Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, May 22, 2024

... . Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals didn't recuse himself from a 2011 case challenging California's same-sex marriage ban, even though his wife directed an American Civil Liberties Union chapter that had joined two district-court briefs in the case. "The views are hers, not mine, and I do not in any way condition my opinions on the positions she takes regarding any issues," Reinhardt wrote. Judicial ethics experts led by Stephen Gillers filed a brief defending Reinhardt on grounds that his wife's "opinions, views, and public pronouncements of support for the district court decision below do not trigger any reasonable basis to question Judge Reinhardt's ability to honor his oath of office." Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ... was outspokenly anti-Trump in 2016. She called the Republican candidate a "faker" and criticized him for not releasing his tax returns. She didn't recuse herself from any case involving Mr. Trump

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"During the Trump administration, Paoletta was described as a "hard-charging conservative lawyer little known to the public" by the The Washington Post. In his role, Paoletta overruled objections from officials at both the OMB and the Department of Defense to delay U.S. security assistance to Ukraine.

The Washington Post also reported that Paoletta helped craft the Trump administration's legal justifications to restrict billions of dollars worth of disaster aid to Puerto Rico."

Article by former hedge fund and banking lawyer who then helped Trump be a more perfect Russian stooge and paper towel thrower.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2024-05-22 05:51 PM | Reply

en.wikipedia.org

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2024-05-22 05:52 PM | Reply

If you don't understand how a SC justice should recuse himself when his wife is a participant in an insurrection, you are simply useless.

If you don't understand how problematic it is that a SC justice flies a flag in support of an insurrection and then adjudicates insurrection cases, you are simply useles.

Your sad attempts at whataboutism are simply pathetic.

#3 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-22 05:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Whatabout!

And that wasn't even good "whataboutism". How many cases were brought before SCOTUS where Ginsburg didn't recuse herself and Trump was directly involved as the defendant? Where there any cases that were even close to what's going on today? Typical WSJ Opinion Page garbage that doesn't hold up with even a little critical analysis.

Oh, and that POS Alito flew a second insurrectionist flag at his vacation home as late as last year.

How utterly pathetic to even try to pull off such a false equivalency.

#4 | Posted by YAV at 2024-05-22 05:56 PM | Reply

"We are no better than the Justice we openly hated and decried as a partisan for decades" is quite the take, Jeff.

#5 | Posted by JOE at 2024-05-22 06:01 PM | Reply

It's all Jeff has is whataboutism

#6 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2024-05-22 06:01 PM | Reply

"Oh, and that POS Alito flew a second insurrectionist flag at his vacation home as late as last year."

But how are we to know what is in Alito's wife's heart, she may have been supporting the national pine forest industry!

-miranduh

#7 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-22 06:02 PM | Reply

We are no better than the Justice we openly hated and decried as a partisan for decades" is quite the take, Jeff.

#5 | POSTED BY JOE

Jeff isn't too bright, Joe.

But he THINKS he makes good arguments.

#8 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-22 06:02 PM | Reply

" "We are no better than the Justice we openly hated and decried as a partisan for decades" is quite the take, Jeff.

#5 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2024-05-22 06:01 PM | FLAG: "

Jackson has too short of a record on the bench for me to form an opinion about her. I don't like Sotomayor but I certainly don't hate her. Kagan is totally fine.

#9 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-22 07:19 PM | Reply

www.vox.com

This was a remarkably stupid and egregious comment for a sitting Supreme Court justice to make on the record," Dan Drezner wrote for the Washington Post. Supreme Court justices, he argued, simply should not take sides in a presidential campaign. Among other things, Ginsburg might have to recuse herself from any cases involving Trump in the future.

Ginsburg later apologized:

JUST IN from Ginsburg:
My comments on Trump were "ill-advised and I regret making them. Judges should avoid commenting on candidates.'

" Robert Barnes (@scotusreporter) July 14, 2016

#10 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2024-05-22 07:21 PM | Reply

#9 I'm talking about your thread's reference to an apparent "Ginsburg Standard," even though the entire conservative movement openly loathed Ginsburg and called her a partisan activist. Is that the standard you believe SC Justices should adhere to?

#11 | Posted by JOE at 2024-05-22 08:21 PM | Reply

Of course, as long as they rule correctly. It all about what they rule, not any principles. Principles are for chumps.

Results oriented jurisprudence not principled ethics.

Ethics are only useful to them as a cover for corruption.

#12 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2024-05-23 10:56 AM | Reply

@#4 ... Whatabout!

And that wasn't even good "whataboutism". ...

So... I'm not the only one who recognized that?


#13 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-23 08:42 PM | Reply

Alito and Thomas are both obviously compromised and should resign immediately. But they don't give a ---- about law and the Constitution. They're whores.

#14 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-05-23 09:27 PM | Reply

@#14 ... Alito and Thomas are both obviously compromised and should resign immediately ...

At this point, it has become obvious to me that they both should recuse themselves from cases regarding fmr Pres Trump, specifically, the J6 insurrection.

In my view, both have tainted any opinions in that area they offer now and in the future.

My real question, though, is along the lines of ...

What will be required for Chief Justice of the United States Roberts to take the action needed to restore credibility to SCOTUS?

Simply put: What is he waiting for?

#15 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-23 09:40 PM | Reply

What will be required for Chief Justice of the United States Roberts to take the action needed to restore credibility to SCOTUS?
Simply put: What is he waiting for?
POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2024-05-23 09:40 PM | REPLY

He simply doesn't care. He's from the same cabal isn't he?? The Federalist Society. Birds of the feather in other words.

#16 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2024-05-23 09:42 PM | Reply

@#16 ... He simply doesn't care. ...

I think he cares.

But he seems to be unable to change the behavior via persuasion. Stated simply, he has lost control of his Court.

imo, it is not that he doesn't want to fix his place in history.

It is that he cannot.

So, what else can he do?

#17 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-23 09:54 PM | Reply

#11 Ginsburg was treated with WAY more deference by the conservative movement than Scalia or Clarence Thomas.

#18 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-23 10:29 PM | Reply

Everyone should go to www.uscourts.gov

and file an ethics complaint against Alito, Thomas and Cannon.

#19 | Posted by Nixon at 2024-05-24 09:54 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable

Drudge Retort