Ruth Bader Ginsburg Suggests Senators Can be Disqualified from Upcoming Impeachment Trial if they ar

[mystery-ak]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Suggests Senators Can be Disqualified from Upcoming Impeachment Trial if they are Not Impartial

by Jim Hoft December 19, 2019


Ruth Bader Ginsburg Suggests Senators Can be Disqualified from Upcoming Impeachment Trial if they are Not Impartial
Jim Hoft by Jim Hoft December 19, 2019 236 Comments

    250Share 104Tweet Email

Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke with the BBC this week about the upcoming impeachment trial in the US Senate.

During her questioning Justice Ginsburg suggested that US Senators could be disqualified from the proceedings if they are not impartial.

Justice Ginsburg: “The House indicts, and the Senate tries. Should a trier be impartial? Of course, that’s the job of an impartial judge.”

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Suggests Senators Can be Disqualified from Upcoming Impeachment Trial if they are Not Impartial
Jim Hoft by Jim Hoft December 19, 2019 236 Comments

    250Share 104Tweet Email

Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke with the BBC this week about the upcoming impeachment trial in the US Senate.

During her questioning Justice Ginsburg suggested that US Senators could be disqualified from the proceedings if they are not impartial.

    Justice Ginsburg: “The House indicts, and the Senate tries. Should a trier be impartial? Of course, that’s the job of an impartial judge.”

Allahpundit wrote at HotAir about Ginsburg’s careless comments.

If Schumer or Pelosi (or whoever might have standing) sues McConnell and Graham, arguing that they’ve disqualified themselves from the trial, presumably SCOTUS could choose to hear that appeal. Could Ginsburg take part in that case now, having already stated her opinion that senators have a duty to be impartial as the triers of fact in impeachment? “I would not be surprised if some members of the Senate quoted RBG’s remarks to criticize their colleagues neutrality,” Blackman noted at one point in today’s post. Indeed. Ginsburg is now a player in this dispute, inadvertently or not, not just a potential adjudicator. Way to go.

Here is Ginsburg discussing the upcoming impeachment trial in the US Senate.

[240B]

In the mind of RBG, her idea of not impartial means Republicans.
So what she means is, only Democrats can participate in the trial.
Because in the mind of a Liberal like her, Democrats are always impartial.
Only Republicans are biased.
So who is going to write the legal definition of unbiased? Because such a definition does not currently exist now. And does the person who writes the definition have to be declared so called 'unbiased' to define it? How can a person be declared unbiased enough to write the definition of unbiased if such a definition does not exist? Even if there was a legal definition of unbiased, who would be appointed to adjudicate who is unbiased and who is not unbiased?

Seems a little tricky to me. Seems like RBG wants a third party to order the Senate as to how they can shape the trial. That is insanity. But of course she is 110 years old, sooooo.....

If Schumer or Pelosi (or whoever might have standing) sues McConnell and Graham, arguing that they’ve disqualified themselves from the trial, presumably SCOTUS could choose to hear that appeal. Could Ginsburg take part in that case now, having already stated her opinion that senators have a duty to be impartial as the triers of fact in impeachment? “I would not be surprised if some members of the Senate quoted RBG’s remarks to criticize their colleagues neutrality,” Blackman noted at one point in today’s post. Indeed. Ginsburg is now a player in this dispute, inadvertently or not, not just a potential adjudicator. Way to go.

That is true and documented. Ginsburg has said some horrible things about Trump since he was elected in interviews and such. As have several other Judges. They would all have to recuse.

But why just in the Senate? I mean to make the process fair, the same standard should have applied in the House. Which it certainly did not by a wildly extreme amount. To apply this rule now and not in the House makes the process unfair and fruit of the poison tree. The whole thing would have to be done over under the new rules.

[sneakypete]

In the mind of RBG, her idea of not impartial means Republicans.
So what she means is, only Democrats can participate in the trial.
Because in the mind of a Liberal like her, Democrats are always impartial.
 

@240B

Do NOT call her a liberal! There is nothing even the tiniest bit politically "liberal" about her. She and the other communists in this country like to hide behind that label because they know if they admitted to being communists they would be out of office.

Calling them "liberals" on empowers them and  helps them win.

 
 

[skeeter]

Doesn't Ginsberg know that the impeachment process isn't a criminal proceeding, but a political one?

Or did the founders intend that only the House recommendation to impeach can be political but the trial has to be a criminal one complete with removal of jurors for bias etc?

All this self serving about-facing by the rats is hilarious.

[PeteS in CA]

Where did RBG say Senators "Can be Disqualified"? Hoft's headline is untrue.

That isn't to say that what RBG said - I've heard several clips from the interview - wasn't stupid and shows she's not qualified to be a judge on the USSC.

She wrongly called Senators "judges". That is simply false. Per the USC, the judge presiding over the hearing will be the Chief Justice of the USSC, Judge Roberts.

Equally false - though RBG did not bring it up - is the notion that the Senators are like jurors. Unlike a newly impaneled jury, the Senators have seen/heard the "evidence" - Schifftyroo's closed hearing transcripts and the public hearings. IOW, the Senators have the information on which they can base their vote.

[DCPatriot]

She's calling Senators "judges" because they are deciding guilt or innocence with their personal ballot.

The vernacular, for us 'Peasants'.   

[XenaLee]

How can it be a trial.... if/when there has been no crime, stated, proven or otherwise?   Answer that, Ruthie.

[XenaLee]

Doesn't Ginsberg know that the impeachment process isn't a criminal proceeding, but a political one?

Or did the founders intend that only the House recommendation to impeach can be political but the trial has to be a criminal one complete with removal of jurors for bias etc?

All this self serving about-facing by the rats is hilarious.

Oh, she knows full well.   She's just trying to help the rats "rig" the process against Trump like the good little leftist party member that she (still) is.