House Republicans Demand Ginsburg Recuse Herself From Travel Ban Case


“You are bound by law..."

Following a decision Monday by the Supreme Court to allow portions of President Donald Trump’s travel ban to be enacted until the justices review the case in its entirety this fall, a number of prominent Republicans have called for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse herself from the case.

Fifty-eight House Republicans signed a letter to Ginsburg calling attention to her “public criticism of Donald Trump during the campaign,” as well as the denunciation she has received in the media for her “conduct.”

In a July 2016 editorial, The New York Times took Ginsburg to task for her statements, noting that by disparaging Trump she was only “call(ing) her own commitment to impartiality into question.”

The justice later apologized for her comments, though the letter House Republicans sent cited both The Times’ editorial and another piece criticizing her in The Washington Post.


Justice Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. Her mind is shot - resign!


Regarding the travel ban case, the legislators pointed out that “(T)he case places the personal credibility of President Trump directly at issue.”



Signed this letter to Justice Ginsburg demanding her recusal from cases involving the Trump Admin due to her previous comments #SCOTUS


Justice Ginsburg has demonstrated an anti-Trump bias and her actions have caused her impartiality to be in question.


lower court concluded that the Trump administration had not been honest about its true motives for implementing the ban on immigration from terror-prone nations. Using allegedly anti-Muslim statements made by the president on the campaign trail, the court argued that the ban was rooted in discrimination, not a desire to enhance national security.

Given the case’s connection to the president’s campaign statements, which Ginsburg herself has criticized, the legislators therefore believe it would be unethical and perhaps even illegal for her to not recuse herself.

“You are bound by law to recuse yourself from participation in this case,” the letter continued.

“There is no doubt that your impartiality can be reasonably questioned; indeed, it would be unreasonable not to question your impartiality. Your participation in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project would violate the law and undermine the credibility of the Supreme Court of the United States.”

By Tuesday the justice had not responded to the letter.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/house-republicans-demand-ginsburg-...

Image result for ruth bader ginsburg trump

Views: 134

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

She is an activist rather than a jurist, and too stupid to know the difference.

She should actually be impeached, but wouldn't that take some b*lls?

How "active" can she be when she falls asleep while they're taking photos?

Image result for giggling animation

Well, then. How about calling her an "opinionist" or "delusionalist" or "wrong-headed" or "unconstitutional"?

Well, the next 3 are opinion, the last is a fact. And so it is.

And, therefore, the conclusion SHOULD be "impeachable".

Part of the problem is that she isn't aging well. Though a perpetual Left Winger, she's become even more irrational since live TV cameras caught her napping at a State of the Union address.  

Obviously, Ginsberg needs to step down and call it a day, but she probably won't.  You may recall Barack Obama's brassy suggestion in 2012 that a second term was needed to fill upcoming SCOTUS appointments.  At the time, not one Justice had even hinted at retirement.  Analysts believed his remarks to be a message to Ginsburg, but her reply wasn't the sugar Obama expected: "I'm not going anywhere."  

ON ANOTHER ISSUE THAT NEED SERIOUS CURRENT DISCUSSION!

THE ISSUE OF HEALTH CARE.

RAND PAUL IS RIGHT ALL OF OBAMA CARE MUST BE REPEALED ENTIRELY.

THEN,

SIGN THE NEW BILL BUT IT MUST RETAIN -0- OBAMA CARE PROVISIONS OR IT TOO WILL FAIL!

Start a lawsuit... now... immediately.  Get Jay Sekulow to file an emergency injunction, to have Justice Ginsberg recused.  If she doesn't recuse herself, and the lower court refuses to act... get the House to start Impeachment ... like, yesterday.  It is time to set an example, America is no longer going to put up with unethical and unlawful conduct from its JUDGES.

Someone inform the President or Jay Sekulow, his personal counsel... of this possible course of action. Get the ball rolling a case to recuse filed with the DC Circut and schedule a meeting with the Speaker of the House to investigate possible impeachment.  This is an opportunity to reset the ethical standards for the entire Judiciary.  Don't miss this chance.

It would also put the White House in control of the national political narrative... and create a base from which to continue the pursuit of corruption in DC... Thus, providing future opportunities to set the National narrative.

The root of the problem is the fact, the cold, hard, distasteful fact, that the pool from which the people chosen to serve, for life, on the Supreme Court is contaminated, and those making and approving the choices are doing so for political purpose rather than advancing the Rule of Law which is meant to be far above the decadence of pursuing power and control.

If you pull a toad from the pool, you will have a toad on the court.  The court doesn't make the animal, the animal makes the court.

Justice is only for those who can afford it. It is a commodity, like a car or a fine home. It can be bought, and it does have a price.

Ginsberg is what she is. She will go away when she dies. 

And then,  she will be replaced.  From the same pool.

Drain the pool and refill it with ethical judges... There is nothing in the Constitution requiring a Supreme Court Justice to be a lawyer... nothing.  Appoint well educated, MORAL Citizens, to be our judges and get rid of the lawyers. Hang them, as Shakespear suggested in Henry VI.

The law should never be so complex that it can not be understood by the individuals expected to obey it.  Lawyers have crafted the laws to ensure they are necessary to its application... that must stop.

For a people to consent unto the law it must be understood... consent implies understanding and the laws in America are no longer crafted so the common man may comprehend them.  In fact, lawyers and judges can't agree on what much of the law states.  Hence, the need for so much litigation in America. 

When Justice Ginsberg meets her judge in heaven ... she will be judged not on her academic or judicial prowess alone... it will be on her position with God and His Word... the ultimate law.  She needs to be thinking about that and acting accordingly.

Wouldn't that be a great antidote to the rule by tyranny—to turn it ALL upside down with common law, logic, morality, consistency, equality under the law, responsibility to all——oh, wow.

Either she's sleeping or she has really bad posture...

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

ALERT ALERT

Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.

TEA PARTY TARGET

Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

NJ.com adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service