Trump says liberal Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor should recuse

[webfact]

Trump says liberal Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor should recuse

By Steve Holland

 

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference in New Delhi, India, February 25, 2020. REUTERS/Adnan Abidi

 

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - President Donald Trump turned his ire on the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, calling on two of the liberal justices to recuse themselves from any cases involving him or his administration.

 

The Republican president, concluding a two-day visit to India, first tweeted out his criticism of Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg citing comments on Fox News and then expanded on his comments at a news conference in New Delhi.

 

Trump, criticizing members of the U.S. judiciary during a visit to a foreign country, appeared to refer to a dissenting opinion Sotomayor wrote on Friday when the court allowed a hardline Trump administration immigration policy to go into effect in Illinois.

 

Sotomayor questioned why the court, which has a 5-4 conservative majority, so frequently grants emergency requests filed by the Trump administration. Trump also pointed to comments Ginsburg made criticizing him during the 2016 presidential election campaign.

 

"I just don't know how they cannot recuse themselves with anything having to do with Trump or Trump-related," Trump said, calling the comments by the two jurists "inappropriate" and saying Supreme Court justices should be held to a higher standard.

 

Trump throughout his presidency has criticized federal judges after rulings he did not like, with critics saying he has engaged in political interference in the courts and has sought to compromise the independence of the nation's judiciary. The most recent example was his series of comments about the prosecution of his friend and long-time adviser Roger Stone, as Trump publicly condemned the judge, jury and prosecutors in the case.

 

On Friday, the Supreme Court on a 5-4 vote allowed Trump's administration to implement in Illinois new standards requiring immigrants to prove they will not require government assistance while lower courts hear challenges against the so-called "public charge" rules. The court had already allowed the policy to go into effect in the rest of the country.

 

The four liberal justices dissented, including Sotomayor, who wrote that the court has appeared to favor the Trump administration over other litigants seeking emergency actions.

 

The administration has made numerous quick appeals to the Supreme Court, sometimes bypassing lower federal appeals courts that normally would handle cases. This has been a hallmark of the administration's legal strategy since the beginning of Trump's presidency in 2017, partly because of the high number of policies that were blocked by lower courts early on.

 

'ONE LITIGANT'

Legal scholars said that while the strategy may seem rational, given that the high court's conservative majority, it poses dangers to the credibility of the office of the U.S. Solicitor General, who is responsible for defending the administration's policies at the Supreme Court.

 

"Perhaps most troublingly, the court's recent behavior on stay applications has benefited one litigant over all others," Sotomayor wrote, though she did not mention Trump by name.

 

"I fear that this disparity in treatment erodes the fair and balanced decision-making process that this court must strive to protect," she added.

The new immigration rules went into effect on Monday.

 

"It's almost what she's trying to do is take the people that do feel a different way and get them to vote the way that she would like them to vote. I just thought it was so inappropriate," Trump said of Sotomayor.

 

Before becoming president, Trump called on Ginsburg to resign after she criticized him in a series of media interviews including one in which she called him a "faker" and voiced fear for the country if he were elected. She later expressed regret for the remarks.

 

Referring to Ginsburg, Trump told the news conference that "she went wild during the campaign when I was running. I don't know who she was for. Perhaps she was for Hillary Clinton, if you can believe it. But she said some things that were obviously very inappropriate. She later sort of apologized."

 

U.S. law requires justices, who serve lifetime terms on the court, to step aside when there is a conflict of interest or genuine question of bias, but it leaves the recusal decision in the hands of the individual justices.

 

Sotomayor, 65, was appointed by Democratic former President Barack Obama, becoming the first Hispanic justice.

 

Ginsburg, 86, is the senior liberal on the court and was appointed by Democratic former President Bill Clinton.

 

Trump has appointed two conservative members of the court: Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. They have provided reliable votes in favor of administration policies in key cases.

 

Trump previously has also criticized conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, who in 2018 issued an unusual public statement defending the independence of the judiciary after the president accused a judge who ruled against his asylum immigration policy of being an "Obama judge."

 

The president previously accused an Indiana-born judge handling a lawsuit against Trump University of bias given his Mexican heritage.

 

(Reporting by Steve Holland in New Dehli; Additional reporting by Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung in Washington; writing by Susan Heavey in Washington; editing by Will Dunham and Jason Neely)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-02-26

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Tug]

So now he wants judges who disagree with him to recuse unbelievable 

[Somewhere In Time]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

U.S. law requires justices, who serve lifetime terms on the court, to step aside when there is a conflict of interest or genuine question of bias, but it leaves the recusal decision in the hands of the individual justices.

We all can agree this dissenting opinion by the Supreme Court justice was inappropriate; why feel the need to publish it?

 

SIT

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, Somewhere In Time said:

We all can agree this dissenting opinion by the Supreme Court justice was inappropriate; why feel the need to publish it?

 

SIT

We all can agree on what?

[Boon Mee]

That's what you get when the Supreme Court is staffed with Afirmitive Action individuals such as Sotomeyer. 

She's clearly not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. 

[JCauto]

38 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

That's what you get when the Supreme Court is staffed with Afirmitive Action individuals such as Sotomeyer. 

She's clearly not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. 

So you don't believe that Sonia Sotomayor's judicial record was sufficient? On what basis? She was eminently qualified based on her judicial scholarship, experience and the weight of her opinions as considered by higher courts. 

Sorry to have to explain this to you, but political opinion does not either count as a qualification or as a disqualification. If you have a substantive reason (in other words, one that questions her legal expertise) why you believe this, then you should enlighten us!

[candide]

31 minutes ago, JCauto said:

So you don't believe that Sonia Sotomayor's judicial record was sufficient? On what basis? She was eminently qualified based on her judicial scholarship, experience and the weight of her opinions as considered by higher courts. 

Sorry to have to explain this to you, but political opinion does not either count as a qualification or as a disqualification. If you have a substantive reason (in other words, one that questions her legal expertise) why you believe this, then you should enlighten us!

The only reason is that Trump said it, lol!

[Skallywag]

5 hours ago, Tug said:

So now he wants judges who disagree with him to recuse unbelievable 

Of course he can make any new law he wants without fear of reprisal,

He is the President for Buddhas sake.

Long live democracy 

Peace  

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

5 hours ago, Tug said:

So now he wants judges who disagree with him to recuse unbelievable 

 

So I guess that means, all of the justices Trump himself has appointed should also recuse themselves from hearing anything having to do with their master?

 

Is there going to be anyone left, after Trump kicks out his liberal foes by recusal, and then all of his appointees similarly should be sidelined by the same standard...

 

It would be getting to be a pretty small court!

 

[howbri]

7 hours ago, Tug said:

So now he wants judges who disagree with him to recuse unbelievable 

No, only the anti-American, globalist, socialist ones.

[Tropposurfer]

Supreme Court Justices need to tread very carefully when even thinking of commenting on politicians and their actions. Social comment perhaps is  not an area they should venture into.

They're job is to uphold the written law and to do that with a sacred ecclesiastical-like locus.

Neither is it acceptable for a sitting President to make running comment about Justices and the process of the Courts.

To say in response to those that show concern for such actions; 'I have a right to comment on Court proceeding as and when I chose as President, I am the Chief Lawman of the land' is not correct under the Laws Governing Presidential behaviour and scope of duty nor of the Constitution and Laws of the USA, yet this was said openly by highly educated and informed individuals in the press, and The President himself recently.

He is not the ultimate lawmaker or giver, yet on the grounds of the White House Trump said this to a gaggle of press and cameras (shortly after it was said by an individual employed by a certain news corporation). 

This action by the President (no matter who it is) is to me a gross misuse of The Office of the Presidency privilege and beneath the dignity and inherent imperative of this office i.e. To speak for the People, not self or any partisan group). This was done, disrespectfully, arrogantly and destructively for the fabric of democracy. Why such adjectives/ Because by definition the words spoken are thus.

The Law is not designed and meant to be enacted as a partisan entity it is by definition justice and impartiality for ALL "... by the people for the people".

They (e.g. Trump, Pelosi, S C Justices (who make such comments - other than through the correct avenues), Fox News, other Press entities) all need to lift their games and behave with more personal, professional restraint, integrity, and dignity.

To have politicians (of any persuasion) making comment on the processes of past, sub judice, or possible indictable offences is shocking and threatens the very fundamental principles of the Order of Law and Justice itself. This duty and action lies in the hands of 'The People', not individual politicians. 

Suely a fundamental premise of The Presidency (and the President) is to treat all with dignity, even if one disagrees with them, to encourage dialogue, to support care, impartiality, thoughtfulness, compassion, honesty and clarity (not at the expense of the formers). Sadly this has often been unattained by those who have held this office.

The stuff I hear on US news feeds beggars belief.

Insulting name calling by both Trump, his detractors, and his supporters is appalling, and for those that hold the supposedly sacred duty of The Press to 'report the facts' in a constant striving to be unbiased, reporting on events are failing the codes and ethics they themselves hold dear (which is in and of itself a betrayal of the self) and for those whose sworn oath and duty is the management and steering of a nation is a threat the the very notion of democratic life. 

The slippery slope of bigotry, lies, fake news, misrepresenting, blatant distorting when reporting events, being unwilling or incapable any longer the separate person dislike and hatred (yes vitriolic language is rife) and personal bias is out of control in US politics (albeit in my country in a slightly more restrained English delivery).

The narrative now is: Make truth what you say it not what is based in actual fact or moral integrity directed compass. Pursue person thought and agendas and use powerful position to do so and to say it for the good of others not self. Call political opponents Crazy Bernie, tear up State of The Union speeches in the House, make disgusting remarks about women and their menstrual cycle, mock disabled people, speak of wanting to shoot people for what they have said from the podium of the Presidency then deny the clear intent of these remarks is disturbing, deeply disturbing.

Mark me it is not a liberating of the soul and a nations soul to do so in such forums, it invites, nay encourages the basest of human traits to be let loose, unrestrained. To position oneself as the spokesperson for those disenfranchised by 'them, those people' is reminiscent of the rhetoric of past human history which opened the gates of Hell.

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by Tropposurfer

[Tropposurfer]

14 minutes ago, howbri said:

No, only the anti-American, globalist, socialist ones.

Ah the definition by yours and others rhetoric that you and others are Patriots but others who are Socialist or left of where you sit are not. How convenient for you to move to vilification of others.

[phkauf]

No need for Trump to worry - RBG's in the bottom of the ninth and down by 10 runs. The game is nearly over.

Four more years could see him nominating over half the court - wow would heads explode on the liberal side.

[allen303]

Obama criticized the Supreme Court at his state of the union address, for a ruling against him. With them sitting in the front row.

Plus numerous other times at news conference and interviews. Did not realize he had such a hard on for the SC till I checked it on the net!

 

As for the British lad, glad you take so much interest in the US politics. How is the deal going with the EU? 

Edited February 26, 2020 by allen303

[mrfill]

3 hours ago, Skallywag said:

Of course he can make any new law he wants without fear of reprisal,

He is the President for Buddhas sake.

Long live democracy 

Peace  

That is an excellent definition of a dictator

[impulse]

2 hours ago, Tropposurfer said:

Supreme Court Justices need to tread very carefully when even thinking of commenting on politicians and their actions. Social comment perhaps is  not an area they should venture into.

They're job is to uphold the written law and to do that with a sacred ecclesiastical-like locus.

Neither is it acceptable for a sitting President to make running comment about Justices and the process of the Courts.

To say in response to those that show concern for such actions; 'I have a right to comment on Court proceeding as and when I chose as President, I am the Chief Lawman of the land' is not correct under the Laws Governing Presidential behaviour and scope of duty nor of the Constitution and Laws of the USA, yet this was said openly by highly educated and informed individuals in the press, and The President himself recently.

He is not the ultimate lawmaker or giver, yet on the grounds of the White House Trump said this to a gaggle of press and cameras (shortly after it was said by an individual employed by a certain news corporation). 

This action by the President (no matter who it is) is to me a gross misuse of The Office of the Presidency privilege and beneath the dignity and inherent imperative of this office i.e. To speak for the People, not self or any partisan group). This was done, disrespectfully, arrogantly and destructively for the fabric of democracy. Why such adjectives/ Because by definition the words spoken are thus.

The Law is not designed and meant to be enacted as a partisan entity it is by definition justice and impartiality for ALL "... by the people for the people".

They (e.g. Trump, Pelosi, S C Justices (who make such comments - other than through the correct avenues), Fox News, other Press entities) all need to lift their games and behave with more personal, professional restraint, integrity, and dignity.

To have politicians (of any persuasion) making comment on the processes of past, sub judice, or possible indictable offences is shocking and threatens the very fundamental principles of the Order of Law and Justice itself. This duty and action lies in the hands of 'The People', not individual politicians. 

Suely a fundamental premise of The Presidency (and the President) is to treat all with dignity, even if one disagrees with them, to encourage dialogue, to support care, impartiality, thoughtfulness, compassion, honesty and clarity (not at the expense of the formers). Sadly this has often been unattained by those who have held this office.

The stuff I hear on US news feeds beggars belief.

Insulting name calling by both Trump, his detractors, and his supporters is appalling, and for those that hold the supposedly sacred duty of The Press to 'report the facts' in a constant striving to be unbiased, reporting on events are failing the codes and ethics they themselves hold dear (which is in and of itself a betrayal of the self) and for those whose sworn oath and duty is the management and steering of a nation is a threat the the very notion of democratic life. 

The slippery slope of bigotry, lies, fake news, misrepresenting, blatant distorting when reporting events, being unwilling or incapable any longer the separate person dislike and hatred (yes vitriolic language is rife) and personal bias is out of control in US politics (albeit in my country in a slightly more restrained English delivery).

The narrative now is: Make truth what you say it not what is based in actual fact or moral integrity directed compass. Pursue person thought and agendas and use powerful position to do so and to say it for the good of others not self. Call political opponents Crazy Bernie, tear up State of The Union speeches in the House, make disgusting remarks about women and their menstrual cycle, mock disabled people, speak of wanting to shoot people for what they have said from the podium of the Presidency then deny the clear intent of these remarks is disturbing, deeply disturbing.

Mark me it is not a liberating of the soul and a nations soul to do so in such forums, it invites, nay encourages the basest of human traits to be let loose, unrestrained. To position oneself as the spokesperson for those disenfranchised by 'them, those people' is reminiscent of the rhetoric of past human history which opened the gates of Hell.

 

Too 

 

Many

 

Words

 

[joecoolfrog]

5 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

That's what you get when the Supreme Court is staffed with Afirmitive Action individuals such as Sotomeyer. 

She's clearly not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. 

Well Trump is clearly not qualified to represent a nation but there you go , sxxx happens !

[joecoolfrog]

2 hours ago, phkauf said:

No need for Trump to worry - RBG's in the bottom of the ninth and down by 10 runs. The game is nearly over.

Four more years could see him nominating over half the court - wow would heads explode on the liberal side.

You seem to think that a situation akin to a dictatorship would be a good thing , you would be wrong.

Please point out historical examples where overwhelming political dominance has created long lasting harmony .

[Tug]

6 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

That's what you get when the Supreme Court is staffed with Afirmitive Action individuals such as Sotomeyer. 

She's clearly not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. 

Wow dude that’s so uncalled for it doesent reflect well on you sad

[riclag]

Mr. Trump sure has disturbed a snake nest! Its movin so far left,I wonder if she would support what the radical left calls a dictator  or  the new and up incoming nightmare on the constitution, god forbid, a communist for POTUS! IMOP Recuse, lady ,recuse

Edited February 26, 2020 by riclag

[Bluespunk]

11 hours ago, webfact said:

President Donald Trump turned his ire on the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, calling on two of the liberal justices to recuse themselves from any cases involving him or his administration.

If I hadn’t been informed trump does not drink, I’d say he was almost constantly drunk.
 

Some of the things he comes out with are on a par with a midnight drunk howling at the moon. 

 

This is a particularly good example. 

[Solinvictus]

3 hours ago, phkauf said:

No need for Trump to worry - RBG's in the bottom of the ninth and down by 10 runs. The game is nearly over.

Four more years could see him nominating over half the court - wow would heads explode on the liberal side.

I was just curious as to why one continues to support such a president?

You know one that represents the ruling or ultra wealthy class. Let me guess, so you can keep your health insurance despite saving more overall and despite everyone getting a free education and healthcare? Did I mention...war..that and legalization. Dam, what is not to like..

 

Oh, but those fond of republican talking points (aka-the rich man's voice) will say 'how will he pay for it?' Funny people...

I have appreciated Trump being outspoken on the whole 'Russia' hoax...

Bernie 2020! #getaclue

[Solinvictus]

26 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

If I hadn’t been informed trump does not drink, I’d say he was almost constantly drunk.
 

Some of the things he comes out with are on a par with a midnight drunk howling at the moon. 

 

This is a particularly good example. 

Just to add a bit more.. What is truly shocking is that many regular American's (working class) support the liar. He does not represent the working class. He represents the interests for Wall Street and continuing the current reduction of the middle class. Yes, I know neo-liberal policies have done that also. Trump is not helping them. Some folks believe in that whole 'the economy is better' malarky. It's better for the rich. Not for people working 2 jobs to make ends meat. Whatever happened to more union's and a better quality of life. Naive? Content? Watching to much TV? Lacking empathy for your fellow American?

 

Frankly, and I'm a Yank, supporting Trump is simply...being a DA IMO. But of course I respect your choice. Surely not your reasoning. Ha.

 

Good news sources:

The Hill's

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPWXiRWZ29zrxPFIQT7eHSA/videos

 

Truthdig

https://www.truthdig.com/

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by Solinvictus

[Bluespunk]

1 minute ago, Solinvictus said:

What is truly shocking is that many regular American's (working class) support the liar. He does not represent the working class. He represents the interests for Wall Street and continuing the current reduction of the middle class. Yes, I know neo-liberal policies have done that also. Trump is not helping them. Some folks believe in that whole 'the economy is better' malarky. It's better for the rich. Not for people working 2 jobs to make ends meat. Whatever happened to more union's and a better quality of life. Naive? Content? Watching to much TV?

 

Frankly, and I'm an American. Supporting Trump is simply...being a DA IMO. But of course I respect your choice. Surely not your reasoning. Ha.

 

Good news sources:

The Hill's

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPWXiRWZ29zrxPFIQT7eHSA/videos

 

Truthdig

https://www.truthdig.com/

 

I don’t support trump. 

[Solinvictus]

42 minutes ago, riclag said:

Mr. Trump sure has disturbed a snake nest! Its movin so far left,I wonder if she would support what the radical left calls a dictator  or  the new and up incoming nightmare on the constitution, god forbid, a communist for POTUS! IMOP Recuse, lady ,recuse

Could you clarify please. You are saying who is a 'communist'? I don't recall one in the current presidential race. Interesting how you also mentioned the 'constitution.'

[riclag]

2 minutes ago, Solinvictus said:

Could you clarify please. You are saying who is a 'communist'? I don't recall one in the current presidential race. Interesting how you also mentioned the 'constitution.'

"James Carville Fires Back at ‘Communist’ Bernie Sanders, Proudly Calls Himself a ‘Hack’ "

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/james-carville-fires-back-at-communist-bernie-sanders-proudly-calls-himself-a-hack

 

[Solinvictus]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

Too 

 

Many

 

Words

 

Haha. Yeah, I won't even read that seeing as many peeps in this particular forum tend to also argue or spit out a great deal lacking any concise and constructive comments towards opposing views, rather typing more and more in reply. Check out other political places to comment you will notice its refreshing compared to here.

[Solinvictus]

1 minute ago, riclag said:

"James Carville Fires Back at ‘Communist’ Bernie Sanders, Proudly Calls Himself a ‘Hack’ "

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/james-carville-fires-back-at-communist-bernie-sanders-proudly-calls-himself-a-hack

 

No, I'm asking you directly. Please recheck the question.

 

LOL...James Carville..Next, my question is, do you take that guy seriously? Well, I can understand that if your making over 200k a year. Sure.

[riclag]

3 minutes ago, Solinvictus said:

No, I'm asking you directly. Please recheck the question.

 

LOL...James Carville..Next, my question is, do you take that guy seriously? Well, I can understand that if your making over 200k a year. Sure.

Hey I just made reference to Sotomyer and who she would prefer for a POTUS, a communist or what the left calls a  dictator thats POTUS!

 

There is according to the news a good chance  she(sottomyer) and others will be deciding   my countries fate  capitalism vs radical dem socialism/communism. I prefer the status quo and millions who gave their lives to defeat freedom from government rule

 

" We’re not going to win these critical, critical House and Senate races if people in those races have to explain why the nominee of the Democratic Party is telling people to look at the bright side of the Castro regime,” Buttigieg said.

https://apnews.com/6cb5e160744fc577aabc8918c60882b3

 

[billd766]

11 hours ago, Tug said:

So now he wants judges who disagree with him to recuse unbelievable 

Actually IMHO it is quite believable.

 

He wants EVERYBODY to do what he wants to do and he cannot stand criticism in any form.

Edited February 26, 2020 by billd766
added extra text