Trump demands that liberal SCOTUS justices recuse themselves

[Jack4freedom]

It's just Sotomayor and Ginsburg. And it has to do with their gross misconduct. They absolutely should recuse themselves from cases that involve the administration. They've shown through their own comments that they are the ones with bias on the courts.

Gross misconduct.....More of your typical unfounded lies and distortions.

 

[Mick]

I don't agree with that. The Supreme Court Justices are independent entities and are not to be subject to outside influence. They are there to maintain a balance of opinion. No president should try to effect any influence on his own Court nominees or on those appointed by other presidents.
Where a president is concerned it's hands off the Supreme Court, in my opinion.

I agree.....until justices accuse other justices, without evidence, of bias(like Sotomayor).....or justices publicly criticize a sitting President(like Ginsburg). Then it is no longer hands off. Such behavior has zero room on the court. The President was right to call for their recusal.

 

[Jack4freedom]

You don't know about the Biden rule? Seriously?

Biden said that when you have a President from one party and a Senate of the other party, there should be no SCOTUS nominations in a Presidential election year. Mitch just followed Biden's rule. It makes sense.

Obama got both his nominees from non-Presidential election years and they were both leftist extremists. Democrats would never have confirmed such a Republican pick. Mitch is way more reasonable than Biden or Chuckie are

Both of Obama’s Supreme Court nominees were confirmed by 60+ US Senators. Trump/McConnell are the first to confirm a guy with only 51. Look out if the Democrats ever get both the Senate and The White House again. It could be a lot sooner than you think. If they get it I hope they nominate and confirm a couple 35 year old lefties.

 

[middleview]

It's called the Joe Biden rule. Tough practicing what you preach?

Tough inventing a rule on the fly..unless you don't mind being completely dishonest.

Biden expressed an opinion in the summer of 1992. Just a couple of months before the election.
Obama nominated Garland with 11 months to go until the election. He didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992.

It was a hypothetical question, since no Supreme Court seat was vacant.

 

[Jack4freedom]

I agree.....until justices accuse other justices, without evidence, of bias(like Sotomayor).....or justices publicly criticize a sitting President(like Ginsburg). Then it is no longer hands off. Such behavior has zero room on the court. The President was right to call for their recusal.

Was he also right to call for the refusal of an American from Indiana to because he was of Mexican heritage? Lol....Once again, Trumps idiotic demand that Supreme Court Justices should recuse themselves is ridiculous. Anyone defending it is an imbecile at best.

 

[kaz]

Both of Obama’s Supreme Court nominees were confirmed by 60+ US Senators. Trump/McConnell are the first to confirm a guy with only 51. Look out if the Democrats ever get both the Senate and The White House again. It could be a lot sooner than you think. If they get it I hope they nominate and confirm a couple 35 year old lefties.

Funny stuff. I how you take data that shows how biased and political the Democrats are and use it somehow to attack Republicans.

Yes, it's Democrats who changed the standard for Republicans to that not being a leftist is not being tolerated. Republicans always confirmed leftist President nominations based on legal qualifications only.

So you're right over how overtly partisan the Democrats are. True story

 

[Jack4freedom]

You don't know about the Biden rule? Seriously?

Biden said that when you have a President from one party and a Senate of the other party, there should be no SCOTUS nominations in a Presidential election year. Mitch just followed Biden's rule. It makes sense.

Obama got both his nominees from non-Presidential election years and they were both leftist extremists. Democrats would never have confirmed such a Republican pick. Mitch is way more reasonable than Biden or Chuckie are

Making a suggestion does not equate to making a rule champ....Get a grip.....That’s pure Sean Hannity lies and distortions...

 

[kaz]

Making a suggestion does not equate to making a rule champ....Get a grip.....That’s pure Sean Hannity lies and distortions...

He didn't "make a suggestion." That's a lie and a distortion. He was clearly threatening HW and he was the Democrat Senate leader at the time. To call that a "suggestion" is just clueless. If the Republican Senate lead said something directly in their control, you would never refer to it as a "suggestion." If Democrats didn't have double standards, you'd have none at all

 

[Jack4freedom]

Funny stuff. I how you take data that shows how biased and political the Democrats are and use it somehow to attack Republicans.

Yes, it's Democrats who changed the standard for Republicans to that not being a leftist is not being tolerated. Republicans always confirmed leftist President nominations based on legal qualifications only.

So you're right over how overtly partisan the Democrats are. True story

Bork, the guy that blatantly helped Nixon obstruct Justice (Saturday Night Massacre) and Kavanaugh who cut his teeth in politics being a political hack as Ken Starr’s hatchet man were both bad picks. They were both ultra partisan nominations who would never be confirmed by 60 votes.

 

[middleview]

I agree.....until justices accuse other justices, without evidence, of bias(like Sotomayor).....or justices publicly criticize a sitting President(like Ginsburg). Then it is no longer hands off. Such behavior has zero room on the court. The President was right to call for their recusal.

March 14, 2013 -- intro: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, possibly the most outspoken judge in the history of the Supreme Court, has no problem with airing his political opinion in or out of court. Over the years, Scalia has shown his feistiness on any number of issues.

But in recent years, he has become more outspoken, even going so far as to say this month in an opinion that President Obama's immigration policy "boggles the mind."

Scalia's Two Cents: Justice Draws Criticism For Political Views in Decisions

Justice Antonin Scalia--possibly the most outspoken judge in the history of the Supreme Court--has no problem with airing his political opinion in or out of court.

abcnews.go.com

 

[Drumcollie]

He says they’re biased against him and should not participate in “Trump-related cases.”

Meanwhile, Trump is fine with GOP Trump/GOP hacks sitting on such cases, including Clarence Thomas, whose wife actually works on behalf of Trump, even helping him with his governmental purges.

Trumplandia! Dear Leader Trump speaks! He demands that all judges be his lackeys!

Trump Launches New Attack On Supreme Court, Demands Liberal Justices Recuse

The president wants associate justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg to sit out any "Trump-related" cases.

m.huffpost.com

They try to make law, and they are partisan, they need to go.

 

[Drumcollie]

America is a lie, it obviously cannot live up to its own hype. That's what all the screeching and blame is for; we can't deal with it.

You are not America huh?

 

[kaz]

Bork, the guy that blatantly helped Nixon obstruct Justice (Saturday Night Massacre) and Kavanaugh who cut his teeth in politics being a political hack as Ken Starr’s hatchet man were both bad picks. They were both ultra partisan nominations who would never be confirmed by 60 votes.

Kavanaugh is a centrist who would have gotten 90+ votes in other times. There sure is nothing extreme about his voting record so far. Hyper-partisan was the disgusting performance of the Democrats. What goes around comes around.

Bork was no more extreme than any Obama or Clinton Presidential appointment. It's the that he was right not left you couldn't handle. You're not against extremists, you want them. You just want leftist extremists

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

It's just Sotomayor and Ginsburg. And it has to do with their gross misconduct. They absolutely should recuse themselves from cases that involve the administration. They've shown through their own comments that they are the ones with bias on the courts.

As opposed to the SCOTUS 5, who are shattering all precedent by interceding in lower court cases at a record clip to do Trump’s bidding at every turn?

Should they recuse themselves?

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

You don't know about the Biden rule? Seriously?

Biden said that when you have a President from one party and a Senate of the other party, there should be no SCOTUS nominations in a Presidential election year. Mitch just followed Biden's rule. It makes sense.

Obama got both his nominees from non-Presidential election years and they were both leftist extremists. Democrats would never have confirmed such a Republican pick. Mitch is way more reasonable than Biden or Chuckie are

There has never been any such “rule,” nor has any such outrage been perpetrated until Moscow Mitch laid the Constitution on the floor and pissed all over it. As the GOP rabble cheered. You people must own your lawlessness.

 

[kaz]

There has never been any such “rule,” nor has any such outrage been perpetrated until Moscow Mitch laid the Constitution on the floor and pissed all over it. As the GOP rabble cheered. You people must own your lawlessness.

Wow, you hate Biden, huh? So you think he's a real piece of shit for telling HW that he was going to sit on an HW Presidential nomination for a year, huh?

You are a man of principles, sir. I mean they are CNN's principles, not yours. But at least they are principles!

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Wow, you hate Biden, huh? So you think he's a real piece of shit for telling HW that he was going to sit on an HW Presidential nomination for a year, huh?

You are a man of principles, sir. I mean they are CNN's principles, not yours. But at least they are principles!

Translation: You are correct, sir. There has never been any such “rule,” and it has never been done until Moscow Mitch did it. Sometimes I feel guilty about my deplorable GOP cult, and I try to blame what they do on others.

;-)

 

[kaz]

Translation: You are correct, sir. There has never been any such “rule,” and it has never been done until Moscow Mitch did it. Sometimes I feel guilty about my deplorable GOP cult, and I try to blame what they do on others.

;-)

Wow, another government school paraphraser. You hear what you want to hear instead of what was said.

The Biden rule is the rule that Presidents don't appoint a nominee in a Presidential election year when the Senate and Presidency are in different parties.

It's called the Biden Rule because it was created by Joe Biden.

You're welcome

 

[Jack4freedom]

He didn't "make a suggestion." That's a lie and a distortion. He was clearly threatening HW and he was the Democrat Senate leader at the time. To call that a "suggestion" is just clueless. If the Republican Senate lead said something directly in their control, you would never refer to it as a "suggestion." If Democrats didn't have double standards, you'd have none at all

Get yourself a dictionary and look up the word RULE,champ. Then get back to me.

 

[kaz]

Get yourself a dictionary and look up the word RULE,champ. Then get back to me.

I didn't say it's an official Senate rule, Hercules. I just said it's a "rule." Rules can be formal or informal. Republicans are still following the Biden Rule. Just like Democrats are. Just you won't admit that until we have a Democrat Senate again