![\"headdesk\"](\"http:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/03\/headdesk.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court, actually all the judges in all the courts, must refrain from entering the political realm. The only exception, and that is limited, are judges who are elected to their posts. Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, crossed that line in a major way the other day, and now people are calling for her to resign. It isn\u2019t just Republicans, but some Democrats are saying she went to far. Here are some of the details from the Washington Post<\/a>:<\/p>\n It’s a political cliche at this point to joke about moving to another country if a certain presidential candidate doesn’t win. Gobs of Americans were headed to Canada if George W. Bush was reelected in 2004. A similar contingent threatened to flood across our northern border when Barack Obama was elected and reelected.<\/b><\/p>\n Yes, and we\u2019re still waiting for them to leave.<\/p>\n Generally, though, you don’t hear a Supreme Court justice talking like this. In fact, you generally don’t hear a Supreme Court justice talking at all \u2014 much less about the big political issues of the day.<\/b><\/p>\n For the simple reason that it may violate the canon of ethics. But then, liberals and progressives, but I repeat myself, aren\u2019t ones to let a little thing like ethics stand in their way.<\/p>\n Most justices aren’t Ruth Bader Ginsburg, though. And in a new New York Times interview, Ginsburg doesn’t hold a thing back when it comes to the 2016 election.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cI can\u2019t imagine what this place would be \u2014 I can\u2019t imagine what the country would be \u2014 with Donald Trump as our president,\u201d Ginsburg told the Times’ Adam Liptak. \u201cFor the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be \u2014 I don\u2019t even want to contemplate that.\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n This from a justice who has never made a decision that didn\u2019t favor the power of the federal government over the rights of the individual or of the states. If Trump wins, and nominates what I believe are called \u201cStrict Constitutional Constructionists<\/a>\u201d to the courts, and they are approved by the senate, then her dreams of a Progressive centralized state run by Progressive Elites will come to an end.<\/p>\n Ginsburg also recalled something her late husband said about such matters: “Now it\u2019s time for us to move to New Zealand.” <\/b>This appears to be a joke, but Ginsburg’s sentiment here is crystal clear: She thinks Donald Trump would be a dangerous president. And in saying it, she goes to a place justices almost never do \u2014 and perhaps never have \u2014 for some very good reasons.<\/b><\/p>\n The reasons are very simple. Judges must be seen as impartial. Ruth Bader-Ginsburg has show that she is anything but impartial and her recent statements have just confirmed what many have known for decades.<\/p>\n Ginsburg is known for pushing the bounds of a justice’s public comments and has earned something of a cult following on the left<\/a>. But some say she just went too far. <\/b><\/p>\n \u201cI find it baffling actually that she says these things,” said Arthur Hellman, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh. “She must know that she shouldn\u2019t be. However tempted she might be, she shouldn\u2019t be doing it.” <\/b><\/p>\n I don\u2019t know why you find it so baffling Mr. Hellman. Bader-Ginsburg\u2019s contempt for the Constitution<\/a> is well known. Then we have a problem with any cases regarding Donald Trump that make it to the Supreme Court. Since Bader-Ginsburg put her foot in her mouth, people are saying that she will have no choice but to recuse herself from sitting on any case that involves Donald Trump.<\/p>\n Others wondered what impact this might have on Ginsburg’s decision to hear cases involving Trump. <\/b><\/p>\n 2\/2 If there’s a redo of Bush v. Gore, how does Ginsburg not recuse herself, given her Trump comments? <\/b><\/p>\n \u2014 Jeff Greenfield (@greenfield64) July 11, 2016<\/b><\/p>\n And that’s really a key reason justices don’t talk like Ginsburg did. Sometimes they have to hear cases involving political issues and people. Having offered their unprompted opinions about such things can lead to questions about prejudice and potential recusal from future cases.<\/b><\/p>\n Justice Bader-Ginsburg has forgotten a very important rule. It is far better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one\u2019s mouth and remove all doubt. Ruth Bader-Ginsburg has just removed all doubt that she is an utter and complete fool.<\/p>\n As Greenfield notes, Ginsburg was a part of the court that decided who the president was when the 2000 election was thrown to the Supreme Court, so this isn’t uncharted territory. Had she said something similar about either Bush or Al Gore, would she have been able to hear the case? <\/b><\/p>\n Ethically? No, but we have already determined that Bader-Ginsburg has ethical issues, otherwise she would have kept her personal opinions to herself. I\u2019m no lawyer, but I did look up the case on Wikipedia<\/a>. Granted, Wikipedia, but this entry has a lot of citations across the internet. If I\u2019m reading it correctly, and I will bow to those with superior knowledge, it appears that Bader-Ginsburg ruled against George Bush. With her recent comments, she can no longer be seen as an impartial jurist with regards to Donald Trump.<\/p>\n Arthur Hellman said Ginsburg’s comments could muddy the waters when it comes to decisions not just involving Trump but also his policies \u2014 something that could come up regularly should he win the presidency. <\/b><\/p>\n “It would cast doubt on her impartiality in those decisions,” Hellman said. “If she has expressed herself as opposing the election of Donald Trump, her vote to strike down a Trump policy would be under a cloud.”<\/b><\/p>\n The list of people in the Washington Post article<\/a>, along with a list of judges who have been admonished for shooting their mouths off, is extensive. Now the problem is, what\u2019s to be done with Bader-Ginsburg? There is only one way to deal with her, and that is to impeach her<\/a>. It wouldn\u2019t be very difficult to impeach Ruth Bader-Ginsburg in the House of Representatives, that only requires a simple majority. However, in the Senate, where she would be tried, it requires a 2\/3rd<\/sup> majority to remove her from the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n Considering the makeup of the Senate, and how the Democrats are totally corrupt to the point of protecting the criminality of any Democrat, (*cough* Hillary Clinton *cough), it would be impossible to remove her. The only thing left is to hope she either steps down and retires, or finally croaks and is carried off in a body bag.<\/p>\n The odds of the latter happening are actually rather good. She is not in good health and is in her 80\u2019s. It\u2019s a fair bet that President Trump will be nominating several new justices during his term in office. If he does nominate constructionists, it could cause Ruth Bader-Ginsburg to have a stroke. Hmm, that would be one way to get another nomination for the court. \ud83d\ude42<\/p>\n Thatisall<\/p>\n ~The Angry Webmaster~<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n [yasr_visitor_votes size=”medium”]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Good day all. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, after knifing the late Antonin Scalia in the back, decided to demonstrate why she is unfit to be on the bench. She entered into the political realm and went after Donald Trump<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[100,71,8,115,219],"tags":[11,94,52,303,222,15,8,110,34,235],"class_list":["post-21673","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-moonbat","category-news-of-the-day","category-politics","category-stupidity-crime","category-the-good-idea-fairy","tag-america","tag-chump-of-the-week","tag-constitution","tag-donald-trump","tag-good-idea-fairy","tag-incompetence","tag-politics","tag-scoamf","tag-stupidity","tag-supreme-court"],"views":550,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21673","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=21673"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21673\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":38361,"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21673\/revisions\/38361"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=21673"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=21673"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=21673"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n