Ruth Bader-Ginsburg has died

[homersapien 11,361]

16 hours ago, Grumps said:

I thought Sessions did the right thing by recusing himself since he was part of Trump's campaign and Trump's campaign was being investigated. ACB would not be ruling on her nomination/confirmation. She would not be any more likely to side with Trump's wishes than would Gorsuch or Kavanaugh.

Sorry you are wrong again.

No I am not.  You are making a distinction without a difference.

Trump clearly and explicitly stated said one of the primary reasons he was nominating her was the possibility she might cast the deciding vote (for him) in an upcoming election dispute.

If you don't see how that compromises her integrity - not to mention the entire SCOTUS - if she didn't recuse herself, you don't understand what integrity is in the first place. 

I hope that's not true for her.

[SocialCircle 570]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No I am not.  You are making a distinction without a difference.

Trump clearly and explicitly stated said one of the primary reasons he was nominating her was the possibility she might cast the deciding vote (for him) in an upcoming election dispute.

If you don't see how that compromises her integrity - not to mention the entire SCOTUS - if she didn't recuse herself, you don't understand what integrity is in the first place. 

I hope that's not true for her.

Justice Sotomayer has spoken poorly of Trump (as did RGB), so perhaps she should recuse herself too? That is if she has any integrity. 

[Leftfield 2,593]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

You don’t see the similarities?  Fresh off a case now on the court ruling on her case. Refused to recuse. If that’s not clear then nothing is.  If Barrett is a strict constructionist she will file accordingly. Not illegally as a favor to the person who nominated her.  SC is supposed to be above this. I believe Barrett is. Kagan is clearly not. 

Just because there are similarities does not mean the previous situation should have anything to do with what should be done now. You're saying that because Kagan did not recuse herself previously, then Barrett should not have to recuse herself now? The ol' "two wrongs make a right" argument? And the cherry on top - the judge you support you believe to be above corruption, even if she does not recuse herself, but not the one you disagree with because she didn't. Lovely.

The funny thing is, on the surface of the Kagan recusal I actually agree with you. Not sure we'll ever know exactly how much she had to do with the legislation beforehand, but there seemed to me to be enough evidence to warrant a recusal (though I'll admit to not doing much reading on it).

[homersapien 11,361]

5 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

Justice Sotomayer has spoken poorly of Trump (as did RGB), so perhaps she should recuse herself too? That is if she has any integrity. 

Getting dumber every day I see.

[Leftfield 2,593]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

This is incredibly hypocritical and self-owning.

If she repays Trump by doing when he expects her do, her integrity is fine.  But if she double crosses him, it reflects badly on her integrity? 

Are you living in Bizarro world?  You got it exactly backwards.

(But thanks for helping to make the case she should recuse herself, both for her personal best interests and the best interests of the country.)

I'm confused, what are we disagreeing with here? When did I say her integrity would be fine if she were to do what Trump expected of her?

[SocialCircle 570]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Getting dumber every day I see.

The hypocrisy of both parties is easy to point out and is low hanging fruit. 

[homersapien 11,361]

16 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I'm confused, what are we disagreeing with here? When did I say her integrity would be fine if she were to do what Trump expected of her?

That was meant to be addressed to social, not you.  Sorry, my bad.

[Leftfield 2,593]

Just now, homersapien said:

That was addressed to social, not you.

So I got a facepalm for no reason! 😆

[homersapien 11,361]

3 hours ago, Leftfield said:

So I got a facepalm for no reason! 😆

Not from me.

But to clarify, if she "double-crossed" Trump it would serve to reinforce her integrity.  If she supports Trump it will damage her integrity.

That's exactly why it's in her best interests to recuse herself in such a case, as well as the country's.

[jj3jordan 2,050]

42 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Just because there are similarities does not mean the previous situation should have anything to do with what should be done now. You're saying that because Kagan did not recuse herself previously, then Barrett should not have to recuse herself now? The ol' "two wrongs make a right" argument? And the cherry on top - the judge you support you believe to be above corruption, even if she does not recuse herself, but not the one you disagree with because she didn't. Lovely.

The funny thing is, on the surface of the Kagan recusal I actually agree with you. Not sure we'll ever know exactly how much she had to do with the legislation beforehand, but there seemed to me to be enough evidence to warrant a recusal (though I'll admit to not doing much reading on it).

You are the first to assess that Kagan’s non recusal was wrong.  So a question. How long after appointment before the recusal impetus should stop? In this case it’s not long. Not long enough for you at least. So how long would be okay before she could rule on a case involving Trump? Cavanagh and Gorsuch also? Is there a time limit or running clock?

[Leftfield 2,593]

12 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

You are the first to assess that Kagan’s non recusal was wrong.  So a question. How long after appointment before the recusal impetus should stop? In this case it’s not long. Not long enough for you at least. So how long would be okay before she could rule on a case involving Trump? Cavanagh and Gorsuch also? Is there a time limit or running clock?

This isn't really that difficult. I said that she should recuse herself from anything involving the election, not anything involving Trump. As has been pointed out, Trump specifically stated early on that he wanted to fill the vacancy in time for the election in case there were any legal issues. I would think a new judge would want to recuse themselves even under normal circumstances, but considering that I would think it would be a no-brainer.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

25 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

This isn't really that difficult. I said that she should recuse herself from anything involving the election, not anything involving Trump. As has been pointed out, Trump specifically stated early on that he wanted to fill the vacancy in time for the election in case there were any legal issues. I would think a new judge would want to recuse themselves even under normal circumstances, but considering that I would think it would be a no-brainer.

The Supreme Court judges don’t owe a president anything. If RBG has passed say one year prior he’d still be nominating the same person from what I understand. You fast forward a year to where we are now you still have the same judges, an election that may or may not have to be decided in the SC. Whatever Trump says has no bearing on if a judge refuses themselves. Regardless, both sides of the court are supposed to be people of integrity of the highest caliber. As Titan said, once they are in they are in.   She could easily decide against trump on things once she is in. 

[Leftfield 2,593]

13 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Whatever Trump says has no bearing on if a judge refuses themselves. 

You don't think it causes raised eyebrows when he says he wants his nomination in place in time for election challenges?

14 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Regardless, both sides of the court are supposed to be people of integrity of the highest caliber.

Should I take this to mean they never need to recuse themselves?

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

You don't think it causes raised eyebrows when he says he wants his nomination in place in time for election challenges?

Should I take this to mean they never need to recuse themselves?

Raises eyebrows towards Trump perhaps, but he says stupid crap all the time. I seriously doubt that Barrett feels any need to be beholden to trump. If this happened last year and if he said the same thing about getting his nomination in before election year would you still feel that she recuse herself?

 I am not saying that they should never recuse themselves, this is especially true if they find themselves in a situation of a direct conflict of interest. But what trump says is not a conflict of interest for her. 

[Leftfield 2,593]

58 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

If this happened last year and if he said the same thing about getting his nomination in before election year would you still feel that she recuse herself?

Why do you keep harping on a time limit? In some cases, yes, time could make a difference, but the fact is he didn’t nominate her last year, and certainly not during an intense election period, which, oh by the way, is one of the reasons not to nominate someone during an election year.  

Not that it makes any difference, but if he had been doing the same things a year ago, i.e. doing everything he could to question the legitimacy of the voting process, and then specifically said he wanted someone in place in case he had to mount a legal challenge against the election, then yes, they should still recuse themselves. Same as you would expect someone to recuse themselves for at one time having an interest in a company that was being sued, even if it had been years ago. In a vacuum, if he had simply said he wanted his pick in in place before the election, that would have been entirely different.

Also, I continue to be amazed and disturbed at the number of people that think we should dismiss what Trump says simply because “he says stupid stuff.” So, which parts are we supposed to take seriously?

Going back to the point about nominating in an election year, this is exactly why you don’t do it. It puts the nominee under unfair ethical scrutiny. If there is a legal challenge and she judges for Trump, she’ll be considered by the Democrats to be an in-the-pocket crony. If she goes against, she’ll be considered by the Republicans a turncoat and disappointment. Both of these views could eventually be changed, the latter far more easily than the former, but it would take years (just ask John Roberts how Republicans still feel about him). In this situation the only way Barrett and the decision by the Court can come out unscathed is for her to recuse herself.  

[wdefromtx 3,159]

4 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Why do you keep harping on a time limit? In some cases, yes, time could make a difference, but the fact is he didn’t nominate her last year, and certainly not during an intense election period, which, oh by the way, is one of the reasons not to nominate someone during an election year.  

Not that it makes any difference, but if he had been doing the same things a year ago, i.e. doing everything he could to question the legitimacy of the voting process, and then specifically said he wanted someone in place in case he had to mount a legal challenge against the election, then yes, they should still recuse themselves. Same as you would expect someone to recuse themselves for at one time having an interest in a company that was being sued, even if it had been years ago. In a vacuum, if he had simply said he wanted his pick in in place before the election, that would have been entirely different.

Also, I continue to be amazed and disturbed at the number of people that think we should dismiss what Trump says simply because “he says stupid stuff.” So, which parts are we supposed to take seriously?

Going back to the point about nominating in an election year, this is exactly why you don’t do it. It puts the nominee under unfair ethical scrutiny. If there is a legal challenge and she judges for Trump, she’ll be considered by the Democrats to be an in-the-pocket crony. If she goes against, she’ll be considered by the Republicans a turncoat and disappointment. Both of these views could eventually be changed, the latter far more easily than the former, but it would take years (just ask John Roberts how Republicans still feel about him). In this situation the only way Barrett and the decision by the Court can come out unscathed is for her to recuse herself.  

I bring up a time limit because you keep harping on it being an election year. To me the fact that it is an election year doesn't make any difference whatsoever. 

I will dismiss what trump says when I feel it has no bearing on the matter. Doesn't matter what trump says, Barret is her own person and as I have mentioned I don't think she will feel obligated to rule in favor of trump. I saw where you said that if she double crosses trump what would it say about her integrity. You have it in your mind that she already feels a loyalty to trump. While it is natural to have a loyalty in that situation, I am sure his other two judges do as well. Her loyalty is supposed to be to uphold the Constitution and I trust her to either recuse herself if she thinks she needs to and I trust her not to as well. 

 I seriously doubt that Barret is worried what conservatives or liberals think of what her decision is. History has shown that the judges on the court don't always vote how we thought they would. Gorsuch has sided with the liberal judges several times already and I doubt he loses sleep at night over what the conservatives think. This is one of the good things that come out of lifetime appointments.

 

 

[Grumps 3,704]

On 9/28/2020 at 1:15 PM, homersapien said:

No I am not.  You are making a distinction without a difference.

Trump clearly and explicitly stated said one of the primary reasons he was nominating her was the possibility she might cast the deciding vote (for him) in an upcoming election dispute.

If you don't see how that compromises her integrity - not to mention the entire SCOTUS - if she didn't recuse herself, you don't understand what integrity is in the first place. 

I hope that's not true for her.

If you are not wrong then please explain to me why Sessions recused himself.

[homersapien 11,361]

15 hours ago, Grumps said:

If you are not wrong then please explain to me why Sessions recused himself.

That's obvious, as you well know.

[RunInRed 16,383]