No Recuse For Ginsburg

Ginsburg - Not a happy female at allWith the US Supreme Court both overturning most parts of the 9th Circuit Court’s injunction against President Trumps’ travel from six predominately Muslim countries and granting a a writ of certiorari for the case as a whole, many people, including 58 Republican lawmakers, are requesting that Justice Ruth Ginsburg recuse herself from the upcoming case due to her overt and obvious bias against the President.

Given her comments throughout the 2016 elections, it’s easy to understand why so many people think that Ginsburg should recuse herself.

I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president.

~*~

He is a faker. He has no consistency about him. 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?

~*~

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.

Ginsburg has shown a strong bias against- and a a nigh on hysterical antipathy towards President Trump. As such, the ethical thing for her to do is to recuse herself from this upcoming case and any and every case involving President Trump’s administration that reaches the SCOTUS in the future. That being rightfully said, the claim that she is legally bound to do so is effectively meaningless and nothing but another iteration of the political kabuki we’re too used to.

While the relevant statute, 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), does technically apply to SCOTUS Justices, so does the longstanding long accepted tradition of “Duty to Sit.” Additionally, there is really no tested means of enforcing 28 U.S.C. § 455 upon the SCOTUS. Essentially, the SCOTUS being the nation’s highest court, there’s no authority to appeal to in the case of the SCOTUS Justice not recusing themselves.

A different but related note. Our concerns about Ginsburg’s lack of partiality are being heavily played by those with something to gain. One, Ginburg is part of the minority in the SCOTUS. Two and much more importantly, the SCOTUS lifting of most of the injunction against the “Travel Ban” was delivered per curiam, meaning it came from a unanimous decision by the Court – including Justice Ginsburg.

So be neither too shocked nor too concerned if Ginsburg doesn’t recuse herself. It is likely that, at worst, she would be one of the minority dissenting opinions on the case and even that is actually in doubt.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | |

Ginsburg Is Right

US Supreme Court Justice is rarely right about things, hence why her opinions are based upon perceived or hoped for outcomes rather than the law. She can, however, be right about the fact from time to time. A case in point being her tirade during an interview with the The National Law Journal. She was and is right about this.

“What’s amazing is how things have changed,” Ginsburg said, recalling the landmark 1971 decision of Griggs v. Duke Power Co., in which the Supreme Court unanimously held that employer policies that look neutral on paper can still constitute discrimination if they disproportionately harm minorities in practice. “It was a very influential decision and it was picked up in England. That’s where the court was heading in the ’70s.”

— Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

And, to our nation’s shame, that was exactly where the court was heading in the ’70s. It was heading at a headlong pace towards enabling special race-based privileges for non-Whites and forcing everyone to make race as the overriding factor in all decisions due to “disparate impact.”

NOTE: The singular exception to this is the progressive income tax which has a very disparate impact upon Whites but is never considered be discriminatory or a violation of their civil rights.

What most aside from Blacktivists don’t know is that the employer policy being lambasted in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. was Duke Power’s requirement that employees in more demanding positions had to either have a high school diploma or scores on standardized IQ tests equal to those of the average high school graduate. As Blacks have a long-standing history, which hasn’t changed to this day, of graduating from high school far less often than Whites, this was considered by the Burger Court to be both discriminatory and a violation of Blacks’ civil rights.

And following along with that High Court ruling and creation of the “disparate impact” framework is exactly the path to Hell that America was taking until the Roberts Court finally started to make inroads against this race-based legal framework.

So, as she so often is, Ginsburg has her facts in order but draws the wrong conclusion. Hardly shocking since she’s SCOTUS justice in the first place only due to Affirmative Action.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | |

Ginsburg’s Dissension

Ginsburg - Not a happy female at allThe US Supreme Court finally rendered its ruling upon Burwell v. Hobby Lobby yesterday, June 30, 2014. It was a 5-4 decision in favor of Hobby Lobby’s owners’ religious freedom.

Justice Ruth Ginsburg, one of the extreme Leftist judges in the SCOTUS penned the dissenting opinion which her three fellow leftist judges concurred with.

As this case dealt with the intersection of for-profit corporations, religious freedom, and management-labor power dynamics, it is neither surprising nor of material interest that the Liberal minority within the SCOTUS dissented from the majority opinion. That is to be expected as those four judges are antipathetic to corporations and religious freedom, at least when the religion in question is Christianity.

What is of interest is the nature and content of Ginsburg’s dissension. Ginsburg’s 35-page scathing screed contained little or no basis in law except in the singular part where she agreed with the Court, was more emotive, irrational fear-mongering than a logical exercise, and utterly ignored almost every salient point of the Court’s decision.

This is, and long has been, Ginsburg’s modus operandi and is why I loath her more than any other SCOTUS judge since Justice Warren. Whenever she pens the majority opinion she makes sure to cover it in the law and by legal precedence, but her dissenting opinions rarely stem from interpretative differences in America’s law. Instead they are emotive pleas and and angry hand-wringing over what the effects of the law might be.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | |