Odds on Trump's Impeachment

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by grean

I meant in their rulings.

""Ginsburg has slammed Trump three times in the last week.

• “He has no consistency about him," Ginsburg told CNN late Monday. "He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. ... How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that."
• She told the New York Times in an interview published online Sunday, "I can't imagine what this place would be — I can't imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president…For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.” She told Times reporter Adam Liptak that it reminded her of something her husband, Martin, who died in 2010, would have said: "Now it's time for us to move to New Zealand."
• When asked by Associated Press reporter Mark Sherman about a Trump victory, Ginsburg said: "I don't want to think about that possibility."

If a judge publicly came out and said these things about you to the press, would you want her to be the judge ruling over your case? Do you think based on her many public statements it would be possible that she may have a bias against you?

"The Federal Statute
The rules demanding disqualification are set forth very clearly by federal statute, 28 USC 455:
Any justice…shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. He shall also disqualify himself…where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.”
The law’s application to the case at hand is straight forward. Is there any doubt that Ginsburg’s comments demonstrate a personal bias or prejudice against President Trump? Indeed, they show an outright hostility."

[grean]

The rules demanding disqualification are set forth very clearly by federal statute, 28 USC 455:
Any justice…shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. He shall also disqualify himself…where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.”


So we'd only have Kennedy left....

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by grean

The rules demanding disqualification are set forth very clearly by federal statute, 28 USC 455:
Any justice…shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. He shall also disqualify himself…where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.”


So we'd only have Kennedy left....

Do you have any links were other supreme court justices have came out and made similar public statements to a reporter, and then ruled on a case involving the person they made the public statements about?


"Ginsburg has slammed Trump three times in the last week.

• “He has no consistency about him," Ginsburg told CNN late Monday. "He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. ... How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that."
• She told the New York Times in an interview published online Sunday, "I can't imagine what this place would be — I can't imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president…For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.” She told Times reporter Adam Liptak that it reminded her of something her husband, Martin, who died in 2010, would have said: "Now it's time for us to move to New Zealand."
• When asked by Associated Press reporter Mark Sherman about a Trump victory, Ginsburg said: "I don't want to think about that possibility."

[grean]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...itical-n609416

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by grean

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...itical-n609416

The only thing remotely close in your link is this.

"That time a Supreme Court justice's bias was overheard: Sandra Day O’Connor came under fire in 2000 after she was overheard saying “this is terrible” at an election night party when it appeared that Democrat Al Gore had won. "

Do you feel that is comparable?

Ginsburg has slammed Trump three times in the last week.

• “He has no consistency about him," Ginsburg told CNN late Monday. "He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. ... How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that."
• She told the New York Times in an interview published online Sunday, "I can't imagine what this place would be — I can't imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president…For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.” She told Times reporter Adam Liptak that it reminded her of something her husband, Martin, who died in 2010, would have said: "Now it's time for us to move to New Zealand."
• When asked by Associated Press reporter Mark Sherman about a Trump victory, Ginsburg said: "I don't want to think about that possibility."

[grean]

Well explain how her comments about his consistency, the press' lack of preasure on his tax returns, or his ego make a difference in the cases.


I'll give you that saying she doesn't want to imagine a Trump presidency was a bit edgy.

I don't, however,think that would prove bias or be relevant to the case. Justices often feel one way and because of the law put their personal feelings aside and judge accordingly.

Sandra Day's was deciding if Gore or Bush would be president and she said it was horrible when Gore was previously thought to have won. I don't believe she should have recused herself then either.


They are people with opinions like everyone else. I don't for one minute think Justice O' conner let her personal feelings affect her professional judgement, however.

[grean]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Actually, it was just short of a defeat for the administration. The Supreme Court upheld the bulk of the injunction. It stays in place with regard to any immigrant with significant connections to the U.S. included every named Plaintiff in the two suits. The Court also gave broad guidance on extending the injunction to others. The Supreme Court also added a requirement that the parties brief the mootness issue, which I noted earlier is the way that the Court can duck the broader, and to Republican justices important issue of expanding executive authority at the expense of Congress, without putting their seal of approval on Trump's odious and bigoted order. Had Trump not run if fucking mother and completely fucked up the implementation of not one, but two EO's he might have had a good shot at getting his actions affirmed. But he'd rather be the center of attention and spout bigoted lies than actually quietly accomplish something. Finally, it appears that Trump has, at best, three votes on the Court for affirming the entire EO. He lost Kennedy and the Chief Justice on overturning the entire injunction. Frankly, I expected that to be 5-4, not 6-3. Roberts siding with the Democrats was somewhat unexpected. But he may well be very, very offended by Trump's bigotry. I also saw speculation that Gorsuch may also jump ship to the majority in light of a few things he's done since joining the Court, particularly his concurrence today in the Hicks v. U.S. case. He went out of his way to criticize the government in that case because, surprisingly, he has a firm sense of right and wrong.

I'm not sure how a 90 day ban is still relevent since atvthis point now the 90 days have passed. You say just shy of a defeat. I'm hoping they just thump on it more....

[grean]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/...ry?id=16694778

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by grean

Well explain how her comments about his consistency, the press' lack of preasure on his tax returns, or his ego make a difference in the cases.


I'll give you that saying she doesn't want to imagine a Trump presidency was a bit edgy..

"The Fourth Circuit’s majority opinion that the Supreme Court will be reviewing turns on a finding that Trump’s stated reason for issuing the travel-ban “was provided in bad faith, as a pretext for its religious purpose.”
The majority found that, although Trump said he was acting to protect the public, his true motive was to punish Muslims.
So, one issue before the Supreme Court will be whether or not Trump’s reason for the travel ban was provided “in bad faith.” Justice Ginsburg has publicly labeled then-candidate Trump a “faker” who “says whatever comes into his head at the moment.”


http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...rious-rbg-must


"Ginsburg has slammed Trump three times in the last week.

• “He has no consistency about him," Ginsburg told CNN late Monday. "He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. ... How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that."
• She told the New York Times in an interview published online Sunday, "I can't imagine what this place would be — I can't imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president…For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.” She told Times reporter Adam Liptak that it reminded her of something her husband, Martin, who died in 2010, would have said: "Now it's time for us to move to New Zealand."
• When asked by Associated Press reporter Mark Sherman about a Trump victory, Ginsburg said: "I don't want to think about that possibility."

[grean]

It seems to me he fucked himself with his loud mouth about wanting to ban Muslims. Nothing she said can change it.

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by grean

It seems to me he fucked himself with his loud mouth about wanting to ban Muslims. Nothing she said can change it.

And yet the injunction was removed regardless, with no mention of "Muslims" or religion.. A sign of things to come?

[Fishy2]

This thread is old. As old as the democrats desire to impeach Trump. I think that desire started about November 8th 2016. It started right after they lost the election. They sure looked like sore losers then. It's not looking any better either. The democrats had the most one sided media coverage in history. They had Obama in power who was covering Clintons tracks and Loretta Lynch even obstructed the investigation into her emails and Clinton cash. Obama knew about the russian "interference for months before the election. Obama came out on National TV multiple times and laughed off any type of idea that someone could influence an election as broad and diverse as the USA. Then the unthinkable happened. Obama and Hillary and the rest of the democrats forgot which country they lived in. The got knocked out on November 8 2016 and they still have not figured out where they are. It's sad really. Complete and utter denial. Since Obama and Hillary had colluded with each other and didn't think they could lose. Obama laid landmines for Trump. He expelled the Russians immediately!!! How could they have possibly succeeded in upending the cabal that is the democratic party! They had the media! They had the NBA, NFL, ESPN, BLM, ACLU and even Nate Silver told him their was no pathway to 270. HAHAHAH!!!! So what does a sore loser do in such a situation? You undermine the incoming administration. So Obama knew the whole time and did nothing until he lost. The democrats have shown their hypocrisy again and again. The media has always been left leaning and in this election they weren't leaning left. They were left. Now they are the opposition party and all that is left of the democratic party. CNN pushing fake news and publicly shamed this week for getting caught publishing false stories. Republicans just won 4 special elections. I would say things are looking just fine for DJT. The economy is steady and rising. GET A GRIP YOU SORE LOSERS

[Fishy2]

This thread is old. As old as the democrats desire to impeach Trump. I think that desire started about November 8th 2016. It started right after they lost the election. They sure looked like sore losers then. It's not looking any better either. The democrats had the most one sided media coverage in history. They had Obama in power who was covering Clintons tracks and Loretta Lynch even obstructed the investigation into her emails and Clinton cash. Obama knew about the russian "interference for months before the election. Obama came out on National TV multiple times and laughed off any type of idea that someone could influence an election as broad and diverse as the USA. Then the unthinkable happened. Obama and Hillary and the rest of the democrats forgot which country they lived in. The got knocked out on November 8 2016 and they still have not figured out where they are. It's sad really. Complete and utter denial. Since Obama and Hillary had colluded with each other and didn't think they could lose. Obama laid landmines for Trump. He expelled the Russians immediately!!! How could they have possibly succeeded in upending the cabal that is the democratic party! They had the media! They had the NBA, NFL, ESPN, BLM, ACLU and even Nate Silver told him their was no pathway to 270. HAHAHAH!!!! So what does a sore loser do in such a situation? You undermine the incoming administration. So Obama knew the whole time and did nothing until he lost. The democrats have shown their hypocrisy again and again. The media has always been left leaning and in this election they weren't leaning left. They were left. Now they are the opposition party and all that is left of the democratic party. CNN pushing fake news and publicly shamed this week for getting caught publishing false stories. Republicans just won 4 special elections. I would say things are looking just fine for DJT. The economy is steady and rising.

[DFWClubgoer]

Originally Posted by grean

Both Scalia & Ginsburg understood and could argue each other's legal philosophy. shut.

You are 100% right in this statement! They could argue laws and facts without going BSC, unlike you.

Trump is a fucking dumbshit loudmouth cocksucker. He's a bitch. He is a shyster & and a con artist.

Now that's an intelligent argument, you've really convinced that your the rational level headed person in the argument.

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by DFWClubgoer

You are 100% right in this statement! They could argue laws and facts without going BSC, unlike you.

Trump is a fucking dumbshit loudmouth cocksucker. He's a bitch. He is a shyster & and a con artist.

Now that's an intelligent argument, you've really convinced that your the rational level headed person in the argument.

LOL, Liberals are easily triggered. https://youtu.be/dmeSGwVBoao