Interesting legal point on PFT

[slag]

Brady, if he appeals to the US Supreme Court will be coming out of the 2d Circuit ... cases from which are reviewed by Ginsberg.

Brady has publicly supported Donald Trump.

Ginsberg recently got (I think inappropriately) into politics by basically calling Trump an asshat.

So, should she recuse herself if Brady seeks a stay of the 2d Circuit's decision to uphold the 4-game suspension?

Which illustrates why I think she should have STFU when asked about Trump.

EDITED TO ADD LINK:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ort-term-fate/

[PackWest]

Trump went after the Judge in San Diego who is hearing his case against Trump University.
Trump University was just a full blown scam and he's getting sued for it

That judge shut his piehole and let Trump wallow in his own dung
Everybody came to the defense of Judge Gonzalo Curiel. That was the playbook that Ginsberg should have followed...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...713-story.html

Jim Jeffries weighs in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CceQISThDYQ

[slag]

Not seeing your point as it pertains to Ginsberg.

[McCarthy12]

Maybe Maryanne Barry can sub in for her.

I agree that it was probably not appropriate. No more appropriate than Trump going all Trump on a Federal judge.

[slag]

Trump should have a Food Network show on how to cook feet, but Ginsberg, considering her position, should know better than to inject herself into a presidential election due to potential conflict of interest implications.

EDITED TO ADD: The Trump U. judge was accused of having a conflict of interest merely for being Hispanic, which is ridiculous. Ginsberg set herself up by saying shit that clearly indicates she has a problem with the Trumpster.

We all know how Supreme Court Justices are lining up politically, but they're supposed to at least keep up appearances, no?

[Eagle Road]

Trump should have a Food Network show on how to cook feet, but Ginsberg, considering her position, should know better than to inject herself into a presidential election due to potential conflict of interest implications.

EDITED TO ADD: The Trump U. judge was accused of having a conflict of interest merely for being Hispanic, which is ridiculous. Ginsberg set herself up by saying shit that clearly indicates she has a problem with the Trumpster.

We all know how Supreme Court Justices are lining up politically, but they're supposed to at least keep up appearances, no?

I agree she never should have stuck her nose into it, but I guess I will ask, she is still human and is entitled to her personal opinion as long as it isn't interfering in a case she is presiding over, no?

I do realize her opinion probably carries some weight, but honestly, any one that was/is going to vote for Trump probably doesn't give a crap about her opinion?

On another but similar note, I really can't remember a sitting President throwing comments around about a candidate as much as Obama has about Trump, is he the President 1st and a Democrat second, or the other way around?

IF Brady's case did get that far wouldn't she have to abstain?

[McCarthy12]

I would think so.

[slag]

That's the problem ... because of what she decides it could set her up to have to recuse herself.

The point is arguable in the Brady case, although strained.

And I just read a NY Times editorial (which is not a conservative paper) and the writer criticized her for doing what she did and noted that if something happened in this election like it did with Gore/Bush you could not believe that Ginsberg would base her legal opinion only on the law.

[Eagle Road]

That's the problem ... because of what she decides it could set her up to have to recuse herself.

The point is arguable in the Brady case, although strained.

And I just read a NY Times editorial (which is not a conservative paper) and the writer criticized her for doing what she did and noted that if something happened in this election like it did with Gore/Bush you could not believe that Ginsberg would base her legal opinion only on the law.

I guess that begs the question then, does this then affect ANY case with Conservative leanings going forward from having her "sitting" in that case.

I could see an argument.

[slag]

Sets her up for criticism, if not pressure to bow out ... just a bad idea for a sitting Supreme Court Justice.

[Melchior]

That's the problem ... because of what she decides it could set her up to have to recuse herself.

The point is arguable in the Brady case, although strained.

And I just read a NY Times editorial (which is not a conservative paper) and the writer criticized her for doing what she did and noted that if something happened in this election like it did with Gore/Bush you could not believe that Ginsberg would base her legal opinion only on the law.

Are we pretending that every judge has no political leaning? I think there has to be a direct and clear conflict, monetarily or otherwise, no? With any person, their background and beliefs are going to steer their decisions when they have any kind of leeway. That's just being human.

I thought judicial activism was becoming the norm anyway.

[slag]

Did you read what I wrote?

You avoid the appearance of conflict when you're a judge.

It's not that complicated.

[Eagle Road]

Did you read what I wrote?

You avoid the appearance of conflict when you're a judge.

It's not that complicated.

Her bowing out would solve two problems, she would be out of the limelight, and with the passing of Scalia as the most right wing judge, her stepping down would even things up again, not to mention it would bring the court back to an uneven number so no split decisions.

[slag]

I'm not suggesting she needs to leave the court.

[art vandelay]

first of all i find the fact that ruth bader ginsburg is deciding tom brady's short term fate hilarious. the fact that donald trump is in the middle of it only makes things funnier. his rise to prominence has been completely worth it for these situations that you can't even make up.

yeah, judges should avoid conflict. but when you have so many people who are supposed to be "impartial" speaking out about trump, you have to think there is a reason. trump's response was classic - via twitter no less - but really another example of why trump's candidacy was funny at first, but scarier as time goes on(exactly like ginsburg said).