Guess who just apologised

[Auld Phart]

AFTER she left the bench.

Or did you think she was still on the bench, and Bush was president in 2013?

Doesn't matter --- the contrast there is between "apologize" and "regret".

Both Justices expressed a "regret" but in the present case you tried to make it into an "apology". So did the OP.
You even extended it to "liar".

Just using your own logic.

Sandra is no longer bound by the restrictions of her former position.

Ruth still is.

IRRELEVANT.

The distinction is between "regret" and "apologize". With a side of "liar".

Doesn't matter WHO'S doing it or in what context.

Doesn't matter WHO'S doing it or in what context.

I see you enjoy being wrong.

I uh, know what my own point is, Doodles.

You have NO point

 

[Auld Phart]

lol. biased? maybe you could claim bias if something about the election ended up in front of the court...

and nothing about expressing regret makes one a liar

Sandra Day O'Connor "regrets" Bush v. Gore too. Wonder if this crowd would paint her a "liar".

AFTER she left the bench.

Or did you think she was still on the bench, and Bush was president in 2013?

Doesn't matter --- the contrast there is between "apologize" and "regret".

Both Justices expressed a "regret" but in the present case you tried to make it into an "apology". So did the OP.
You even extended it to "liar".

Just using your own logic.

Sandra is no longer bound by the restrictions of her former position.

Ruth still is.

As was Scalia...but don't see any RWRS wagging their fingers over him publicly expressing his opinion.......first.

Still waiting to see your link where he made a comment similar to Ginsburgs

 

[Kondor3]

She did not apologize. An apology requires you saying you did a wrong and ask for forgiveness.

She admitted she phukked up... close enough for gubmint work...

 

[Pogo]

Doesn't matter --- the contrast there is between "apologize" and "regret".

Both Justices expressed a "regret" but in the present case you tried to make it into an "apology". So did the OP.
You even extended it to "liar".

Just using your own logic.

Sandra is no longer bound by the restrictions of her former position.

Ruth still is.

IRRELEVANT.

The distinction is between "regret" and "apologize". With a side of "liar".

Doesn't matter WHO'S doing it or in what context.

Doesn't matter WHO'S doing it or in what context.

I see you enjoy being wrong.

I uh, know what my own point is, Doodles.

You have NO point

Not one that you can refute, apparently. Too bad.

 

[bodecea]

Sandra Day O'Connor "regrets" Bush v. Gore too. Wonder if this crowd would paint her a "liar".

AFTER she left the bench.

Or did you think she was still on the bench, and Bush was president in 2013?

Doesn't matter --- the contrast there is between "apologize" and "regret".

Both Justices expressed a "regret" but in the present case you tried to make it into an "apology". So did the OP.
You even extended it to "liar".

Just using your own logic.

Sandra is no longer bound by the restrictions of her former position.

Ruth still is.

As was Scalia...but don't see any RWRS wagging their fingers over him publicly expressing his opinion.......first.

Still waiting to see your link where he made a comment similar to Ginsburgs

On phone...but if you google "Scalia public opinions" it will enlighten you.

 

[Auld Phart]

Sandra is no longer bound by the restrictions of her former position.

Ruth still is.

IRRELEVANT.

The distinction is between "regret" and "apologize". With a side of "liar".

Doesn't matter WHO'S doing it or in what context.

Doesn't matter WHO'S doing it or in what context.

I see you enjoy being wrong.

I uh, know what my own point is, Doodles.

You have NO point

Not one that you can refute, apparently. Too bad.

I did.

You apparently can't tell the difference between a sitting justice, and a retired one.

 

[Hossfly]

Stupid move by Ginsburg to apologize.

Even stupider to have said it in the first place.

I disagree. Evil triumphs when good men (or women) do nothing.

She ain't a good woman. She's a liberal biased judge.

What'd she say about "liberalism" then?

The old bat is the biggest liberal in SCROTUS. Left handed as a corkscrew.

 

[Iceweasel]

She's a Supreme Court Justice they are prevented from voicing their personal opinions about POTUS contests. She broke the law, and she violated her Code of Ethics. Color me unsurprised that you have no problem with that violation.

Uh --- really.

What "law" would this be then?

"Canon 2, which provides that “[a] judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently and diligently.” It also could violate Rule 2.1 of Canon 2, which provides that the judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge’s personal and extrajudicial activities."

Explain how stating her opinion is "performing the duties of judicial office".

Yeppers. You're a stupid one too. Judicial duties are always supposed to be based on impartial analysis, her declaration IS a demonstration of partiality. You really ARE a clown....

do you doubt that the other justices also have opinions on the candidates and race?

Yep, just professional enough not to let it influence their decision making. Running your yap publicly is a decision.

 

[Kondor3]

Ginsberg, insulated in her ivory tower, suffered a disconnect with both protocol and tradition...

She got bitch-slapped by BOTH sides of the aisle, for her trouble...

Somebody must also have clued her in, that her ill-advised attack-dog behavior might very well backfire on the HildaBeast...

So, Ginsberg decided to get out in front of the damned thing and do her best with Damage Control...

There was nothing 'ethical' or 'reflective' about it, in all probability...

Besides... the damage has already been done...

Ginsberg's damage-control came too little, too late...

Like most Liberals, when they get backed into a corner and are forced to apologize, they try to make it sound like anything but...

As genuine as a three-dollar bill...

She's not fooling anyone...

 

[Auld Phart]

AFTER she left the bench.

Or did you think she was still on the bench, and Bush was president in 2013?

Doesn't matter --- the contrast there is between "apologize" and "regret".

Both Justices expressed a "regret" but in the present case you tried to make it into an "apology". So did the OP.
You even extended it to "liar".

Just using your own logic.

Sandra is no longer bound by the restrictions of her former position.

Ruth still is.

As was Scalia...but don't see any RWRS wagging their fingers over him publicly expressing his opinion.......first.

Still waiting to see your link where he made a comment similar to Ginsburgs

On phone...but if you google "Scalia public opinions" it will enlighten you.

Yup, that enlightened me.

lots of opinions about policies.

not one that I could see about a president or presidential candidate.

Care to revise?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Her career and the ass chewing she was getting.

her career? she has a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. there is nobody above her to give her an ass chewing

everybody in our govt has someone who can give them an ass chewing......

so who supposedly gave it to a supreme court justice?

in her case Roberts.....he is not just the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court he is also the head of the United States federal court system....he is the chief administrative officer for the federal courts and as head of the Judicial Conference of the US im sure he can tell her plenty should he want to........

not really. he has no authority over her

keep telling yourself that.....if the guy is the CHIEF Administrator of the federal courts and HEAD of the Judicial Council as well as the CHIEF Justice it seems he has more say than than an Associate Justice has........

 

[Harry Dresden]

She's an 83 year old Jewish grandmother. Done well to keep quiet this long. I'm kind of sorry she apologized. Why do so many people LOVE Trump for being politically incorrect, but an 83 year old woman tries it and BLAM. Hang her.

you forgot to mention she is a supreme court justice.....there lies the difference....

Because she is a Supreme Court Justice she can't have a personal opinion?

Apparently not.

no apparently she can.....so you will just go with that instead of replying to what i and a few others said above?.....

Jesus, Harry--I already said what I had to say.

i was just pointing out that you and one percenter were wrong....she can have an opinion....

 

[Kondor3]

None of that old Scalia shit makes any difference whatsoever...

We are not talking about Scalia...

We are talking about Ginsberg...

Another fine scion of The Party That Holds Itself Out to be So Much Better and More Righteous Than the Other Guys...

The "Yeah, but the other guys did it, too" defense sucks... strictly 3rd grade recess yard shit...

Especially when lightweights try to apply it to the impartiality and dignity of the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

[ogibillm]

Uh --- really.

What "law" would this be then?

"Canon 2, which provides that “[a] judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently and diligently.” It also could violate Rule 2.1 of Canon 2, which provides that the judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge’s personal and extrajudicial activities."

Explain how stating her opinion is "performing the duties of judicial office".

Yeppers. You're a stupid one too. Judicial duties are always supposed to be based on impartial analysis, her declaration IS a demonstration of partiality. You really ARE a clown....

do you doubt that the other justices also have opinions on the candidates and race?

Yep, just professional enough not to let it influence their decision making. Running your yap publicly is a decision.

but obviously not a judicial decision which is the only decision making that matters.

 

[Pogo]

None of that old Scalia shit makes any difference whatsoever...

We are not talking about Scalia...

We are talking about Ginsberg...

Another fine scion of The Party That Holds Itself Out to be So Much Better and More Righteous Than the Other Guys...

The "Yeah, but the other guys did it, too" defense sucks... strictly 3rd grade recess yard shit...

Again --- what is the specific case we're talking?

Seeing as how we all understand that "being a judge" does not comprise a "case".....

Especially when lightweights try to apply it to the impartiality and dignity of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Reeeally. So she was speaking on behalf of the Court? When she made reference to her husband, that meant he's married to all of them, did it?

 

[ogibillm]

her career? she has a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. there is nobody above her to give her an ass chewing

everybody in our govt has someone who can give them an ass chewing......

so who supposedly gave it to a supreme court justice?

in her case Roberts.....he is not just the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court he is also the head of the United States federal court system....he is the chief administrative officer for the federal courts and as head of the Judicial Conference of the US im sure he can tell her plenty should he want to........

not really. he has no authority over her

keep telling yourself that.....if the guy is the CHIEF Administrator of the federal courts and HEAD of the Judicial Council as well as the CHIEF Justice it seems he has more say than than an Associate Justice has........

he holds no authority over Ginsburg

 

[Kondor3]

None of that old Scalia shit makes any difference whatsoever...

We are not talking about Scalia...

We are talking about Ginsberg...

Another fine scion of The Party That Holds Itself Out to be So Much Better and More Righteous Than the Other Guys...

The "Yeah, but the other guys did it, too" defense sucks... strictly 3rd grade recess yard shit...

Again --- what is the specific case we're talking?

Seeing as how we all understand that "being a judge" does not comprise a "case".....

This has nothing whatsoever to do with Case A or B.

This has everything to do with the dignity and impartiality of the high office to which she has been entrusted.

Especially when lightweights try to apply it to the impartiality and dignity of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Reeeally. So she was speaking on behalf of the Court? When she made reference to her husband, that meant he's married to all of them, did it?

I was referring to Liberals rushing to her defense with the recess-yard 'The other guy did it too' defense - and neither said nor implied that she spoke for the court.

Ginsberg's break with tradition and decorum, in attack-dog fashion, itself, also soils and cheapens the dignity of The Court.

Stop trying to spin-doctor this... the Old Girl herself has admitted that she was wrong.

She - and you - lost this one.

Next slide, please.

 

[Pogo]

None of that old Scalia shit makes any difference whatsoever...

We are not talking about Scalia...

We are talking about Ginsberg...

Another fine scion of The Party That Holds Itself Out to be So Much Better and More Righteous Than the Other Guys...

The "Yeah, but the other guys did it, too" defense sucks... strictly 3rd grade recess yard shit...

Again --- what is the specific case we're talking?

Seeing as how we all understand that "being a judge" does not comprise a "case".....

This has nothing whatsoever to do with Case A or B.

This has everything to do with the dignity and impartiality of the high office to which she has been entrusted.

Especially when lightweights try to apply it to the impartiality and dignity of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Reeeally. So she was speaking on behalf of the Court? When she made reference to her husband, that meant he's married to all of them, did it?

I was referring to Liberals rushing to her defense with the recess-yard 'The other guy did it too' defense - and neither said nor implied that she spoke for the court.

Ginsberg's break with tradition and decorum, in attack-dog fashion, itself, also soils and cheapens the dignity of The Court.

Stop trying to spin-doctor this... the Old Girl herself has admitted that she was wrong.

She - and you - lost this one.

Next slide, please.

So you didn't address the point at all.
I was clearly referring to "impartiality and dignity of the high office". Was she speaking for the Court, yes or no?

 

[Kondor3]

None of that old Scalia shit makes any difference whatsoever...

We are not talking about Scalia...

We are talking about Ginsberg...

Another fine scion of The Party That Holds Itself Out to be So Much Better and More Righteous Than the Other Guys...

The "Yeah, but the other guys did it, too" defense sucks... strictly 3rd grade recess yard shit...

Again --- what is the specific case we're talking?

Seeing as how we all understand that "being a judge" does not comprise a "case".....

This has nothing whatsoever to do with Case A or B.

This has everything to do with the dignity and impartiality of the high office to which she has been entrusted.

Especially when lightweights try to apply it to the impartiality and dignity of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Reeeally. So she was speaking on behalf of the Court? When she made reference to her husband, that meant he's married to all of them, did it?

I was referring to Liberals rushing to her defense with the recess-yard 'The other guy did it too' defense - and neither said nor implied that she spoke for the court.

Ginsberg's break with tradition and decorum, in attack-dog fashion, itself, also soils and cheapens the dignity of The Court.

Stop trying to spin-doctor this... the Old Girl herself has admitted that she was wrong.

She - and you - lost this one.

Next slide, please.

So you didn't address the point at all.

Incorrect... rather... I was unwilling to contribute to allowing you to DISTRACT all of us from 'the point'... there... all fixed.

Repeat after me...

"Yeah, well, the Libs lost this one, after all, dammit!!!"

Then walk away...

Far more honorable, and far less likely to generate unwanted stomach acid, than if you dwell on it.

 

[Pogo]

Slip slidin' away...
Slip slidin' away....
You know the dearer the obfuscation the more you're slip slidin' away....

Diga me. If a person happens to hold a Supreme Court position ---- does everything she says somehow become a reflection of the Court?

What if she's asked her opinion of her new Chevy? Or where the Pirates will finish?

If she happens rather to hold the position of plumber, do her opinions magically osmote to the pipefitter's union?

Ah, Composition fallacies....