Justice Ginsberg publicly insulted Trump. She gave her opinion that Trump is unfit to lead. Should she have to recuse herself on any cases that may come before her involving Donald Trump? Most Justices believe a sitting President can't be indicted. He can be removed by impeachment and then indicted.Otherwise you would have presidents preparing to defend themselves in court all the time. On the tax payer dime I might add.
So, should any Justice who has publicly complimented Trump (are there any?) recuse [their selve] on any cases that may come involving Donald Trump?
I think presidents should defend themselves all the time, preferably in frequent public press conferences.
Least we forget, Ginsberg married two homosexuals before it was legal. She broke the law and later ruled on the changing of the same law. She obviously takes the progressive view of the SCOTUS as being a mini legislative branch when required.
"The same-sex weddings Ginsburg has officiated were all conducted in Washington, DC, where it was legal for the couples to marry."
You may doubt this source, if so, please provide dates and places where Ginsburg performed illegal marriages.
Ok, you'll need to clarify how/when Kavanaugh stated he was for indictment of a sitting president. I do admit that when he worked with Ken Starr, he seemed to support the impeachment process - but I don't think he ever said anything about indictment or prosecution. And he seems to have changed his mind somewhat regarding impeachment, which as a free man is his prerogative.
As a "free man" his mind is free to wander where it will. But as a public servant (a SCOTUS judge) one should not act on personal bias or even have the appearance of such. That is why when Kavanaugh joins SCOTUS (is there any doubt), the honorable action for him would be to recuse himself on issues of indictment regarding President Trump.
I've looked at a number of sites and it is my opin... (
I tried your suggested google search and the third result from 1997 is:https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2573&context=facpub
You write, "[it is ironic, for this google search, that] it is next to impossible to find an entry that addresses this question prior to Nov 2016".
At first I supposed that you made the common confused synonymization of ironic and coincident. See:http://cisl.edu/wordpress/lessons/coincidence-vs-irony-in-english.htm
But then I realized that you were leaving a hint that we should look for the hidden workings of the deep state in google search results.
You want us to see that google results, give a preponderance of recent events over older events, NOT because people living in the present moment might find more recent events more relevant.
No you want us to realize that the deep state controls google searches and is plotting ways to foil President Trump's agenda.
Exactly! And what's with the obfuscation of hypoth... (
OK, so you can be sarcastic as well, but that still doesn't explain why that article isn't just another arrow from the left's quill used to prevent a constitutionally elected President from accomplishing his agenda.
Well, for most (all?) previous presidents these questions have not come up during SCOTUS judge confirmation proceedings.
Kavanaugh seems to have thought these "arrows" were OK to use against a Democratic president, but not a Republican president, and now a Republican wants him on SCOTUS.
OK, let's see if I can clarify. Of course anyone can "ask" a judge to recuse - but the argument put forward for the judge to consider has got to be more than a collection of accusations thrown at the wall to see if anything will stick. We're still waiting for Mueller to produce something concrete. And of course any decision regarding government is political...and?
I think the concern of some, is that President Trump appointed Kavanaugh because of his views about indicting a sitting president (he says it can't be done). Some may think it a bit sketchy for a president, who may be subject to indictment, to put someone in a position to rule otherwise. It seems reasonable that there might be at the least an appearance of conflict of interest, and hence a need to recuse.
I'm trying to figure out your point for offering u... (
The figures relevant to stalling are the number of days from nomination to confirmation for appellate judges:
Bush I - 83
Clinton - 109
Bush II - 108
Trump - 138
Super Dave wrote:
I was responding to your complaint that "Republicans did it too" and corrected your mistake.
What mistake did I make? Was my supposition (that Fit2BTied was as upset when Republicans stalled President Obama's appointments as when Democrats stall President Trump's) mistaken? You might be right. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Actually, you confirmed in your reply that you do not believe a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Given what you believe true this Wednesday, is President Trump guilty of any charges of which he is accused?
I am not aware of President Trump being charged with any crimes. And to my knowledge, President Trump has not been found guilty of any charges.
In our legal system, a person is not guilty until proven so through due process. Of course people like to use the word guilty to impugn the character of others all the time, but that generally has nothing to do with any determination under our laws.
With this common usage, I'm sure Donald John Trump is guilty of a lot of things, maybe even a few admirable.
McConnell said when asked by the news media about ... (
How was President Obama a "faux president", did he not win the Electoral College vote, the same as President Trump?
And as far as secret motivations, I suspect we all have motivation that are secret (even to ourselves).
Super Dave wrote:
The Republicans did it within Senate rules, exactly as Democrats in power did under a GOP POTUS. It was sleasy, but within the rules.
Hey, if you don't like the rules, change them - if you can. It all depends on how the power lies. Might makes the rules.
Exactly! And what's with the obfuscation of hypot... (
What exactly are you unclear about, regarding these issues?
Perhaps, because all our previous presidents have not been as remarkable as President Trump, these question have not come up?
What precisely are those "mounting personal liabilities" Mr Trump is facing. How would the SCOTUS rule that someone is innocent until proven guilty. I suggest the framers would be offended by your presumption of guilt.
I would suggest that you have a misunderstanding of the role of "presumption of innocence" in our legal system.
Do the police arrest people because they presume they are innocent?
Do prosecutors prosecute because they presume the defendant is innocent?
We hope that judges and jurors will presume the defendant is innocent, until proven guilty beyond the amount of doubt required for the class of crime.
As a private citizen, I may presume anything I want. If I am assigned the public office of juror, I am required to suppress the effects of any of my presumptions (e.g. why bring to trial, one who is innocent).
I think, in our system, a juror is not even supposed to consider their own personal knowledge of the case, but rely only on information presented at trial.
It's not hard to determine how the Brookings Institute leans. The arguments in the article might have some merit if they weren't all based on politically motivated accusations that have not been substantiated legally. If absurdity can be used to halt our democratic process, and if the republicans commit to it the way democrats have, we might as well shut down DC and start over.
I'm not sure what argument you are making... Are you saying, that only people who see no bias, are allowed to ask for a judge to recuse?
And how is any decision made regarding government not political?