125
126

Impeach Ruth Bader Ginsburg (foxnews.com)

novvva が 投稿

全 68 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Braxo [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

Sen. Ted Cruz ... called instead for judicial retention elections every eight years – something that does not currently exist.

I don't like that idea. I prefer it where a judge sits for life as the Constitution was written.

[–]Slixem [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I think the judges should do what is outlined in the constitution, not determine what is an is not constitutional. Judicial review doesn't exist in the constitution.

[–]bbuck96 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yeah but at the same time there needs to be a check on legislative power besides the executive. And, frankly, judicial review has worked for a pretty long time

[–]storminnormies [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think justices should sit for a fixed amount of time, to reduce the gamesmanship in replacement appointments.

[–]awksomepenguin [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Eight years is too short...I'd do something like 20 years. That's long enough that they don't have to worry about political pressures, but short enough to hold them more accountable.

[–]Gratstya [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Want to expand on that?

Otherwise your post kind of reads as if you only hold that position because that's what the constitution says.

[–]Braxo [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I don't want a Justice to worry about their re-election and have it affect their decisions. I don't want lobbies to affect Justices and their decisions.

I'm fine with the ebb and flow of power and politics in the Legislative and Executive branch. I don't want the Judicial branch to be affected by that current.

To me, Cruz is upset because he doesn't believe he'll be able to impeach the justice, so he wants to change the Constitution. His idea is just too disruptive from the what the founding father's intended and really goes against the ideals.

[–]KennesawMtnLandis [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

There are pros and cons to having justices run for "re-election". I like it better as the Constitution intended, justices serve for life and are free from partisanship and don't respond to changing values and mores.

[–]actofgod22 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What judges are currently free from partisanship?

[–]conredditive [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I posted this elsewhere. My issue is mostly with the commentators I've been seeing who apparently have no sense of history (or maybe it's just the ones I've seen):

I'm not one to defend liberals - but the "appropriateness" or "impartiality" of the court is a completely made up thing. Scalia and Alito may also have done and said things that also may have crossed a line.

But what is most interesting is the complete lack of historical awareness in the commentary on this. I've seen talking heads on CNN and elsewhere say stupid things like, "this has never happened in the history of the court, etc."

The history of the court is, in fact, riddled with politics and had several justices not only seek political offices, but also do so while on the court and many others were encouraged to run. It's so ridiculous to believe that the Supreme Court has been some unbiased body untouched by the politics of the nation.

Why is it that we can predict how many of the cases will come out? It's because we know the justices' political and legal biases. Why is it that nominations are so contentious? It's because (as it always has been) there is some politics at play at the Supreme Court whether it goes against our myth of impartiality or not.

This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion of its historical context. But the media isn't helping there.

(All this said, in the present context of this election, I wish she hadn't said what she said.)

[–]YepYepYeahYep [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

William Howard Taft was president and then 10 years later became a SC Justice.

[–]coleytrickle [スコア非表示]  (23子コメント)

Impeach someone for an opinion? Who is in their position because of opinions? Seems rash.

[–]GetMemedKiddo [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

The only argument I can see is that it could be a sign that she does not have the impartiality needed to be a SC justice.

It's odd though. She criticized a person, not an idea. How could her opinions of 1 person affect her rulings on SC cases?

I think her conduct was inappropriate but not an impeachable offense in my opinion.

[–]coleytrickle [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

If SC justices were impartial, people wouldn't have an idea of the way the justices would vote on issues.

It was inappropriate, but that seems to be a trend that a lot of people are echoing so far this election cycle. All over the spectrum!

[–]JoleneAL [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

If SC justices were impartial people ...

That's exactly what they are supposed to be. Impartial and following the constitution. But it has been muddy and changed over the years to be something completely different than what the founders set forth.

[–]aged_monkeyBernieBro [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Not really. Legal scholars prefer certain traditions of how to interpret the constitution. There's no 'perfect' way to interpret it. People know that, which is why that nomination is such a big deal.

[–]YepYepYeahYep [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Woodrow Wilson and FDR started this. They used the SCOTUS as a weapon.

[–]tehForce [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

She has been speaking out over the last few years about her opinions to the point that she is injecting herself into politics which eventually shape the court. In my opinion it is quite improper.

[–]StLouis4President [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

She was appointed in, what, 1993? And her impartiality, to my knowledge, hasn't really been challenged before now. I'm not too worried. She's allowed to speak her mind, and unless there's a case involving Trump on the SC docket anytime soon, there's no reason for any recusal or resignation.

[–]StandardGOPartyAmerica First [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

A reason for this would be if a decision related to the presidential election, like if Trump/Clinton had a Bush/Gore issue that made it to the SCOTUS, then she would have to recuse herself. It's uncertain if she would do that though since she obviously hates Trump, so if she resigned it would not be an issue.

[–]conservative_dem [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

Sandra Day O'Connor didn't recuse and said similar things about Democrats beforw the 2000 election...

[–]azwethinkweizm [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Would it have even mattered? The vote on whether or not the Florida Supreme Court violated the constitution was 7-2!

[–]JoleneAL [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

... source link please.

[–]conservative_dem [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Trying to find a better source for you, but for the time being:

Some legal scholars have argued that she should have recused herself from this case, citing several reports that she became upset when the media initially announced that Gore had won Florida, with her husband explaining that they would have to wait another four years before retiring to Arizona.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Day_O%27Connor#Voting_record_and_deciding_votes

[–]Braxo [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

The source article is an interesting read. Even Scalia's son worked for the law firm that was representing Bush in the Florida courts.

http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1117&context=faculty_scholarship

[–]conservative_dem [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Ooh that's a good one too, I forgot about that.

[–]Captain_Yid [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

I wouldn't say she's impeachable, but she has plainly violated Rule 5 of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges - you would hope for a little more out of a SCOTUS judge.

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#f

[–]tehForce [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

So what is the recourse for judge that clearly violates the code of conduct?

[–]Rommel79Conservative [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I wouldn't impeach her, but I would censure her.

[–]I_hate_alot_a_lotLibertarian Conservative [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

28 U.S. Code 455 says "Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

Is she making impartial court decisions in the United State's highest court based on Constitutional law or other proceeding law, or is she simply playing Team Democrat / Anti-Republican? With her latest comments, we don't know. And she apologizing because she knows she is in the wrong. She has absolute vitriol for Trump and there is no way she apologized because she feels bad. She knows she fucked up.

[–]liljohn5115Conservative [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

She has not remained impartial. What if she has to rule on him winning the election. Or he becomes President and is sued for something and she has to rule on that. She is no longer impartial as a judge is supposed to be.

Section 5A(3)(d) prohibits a candidate for judicial office from making statements that commit the candidate regarding cases, controversies or issues likely to come before the court. As a corollary, a candidate should emphasize in any public statement the candidate’s duty to uphold the law regardless of his or her personal views. See also Section 3B(9) and (10), the general rule on public comment by judges. Section 5A(3)(d) does not prohibit a candidate from making pledges or promises respecting improvements in court administration. Nor does this Section prohibit an incumbent judge from making private statements to other judges or court personnel in the performance of judicial duties. This Section applies to any statement made in the process of securing judicial office, such as statements to commissions charged with judicial selection and tenure and legislative bodies confirming appointment. See also Rule 8.2 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

From American Bar Association's Model Code of Judicial Conduct: Canon 5

[–]say_or_do [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

While I don't believe she should be impeached I actually don't like her in a seat on the Supreme Court because she's an activist. Supreme Court justices should not be picked because of their political beliefs but because they follow the spirit and letter of the law or legislature they work on.

I don't like any person in the Supreme Court who is an activist. Yet it really seems like the only people in SCOTUS who actually respect law and the constitution are conservatives.

[–]aboardthegravyboat [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I'm gonna go with Cruz on this and say that we should be looking at an Amendment instead.

[–]CarolinaPunk#NEVERTRUMP [スコア非表示]  (13子コメント)

Or no? She did not do anything wrong. Unbecoming and really bad form but not impeachable.

[–]CAGUnion404 [スコア非表示]  (12子コメント)

Well, she did violate the 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.

(C) 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.

-Source

[–]sprigglespraggle [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

Well, the Code doesn't apply to SCOTUS justices, so the statement that "she did not do anything wrong" is technically correct.

[–]CAGUnion404 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

While the Code may not specifically apply to SCOTUS Justices, I think the document is clear that the guidelines were written so that someone in her position, or any other judge, can not have doubt casted upon their ability to remain impartial. The court system works because people can trust judges to put aside their personal feelings and opinions and weigh the facts of the case. If judges were also political activists it would weaken peoples trust in the system. In the case of Justice Ginsburg, it's not that she broke any particular rule or law with her comments, it's that she laid out her bias plain for all to see, and that weakens the public's trust in the system.

[–]sprigglespraggle [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

No argument here on any of your points.

Problem is, impeaching Ginsburg sets a terrible standard for what is "impeachable," and once it's set, turnabout is fair play. Conservative justices have made their biases known in the past, and I'm sure will make their biases know again in the future, and Congress won't always be GOP-held.

[–]actofgod22 [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

Where does it say that it does not apply?

[–]CarolinaPunk#NEVERTRUMP [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

She is not a judge. That code only applies to judges.

[–]sprigglespraggle [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Literally the first substantive sentence: "This Code applies to United States circuit judges, district judges, Court of International Trade judges, Court of Federal Claims judges, bankruptcy judges, and magistrate judges."

Supreme Court Justices are not included in that list; inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.

Edit: it's worth noting that this Code does not apply to state judges and justices, either. Typically, however, they are bound by state codes of ethics.

[–]CarolinaPunk#NEVERTRUMP [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

She is not a judge.

[–]dontkillgamefish [スコア非表示]  (9子コメント)

If Trump is elected POTUS, she needs to resign. No way the American people could trust her to not be bias towards Trump.

[–]optionhome [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

The sweet irony is that after Trump is elected during his term she is going to have to resign for health reasons or might actually die. And then her big liberal mouth can be replaced on the court with Cruz. I hope she just resigns rather than dies because I want her to soak in how her ilk have turned the court into just another political organ while Cruz will rule based on the written word of the Constitution.

[–]mpgiii [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

That's messed up, man. I don't want liberal justices as much as the next guy but hoping they die soon in order to get a conservative on there just isn't right. Show a little respect

[–]TheXarath [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Yeah that's what the liberals did when Scalia died - slandered him and said it was a good thing. I'd like to think we're better than that. Ginsburg has served the country and I disagree with her on about everything but that doesn't mean I want her dead.

[–]YepYepYeahYep [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Cruz won't become a SC Justice. The Senate confirms justices. He current senate hates him.

[–]lukesterboi1 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

There really should be term limits for every existing political office. Politicians, like diapers, must be changed very often and for the same reason.

[–]uiucrower [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Just like Trump's concerns with Gonzalo Curiel and the Trump University case, Trump is right in having genuine concerns about Ginsburg's ability and/or willingness to handle cases fairly if Trump becomes president. Judges need to be independent in fact as well as appearance.

[–]joereynolds15 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

But first she needs to save Tom Brady

[–]JIDF-Shill [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Had a conservative justice said this he'd already be in prison.

[–]JoleneAL [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Unfortunately, term limits is going to have to be placed on these people.

[–]storminnormies [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

They should get a single, fixed period of appointment with no renewal. Make it 10 years, or 15, or 20. After that they are no longer on the court and cannot be reappointed. One less game to play on retiring over health/waiting to die to jockey for advantage on the court.

I also cannot stand another 30 years of Sotomayer and Kagan on the bench. Unpalatable.