Taze Me Broposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Considering that when the constitution gave them terms for life the average life span was 35 years I doubt the writers of the constitution dreamed any justice would ever live to be in their 70s (average life span today is 78.7) or older.

      replyreport
4. 51

   bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years ago

   Definitely she should resign. The whole concept of the SCOTUS is for the jurists to be impartial in making their decisions. When Trump becomes president, Justice Ginsburg either needs to resign or recuse herself off of an decision that may involve the executive office or President Trump.
   
   To have a personal opinion even if you are a SC justice is OK, but to voice it in public during an election is against any value of having a SC.
   This is a perfect revelation that the Supreme Court has been making their recent or even earlier decision based on their political leaning.
   
   Because SC justices have a lifetime office, there should be some sort of competency testing when at advanced ages like most of the court indicate problems. A SC justice that doesn't know the difference between the constitution and the impartiality of the SC needs to step down.
   
   She is acting more like a Queen than a SC justice. And we don't support royalty in the US constitution. If she was a mere judge in any court, she would have been sanctioned for her bias. Because the SC has jurisdiction over most everything, her statements about a presidential candidate are the same as if she was hearing any case involving Donald Trump.
   
   The SC should not be above Ethics, and neither should SC justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

   replyreport
5. 86

   tamarawilhiteposted 7 years ago

   Yes, because the court is supposed to maintain an image of neutrality and she came clearly down on one side.

   replyreport
6. 0

   savvydatingposted 7 years ago

   A judge is required to be impartial. I cannot imagine what Justice Bader was thinking. Very strange that she should break the rules of propriety. But the good news is that she actually did Trump a favor. Now many people realize quite clearly that Hillary would appoint another Justice who thinks like Bader-Ginsburg---someone who absolutely cannot be impartial. This may help those who are on the fence about voting for Trump. As you know, I'm no fan of Trump, but the question for me at this juncture is, "Do I really want important Supreme Court decisions to be decided by the likes of Bader Ginsburg? The answer is simple. No way. Consequently, if I refuse to vote for Trump, then I've basically given my vote for Hillary. I'm not there yet, but Justice Bader-Ginsburg has brought me closer.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Dont Taze Me Broposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Savvy,can't imagine what she was thinking?The Trumpster is right:Ruth Bader Ginsburg's 'mind is shot' because she was brain damaged by chemotherapy in 2009 http://www.naturalnews.com/054650_Ruth_ … Trump.html

      replyreport
7. 65

   WordCrafter09posted 7 years ago

   There's a difference between having an opinion and having an agenda (personal, professional, political, and/or emotional).   Someone who is mature and capable and has the integrity required for that kind of position can have an opinion and still step outside of it when doing that is important.  So, opinion, by itself, is different from "opinion-plus-any/all-of-the-other-things-mentioned".
   
   Not everyone has the either/or thinking that is, I think, most commonly seen in people who grew up without having a parent/other solid adult help them "polish up"/refine the thinking skills that are generally associated with the kind of socialization that happens as kids' worlds get bigger (but before they hit  eighteen or so and go out into the world to be influenced by a bunch of of other kids their age).
   
   If people haven't learned not to be blockheads with either/or thinking by then then they'll probably either never learn, or else they'll eventually learn a little bit as the life unfolds and teaches them to adjust their thinking.
   
   When something or someone is so important (or important to you) that you are appropriately committed/dedicated to doing the very best job you can possibly do you know how to step yourself and/or your ego and/or anything else you, personally, have going on that's about you.
   
   To me, unless there's some law/rule that says someone in her position is not allowed to ever offer a "personal take on a matter"  (particularly a very public matter that is separate from any "court doings/case") I don't see the "personal-take" thing as reason to resign.  If there's some rule/law about it, then that's another thing; but I can't imagine she isn't familiar with such a rule/law at this stage in the game.

   replyreport
   1. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I disagree on all your points

      replyreport
   2. 80

      jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Me whelan, you are miss guided on this topic. If we have to have a law for every action, there will be no room for anything else. It is common sense and part of judgement when you are in a position of power to show restraint.

      replyreport