4th Circuit appeals court refuses to reinstate Trump's travel ban

[SuperCharge]

Indeed! I already said thanks, don't fish for more.

I cannot see how anyone reasonable could imagine there wouldn't be an appearance of partiality and favouritism in such a recent and so highly politicized an appointment. No matter how impartial Gorsuch actually is, there's so way this most political of appointments with the paint barely dry on his nameplate can avoid whichever side he might displease from credibly claiming his decision in this most political of cases was tarnished by the perception that politics may have motivated it. Recusal is about keeping things looking clean, and that's how the Republican appointee can clean off the smears the Party left him with after their shameless politicking.

Unless, with Ginsberg out, he votes to make the decision a tie. But that's a possibility for Fairytale Time.

Oh isn't that interesting, but all the Obama appointed Liberal judges who ruled on this case aren't biased lol. Love the hypocrisy. The pendulum has swung the other way now. Ginsberg said it, nobody but her, now she must recuse herself! You and I already know SCOTUS is going to reverse it, and if you don't, you soon will

 

[slowandeasy]

Oh isn't that interesting, but all the Obama appointed Liberal judges who ruled on this case aren't biased lol. Love the hypocrisy. The pendulum has swung the other way now. Ginsberg said it, nobody but her, now she must recuse herself!

LOL.. I dont' agree with some of your posts, but this one was very good.

 

[SuperCharge]

LOL.. I dont' agree with some of your posts, but this one was very good.

Thanks Slowandeasy

 

[IM469]

Oh isn't that interesting, but all the Obama appointed Liberal judges who ruled on this case aren't biased lol. Love the hypocrisy. The pendulum has swung the other way now. Ginsberg said it, nobody but her, now she must recuse herself! You and I already know SCOTUS is going to reverse it, and if you don't, you soon will

Nobody should recluse themselves - not Ginsburg, not Gorsuch - independent of party affiliation, they are suppose to interpret the law - not create new ones. While parties nominate judges they hope will lean their way in interpretation - they are not going to call any politicians to determine a ruling. The only judge I think put party policy over law is dead - Judge Scalia - may he rot in eternal hell. (I'm not referring to his homophobia - 'Scalia argued that moral objections to homosexuality were sufficient justification for criminalizing gay sex') but Citizens United destroyed US democracy by letting corporations pour unlimited funds to the candidate that will look after their interests.

 

[SuperCharge]

Nobody should recluse themselves - not Ginsburg, not Gorsuch - independent of party affiliation, they are suppose to interpret the law - not create new ones. While parties nominate judges they hope will lean their way in interpretation - they are not going to call any politicians to determine a ruling. The only judge I think put party policy over law is dead - Judge Scalia - may he rot in eternal hell. (I'm not referring to his homophobia - 'Scalia argued that moral objections to homosexuality were sufficient justification for criminalizing gay sex') but Citizens United destroyed US democracy by letting corporations pour unlimited funds to the candidate that will look after their interests.

It's recuse, not recluse.

Gorsuch isn't involved in any way, shape or form. He hasn't gone on the msm and shared his political beliefs and opinions, that was Ginsburg, she owns that doozy -- She won't be the first Justice to have to recuse, and certainly won't be the last. Man, are you really going to have a hard time with Gorsuch then because he's made out of the same cloth as Scalia LOL. God rest his soul!

 

[slowandeasy]

It's recuse, not recluse.

Gorsuch isn't involved in any way, shape or form. He hasn't gone on the msm and shared his political beliefs and opinions, that was Ginsburg, she owns that doozy -- She won't be the first Justice to have to recuse, and certainly won't be the last. Man, are you really going to have a hard time with Gorsuch then because he's made out of the same cloth as Scalia LOL. God rest his soul!

In an ideal world I would agree with IM469 that judges should have the integrity to rise above their own personal agenda.

However, if the courts and judges are going to rule that Trumps campaign shows his intent or bias, it would be very hypocritical for this judge not to be subject to the same scrutiny. Having said that judicial proceedings sometimes seem to have their own definition of logic and common sense.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out

 

[SuperCharge]

In an ideal world I would agree with IM469 that judges should have the integrity to rise above their own personal agenda.

In a perfect world yes, but as we have so blatantly witnessed these past few years, much of the higher up's in the legal and judicial system and DOJ's have become politicized and have major conflicts of interest. I'd like to think that the highest court in the land is exempt from all that politicization but Ginsburgs' comments showed she is not bi-partisan and has a disdain for the President that she made well known.

 

[oldjones]

Oh isn't that interesting, but all the Obama appointed Liberal judges who ruled on this case aren't biased lol. Love the hypocrisy. The pendulum has swung the other way now. Ginsberg said it, nobody but her, now she must recuse herself! You and I already know SCOTUS is going to reverse it, and if you don't, you soon will

If you think that's cause for them to recuse, then who's left to decide the case? Because every single judge was an appointment by a President from one party or the other.

But no judge on the Court was appointed in as partisan and divisive a way as Gorsuch, nor has any judge been asked to rule in almost his first case, on an a decree from the President who appointed him, and possibly go against the Party that conducted such a self-serving and politicized proceeding. If he decides for Trump, he'll appear to be motivated by gratitude, if against, he'll be accused of ignoring the merits, from fear of appearing biased.

Like Clarence Thomas, he'll carry this one for a long time, unless he says, 'Because of my early-term appointment many view me as as too much a part of political controversies to appear as impartial as the Court's decisions need to be viewed, so I'm sitting this one out.'

 

[mandrill]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg better do the right thing and recuse herself from the Trump travel ban case

If campaign comments are evidence of bias in a way that invalidates the actions of a decision-maker (as the 4th Circuit claimed), then the same logic the 4th Circuit used to deny Trump’s travel ban must require Ginsburg’s recusal in the Supreme Court’s review of that travel ban.

The standard for recusal does not require a judge admit their bias. It only requires a review whether the public might “reasonably question” the “impartiality” of the judge in the matter. Liberals argued Justice Scalia merely hunting with a Vice President compelled his recusal. As Justice Scalia recognized, recusal is appropriate whenever a Justice has “said or done something” that impacts the perception of impartiality on a pending case. As Justice Scalia implicitly recognized, recusal may be necessary when the Court’s judgment would have “any bearing upon the reputation and integrity” of a party before the court if that individual Justice has voiced a prior opinion on that individual through friendship or hostility.

The general statute for recusal derives from section 455 of Title 28. There is an occasional misunderstanding that the statute does not apply to Supreme Court justices, but that is incorrect, as it was often rewritten to make it stricter and stronger in its recusal standards after prior Justices failed to recuse. A justice “shall disqualify himself” whenever “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” and whenever the justice has a “personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.” What matters is not the reality of bias, but the appearance of bias. The goal of the statute is to “promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.”

The travel ban case concerns the intentions of the President, as explicated in his campaign statements, according to the Fourth Circuit. (This is, of course, a completely unheard of precedent for any President; if held consistently, Obamacare was unconstitutional since the President repeatedly claimed on the campaign trail it was a mandate, not a tax, and the Supreme Court recognized if it was in fact a mandate, Obamacare’s cornerstone was illegal and unconstitutional). How can anyone not “reasonably question” whether Justice Ginsburg is partial about President Trump’s campaign intentions when she said the following about him:

•“He is a faker” in an attack on Trump CNN admitted “as if presenting a legal brief"

•“everything is up for grabs” if Trump wins, in Ginsburg denouncing Trump, to the Associated Press

•“Now it is time for us to move to New Zealand” if Trump won, to the New York Times

Can anyone looking at those statements conclude Ginsburg would not be reasonably seen as partial about Trump in a case that is all about perceiving Trump’s intentions? If Justice Ginsburg is honest to the principles she claims, she must recuse from the Trump travel ban case now before the Court.

You actually posted something interesting, Soupy.

BTW, what Ginsburg said does not meet the test for recusal for bias, as they were general statements of distaste for Trump. The statements have to be in relation to the specific subject matter before the court - i.e. the Muslim Ban. If Ginsburg had made strong statements about the Muslim ban before hearing argument, she would arguably have tainted herself. Merely saying Trump is a "faker" doesn't meet the test.

Now you go back on ignore.

 

[SuperCharge]

If you think that's cause for them to recuse, then who's left to decide the case? Because every single judge was an appointment by a President from one party or the other.

But no judge on the Court was appointed in as partisan and divisive a way as Gorsuch, nor has any judge been asked to rule in almost his first case, on an a decree from the President who appointed him, and possibly go against the Party that conducted such a self-serving and politicized proceeding. If he decides for Trump, he'll appear to be motivated by gratitude, if against, he'll be accused of ignoring the merits, from fear of appearing biased.
ILike Clarence Thomas, he'll carry this one for a long time, unless he says, 'Because of my early-term appointment many view me as as too much a part of political controversies to appear as impartial as the Court's decisions need to be viewed, so I'm sitting this one out.'

You know the answer but I'll tell you anyways -- It's called an appointement and then a confirmation. ie: "he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court..."They're not just appointed like Federal Judges. They have to pass the confirmation, and we know how rigorous that is.

As far as Ginsberg recusing it's the only thing right thing she can do. Well see if she does, if yes, then you are left with 8 justices.

And btw - It was Biden who started the whole 'lame duck' don't appoint a Supreme Court Justice in the last year of your Presidency remember?

So now that the shoe was on the other foot and Obama wanted to nominate Garland it was too late. They decided who the people chose to become the next President will decide. So it was the voters who actually decided. If Hillary had won, you'd be looking at Garland sitting on the bench right now, but she didn't (thank god) and we have way better with Gorsuch. Sucks when you're on the shitty end, doesn't it?

That why the Democrats need to be very careful with how they are trying to obstruct Trumps picks, because when the shoe is on the other foot, it's not gonna be pretty. 2 can play that game! We won't forget.

 

[Bud Plug]

You actually posted something interesting, Soupy.

BTW, what Ginsburg said does not meet the test for recusal for bias, as they were general statements of distaste for Trump. The statements have to be in relation to the specific subject matter before the court - i.e. the Muslim Ban. If Ginsburg had made strong statements about the Muslim ban before hearing argument, she would arguably have tainted herself. Merely saying Trump is a "faker" doesn't meet the test.

Now you go back on ignore.

Certainly not true in Ontario. A judge in Ontario would be in violation of principles of Judicial Conduct if they made partisan political statements and then proceeded to rule on a matter pertaining to those same political parties: http://www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/ojc/principles-of-judicial-office/ . Clearly, relationships, at the very least, matter in addition to prior opinions on the subject matter of the litigation.

SCOTUS practice doesn't seem to be much different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification

 

[SuperCharge]

Certainly not true in Ontario. A judge in Ontario would be in violation of principles of Judicial Conduct if they made partisan political statements and then proceeded to rule on a matter pertaining to those same political parties: http://www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/ojc/principles-of-judicial-office/ . Clearly, relationships, at the very least, matter in addition to prior opinions on the subject matter of the litigation.

SCOTUS practice doesn't seem to be much different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification

So after Oagre put me on ignore and then off again, and then on again and then off again, I decided to stop the games and just ignore him and didn't see this post of his. Can you get any more immature Oagre?! Typical left, throw something out there and then RUN LOL.

And yes Bud, like usual you are 100 percent correcto mundo

 

[fuji]

Certainly not true in Ontario. A judge in Ontario would be in violation of principles of Judicial Conduct if they made partisan political statements and then proceeded to rule on a matter pertaining to those same political parties: http://www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/ojc/principles-of-judicial-office/ . Clearly, relationships, at the very least, matter in addition to prior opinions on the subject matter of the litigation.

SCOTUS practice doesn't seem to be much different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification

Really, so if we go back through the life histories of all the SC judges, if any of them ever expressed support for one party or the other, say, they registered as voters for a party, then they should recuse themselves?

Most of your arguments are just sophistry, like this.

 

[MattRoxx]

He didn't ban all muslims so...

That's an excuse that won't hold up in SCOTUS. As the travel ban was always a temporary measure...

Sure doesn't sound temporary in Trump's tweets. A big problem with supporting Trump is that he contradicts himself all the time.

Donald J. Trump‏
@realDonaldTrump
People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!

But I do agree with the assertion that Trump originally said he wanted a 90 day ban. But it's been more than 90 days so what did he accomplish in the time he said he needed to solve the terrorist crisis in America? I mean in those 90 days there have been several terrorist attacks in America - but they were carried out by white supremacists.
And Trump has not done anything much. Played a round of golf, insulted NATO members, praised Saudi Arabia's rulers, insulted G7 leaders, praised Phillipine's murderous leader, insulted 190 countries, played another round of golf, promoted Germany and China as the world leaders in energy technology, tweeted like an angry old man trying to send back soup in a deli.
But he hasn't done anything about terrorism or immigration policy.

Early on in the battle over the first ban, Spicer insisted that no, the executive order was not a ban. "It's not a Muslim ban. It's not a travel ban," Spicer told reporters in January at the White House. "It's a vetting system to keep America safe."

Asked why Trump had previously used the word "ban" to describe the order in a tweet, Spicer said the president was "using the words that the media is using."

Trump insisted on Twitter on Monday that the order was, in fact, a ban.

"People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!" he tweeted.

He added, "The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C." then tweeted two more times about the "Travel Ban" and the good it would do.

Trump's clowning you. I don't know why you feel obligated to defend him. It's only going to get worse.

 

[mandrill]

In an ideal world I would agree with IM469 that judges should have the integrity to rise above their own personal agenda.

However, if the courts and judges are going to rule that Trumps campaign shows his intent or bias, it would be very hypocritical for this judge not to be subject to the same scrutiny. Having said that judicial proceedings sometimes seem to have their own definition of logic and common sense.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out

Apples and oranges. We're not talking about general "bias" here - as defined by a layman. We're talking about using campaign statements to interpret a forbidden purpose re the Muslim Ban. You guys just don't get the legal arguments.

 

[mandrill]

Certainly not true in Ontario. A judge in Ontario would be in violation of principles of Judicial Conduct if they made partisan political statements and then proceeded to rule on a matter pertaining to those same political parties: http://www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/ojc/principles-of-judicial-office/ . Clearly, relationships, at the very least, matter in addition to prior opinions on the subject matter of the litigation.

SCOTUS practice doesn't seem to be much different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification

Wait and see, Buddy. I've got more important things to do than explain shit to you.

 

[SuperCharge]

Sure doesn't sound temporary in Trump's tweets. A big problem with supporting Trump is that he contradicts himself all the time.


But I do agree with the assertion that Trump originally said he wanted a 90 day ban. But it's been more than 90 days so what did he accomplish in the time he said he needed to solve the terrorist crisis in America? I mean in those 90 days there have been several terrorist attacks in America - but they were carried out by white supremacists.
And Trump has not done anything about that reality.


Trump's clowning you. I don't know why you feel obligated to support him. It's only going to get worse.

That's neither here nor there, we've been debating on what his intent was for months now. On the face of that order it is legitimate. He has every right to protect our borders based on national security. However, the ball is in the SCOTUS hands now. I'm hearing October.

FYI the Hawaii judge halted them from assessing the vetting process immigration outside of the ban, so in fact they denied them from doing that as well.

Here is the argument on that specific point during the 4th circuit court of appeals. Skip to 7:00 mins in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gppf3176dE8&t=119s

 

[cye]

This tweet from the idiot President should be fun in court.

"In any event we are EXTREME VETTING people coming into the U.S. in order to help keep our country safe. The courts are slow and political!"

And even Soupie should find Kelly Anne's husband's tweet problematic.

"These tweets may make some ppl feel better, but they certainly won't help OSG get 5 votes in SCOTUS, which is what actually matters. Sad."

Have fun tonight George, you might need terb.

It's become apparent it was never about policy but in the words of Meaghan Trainor " it's all about the base." and feeding this incompetent asshole's ego.

 

[cye]

You missed the point. SAD!!! The ban was meant to allow them to put extreme vetting in place. Well according to the dopey one, they have instituted that. When George Conway declines an important position and tells you you blew it, your position is toast.
This isn't about fighting terrorism, it's about solidifying the xenophobic aggrieved deplorable base.

 

[SuperCharge]

This tweet from the idiot President should be fun in court.

"In any event we are EXTREME VETTING people coming into the U.S. in order to help keep our country safe. The courts are slow and political!"

And even Soupie should find Kelly Anne's husband's tweet problematic.

"These tweets may make some ppl feel better, but they certainly won't help OSG get 5 votes in SCOTUS, which is what actually matters. Sad."

Have fun tonight George, you might need terb.

It's become apparent it was never about policy but in the words of Meaghan Trainor " it's all about the base." and feeding this incompetent asshole's ego.

What did you think, because the ban is on hold, that they weren't going to make sure, to make sure, the ppl entering from those 6 countries aren't extremely vetted or something? Of course they are vetting who's coming in. That's just ridiculous.