Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has a new book out, and in the book, he optimistically discusses the fact that judges should never try and shape outcomes with political bias.
In Gorsuch’s book, ‘A Republic, If You Can Keep It,’ he says:
“If you don’t like the law, you go across the street. You change it. It’s not my job to do their job,” he told The Washington Times from his Supreme Court chambers, on the other side of First Street from the U.S. Capitol. “We need to understand the separation of powers. … To me, it’s what keeps us free.”
Has he seen comments from two women on the Supreme Court who have commented on politics even though that is supposed to be prohibited?
We have several instances of clear bias from some of the women on the court:
LET’S TALK ABOUT LACK OF IMPARTIALITY, WHY DON’T WE? WE CAN START WITH ANTI-TRUMP GINSBURG AND THEN MOVE ON TO ADMITTEDLY BIASED SOTOMAYOR:
Don’t you love how the left is screaming about the so-called “extreme” picks by Trump for SCOTUS? Well, we’ve got extreme for you, and it isn’t anyone on the right. The lefty Supreme Court women have voiced their disregard for the bedrock of our nation…the constitution. They’ve also claimed that the electoral college is bunk and that illegal aliens are to be considered just like us. Yep, these are the women of the highest court in the land…scary, huh?
We have been covering these activist judges for some time and cannot believe that the Republicans have let this golden moment slip. They could be pulling the video clips below and using them to slam the very extreme views of these Supreme Court Justices! This is why it’s so important to bring the court back to being apolitical…
Andrew McCarthy of The National Review said it best:
It is simply accepted that these justices are not there to judge. They are there to vote. They get to the desired outcome the same way disparate-impact voodoo always manages to get to discrimination: Start at the end and work backward. Guiding precedents are for the quaint business of administering justice. In the social justice business, the road never before traveled will do if one less traveled is unavailable.
But there’s a problem. Once it has become a given that a critical mass of the Supreme Court is no longer expected, much less obliged, to do law, then the Court is no longer a legal institution. It is a political institution…
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an Egyptian TV station in 2012 that she would not recommend using the U.S. Constitution as a model for writing a modern-day constitution
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an Egyptian TV station in 2012 that she would not recommend using the U.S. Constitution as a model for writing a modern-day constitution. pic.twitter.com/QxSIMoIMDA
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) July 9, 2018
“WELL, SOME THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE, ONE IS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE” – RBG
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg got the crowd worked up when during a speech at Stanford University she said she’d support the abolition of the Electoral College. She was asked which constitutional provisions should “evolve with the society”:
“Well, some things I would like to change, one is the electoral college,” she said, to rapturous applause. “But that would require a constitutional amendment. Amending our constitution is powerfully hard to do, as I know from the struggle for the Equal Rights Amendment, which fell three state shy [of passage].
So much for the SCOTUS being apolitical…Check out her comments on equality for women. It’s like she’s time traveled back to the ’50s. What is the deal with these women that think we’re still in the dark ages!
The remark is at the 1:37 mark:
GINSBURG EXPRESSES “HOPE” IN ANTI-TRUMP PROTESTERS:
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg didn’t conceal her disgust in the current political climate with Donald Trump as our President. She was quick however to say how the anti-Trump protesters (without actually naming them) give her “hope”. Many believed that she was considering retirement after she was caught sleeping during President Obama’s SOTU speech 2 years ago. She later blamed her “snooze-fest” on wine that she consumed before the address:
Speaking to BBC Newsnight in a rare interview, Justice Ginsburg reiterated the importance of the free press.
“I read the Washington Post and the New York Times every day, and I think that the reporters are trying to tell the public the way things are,” she said.
Justice Ginsburg was nominated by Bill Clinton and is regarded as a liberal.
Justice Ginsburg was careful to avoid commenting directly on Donald Trump’s presidency.
Before the election, in July 2016, Justice Ginsburg criticised Donald Trump – calling him “a faker”. She later said she regretted making the comments.
“Think of what the press has done in the United States,” she said citing the Watergate scandal. “That story might never have come out if we didn’t have the free press that we do.”
Asked about the rise of the so-called “post truth world”, Justice Ginsburg said: “I am optimistic in the long run. A great man once said that the true symbol of the United States is not the bald eagle. It is the pendulum.
“And when the pendulum swings too far in one direction it will go back.
“Some terrible things have happened in the United States but one can only hope that we learn from those bad things.”
Justice Ginsburg said she was encouraged by the Women’s March, which saw millions in the US and around the world take part in anti-Trump protests.
“I’ve never seen such a demonstration – both the numbers and the rapport of the people in that crowd. There was no violence; it was orderly. So yes, we are not experiencing the best times, but there is there is reason to hope that that we will see a better day.”
Justice Ginsburg has been on the Supreme Court since 1993 and – at 83 years-old – is the oldest serving member.
Asked how much longer she would stay in post, she said: “At my age, you have to take it year by year. I know I’m OK. What will be next year?”
She added: “I’m hopeful, however, because my most senior colleague the one who most recently retired, Justice John Paul Stevens, stepped down at age 90. So I have a way to go.” – BBC
New York Times 2005: “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court embraced the practice of consulting foreign legal decisions…rejecting the argument from conservatives that United States law should not take international thinking into account.”
JUDICIAL BIAS? LATINA SUPREME COURT JUSTICE Declares Her Shockingly Racist View On Ethnicity And Sex When Judging
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life” – Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor
As the main stream media does a hit job on Donald Trump for expressing his view that the presiding judge in the Trump University case is biased against him because of Trump’s views on immigration, we have a RACIST Latina Supreme Court Justice who’s openly declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge makes a difference in their judging! So which is it? The left wants to have it both ways, but they’re being outed as total hypocrites! Unreal!
Judge Sotomayor questioned whether achieving impartiality “is possible in all, or even, in most, cases.” She added, “And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”
AND THEY’RE CALLING TRUMP A RACIST?
WASHINGTON — In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”
In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.
Her remarks, at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, were not the only instance in which she has publicly described her view of judging in terms that could provoke sharp questioning in a confirmation hearing.
This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”
The video was of a panel discussion for law students interested in becoming clerks, and she was explaining the different experiences gained when working at district courts and appeals courts. Her remarks caught the eye of conservative bloggers who accused her of being a “judicial activist,” although Jonathan H. Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University law school, argued that critics were reading far too much into those remarks.
Republicans have signaled that they intend to put the eventual nominee under a microscope, and they say they were put on guard by Mr. Obama’s statement that judges should have “empathy,” a word they suggest could be code for injecting liberal ideology into the law.
Judge Sotomayor has given several speeches about the importance of diversity. But her 2001 remarks at Berkeley, which were published by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, went further, asserting that judges’ identities will affect legal outcomes.
“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”
Her remarks came in the context of reflecting her own life experiences as a Hispanic female judge and on how the increasing diversity on the federal bench “will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.”
In making her argument, Judge Sotomayor sounded many cautionary notes. She said there was no uniform perspective that all women or members of a minority group have, and emphasized that she was not talking about any individual case.
She also noted that the Supreme Court was uniformly white and male when it delivered historic rulings against racial and sexual discrimination. And she said she tried to question her own “opinions, sympathies and prejudices,” and aspired to impartiality.
Still, Judge Sotomayor questioned whether achieving impartiality “is possible in all, or even, in most, cases.” She added, “And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”Read more: NYT