HolidayBuyer's Guide

Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Hey Dave, Should Ginsburg recuse herself?

by Edward ODaniel / March 19, 2004 7:07 AM PST
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Hey Dave, Should Ginsburg recuse herself?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Hey Dave, Should Ginsburg recuse herself?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
How about Scalia not excusing himself from the Cheney Case?
by Diana Forum moderator / March 19, 2004 7:26 AM PST
Collapse -
Sure enough and if you read it you can see...

there is no conflict of interest.

This about Ginsburg has ONLY been brought up because of the Liberal's howling that Scalia should recuse himself for going on a hunting trip (planned well in advance I might add) despite the fact that he has in no way indicated he has pre-judged the case although the same cannot be said for Ginsburg.

Most conservatives (and actually most liberals too) are well aware (because of past events such as that brought up below about Scalia by DK) that any judge who thinks for a moment that they cannot be objective will recuse. Although Ginsburg has already made statements regarding her beliefs on the matter most of us were willing to trust that she feels that she (like all the rest) can still be objective and rule on law rather than personal beliefs. If the Left doesn't think so about a Conservative judge though then maybe we shouldn't be so "trusting" about a Liberal justice.

The "point" here (as DK is so fond of saying) is the HYPOCRACY of those demanding Scalia recuse but not Ginsburg although she is the ONLY one of the two who has publicly stated her views.

Collapse -
Re:you read it you can see -- MANY disagree, Ed
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / March 21, 2004 5:31 AM PST
Collapse -
It looks like you're ducking the point Dave. Should Ginsburg recuse?
by Kiddpeat / March 21, 2004 2:04 PM PST

We already know what you and the left think about Scalia. We want to know if you're ready to be even handed. The Court will survive just fine I think.

Collapse -
Re: It looks like you're ducking the point Dave. Should Ginsburg recuse?

Hi, KP.

That's not an editorial from "the left;" it's from the center. And I've already explained how Ginsburg's actions differ from Scalia's, so that she need not recuse herself.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Since I missed it while I was away ...

... care to give a Readers' Digest version again for my benefit?

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Re:Since I missed it while I was away ...
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / March 22, 2004 12:58 PM PST
Collapse -
How convenient! She can advocate a position, but not recuse herself. Scalia

takes no position, but is expected to recuse himself. Sounds like a double standard used in an attempt to 'rig' the court's decision.

Collapse -
Your 'explanation' only showed that you failed to understand...

that Ginsburg is "GUILTY" of what you think Scalia is--an opinion.

Trouble with your "explanation" is that you seem unaware that she has PUBLICLY stated her opinion regarding the generalities if not the actual case. Scalia has not even done that.

You better do some reading to preceed your writing if you want it to even appear credible.

Collapse -
And many disagree about ginsburg's refusal -- so answer the quesstion (NT)
by Edward ODaniel / March 22, 2004 7:13 AM PST
Collapse -
Re: Hey Dave, Should Ginsburg recuse herself?
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / March 19, 2004 12:21 PM PST

Hi, Ed.

Scalia recused himself from the flag case because he'd specifically spoken about that issue, pre-announcing a position on it. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, so even acknowledging that fact is not a problem for Ginsburg; otoh, if she were to say what the law should be in a case that comes before the Court, hat would be a different story.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Well?
by C1ay / March 21, 2004 7:57 PM PST
Collapse -
Re:Re: Hey Dave, Should Ginsburg recuse herself?
by Edward ODaniel / March 20, 2004 3:31 AM PST
otoh, if she were to say what the law should be in a case that comes before the Court, hat [SIC] would be a different story.

ignoring for the moment that she (Ginsburg) has indeed done EXACTLY THAT, your words indicate here that, since you are aware that Scalia HAS NOT indicated in any way "what the law should be", there is no reason for Scalia to recuse himself either.

Thank you for the admission that YOUR (and your party's) upset about his refusal is purely political.
Collapse -
Do YOU think she should?
by Josh K / March 22, 2004 12:08 AM PST

Careful, Ed. Answering "No" to that question means you'll have to stand in defense of someone who is considered a "liberal."

Wink

Collapse -
No Josh I don't because...
by Edward ODaniel / March 22, 2004 7:23 AM PST

I believe that those on the bench have the integrity to know when they should and when they shouldn't. At least I believe they have it unless and until they demonstrate they haven't and at this point NONE have demonstrated any lack of integrity.

They are fully aware of their personal leanings but are also aware of their ability to judge based on existing law rather than feelings and beliefs.

One should note that none of the other justices are calling for either to recuse themselves because they too know that if either had any doubt of their ability to be impartial they would recuse themselves as Scalia already has done a time or two and as a couple of others have also in past years.

Now, let us hear your thoughts on recusal refusal.

Collapse -
Re:No Josh I don't because...
by Josh K / March 22, 2004 10:56 AM PST

Although I haven't read much more about these cases than what I've picked up here, I'm inclined to agree with what DK said, that if Roe v. Wade were presently being argued before the Court, that it would not be appropriate for Ginsburg to be publicly aligning herself with one side or the other.

Whether Scalia's hunting trips are technically wrong, I don't know, but I think they leave a bad smell.

Collapse -
That explains why you would side with DK...
by Edward ODaniel / March 23, 2004 2:30 AM PST

Take a gander at these links and see if the appearance isn't that with her mind already made up she should recuse.

Dave's comment was pure obfuscation as this is NOT about Roe v. Wade but the fact that she has spoken at events sponsored by the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund which gives her a personal involvement with them.

http://www.issues2000.org/Court/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg_Abortion.htm

and Ginsburg declined to comment.

and http://family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0031143.cfm
"Justice Ginsburg, in fact, is actually speaking at advocacy organizations . . . (that) file briefs in the United States Supreme Court," he said.

The same questions of propriety, he added, can't be raised over the Scalia-Cheney duck hunt.

"There was no allegation that there was any business discussed," Staver said. "There was no allegation of anything else that's improper."


and especially the NOW legal defense fund site at http://www.nowldef.org/html/events/ginsburg.shtml

and this one which, although definitely biased, is worth reading.
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/march/0312_ginsburg_now.shtml

As I said, I still think both have the integrity to decide appropriately but Ginsburg's sponsoring is far more associative than duck hunting in different duck blinds. The media (and Dave) question Scalia's integrity but not Ginsburg's--why?

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE 2017

Cameras that make great holiday gifts

Let them start the new year with a step up in photo and video quality from a phone.