Justice Ginsberg attacks the legitimacy of Trump's candidacy

[bendog]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg calls Trump a 'faker,' he says she should resign - CNNPolitics.com

Trump thinks he can attack a judge's heritage and ethnicity but reacts badly to being called out by Ginsberg.

She was great friends with Scalia. She believes in civility. She obviously believes Trump's candidacy is an attack on the Constitution.

Imo, Ginsburg stepped over a line. So did the Big Fat Racist with the Mexican Judge stuff, but that's another story.

 

[Syriusly]

1. Any SCOTUS Decision overturning a law must be ratified by 3/4 of the states in order for it to become effective
2. 10 year term limit on SCOTUS justices

So if the State of California were to pass a ban on all hand guns- you don't think that the Supreme Court Justice should be able to overturn that law?

Not without the legislatures of 3/4 of the states ratifying the decision?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

and the Progressives once again cheer a clear intrusion on the impartiality of the justice system. OF COURSE Judge Ginsberg has a right to her opinions and a right to vote however she pleases. She should of course not be voicing those opinions in public.

Of course only an idiot actually believed the court was unbiased anyway, but they are at least supposed to have the appearance of being unbiased.

 

[depotoo]

Alexander Hamilton, one of the writers of our Constitution -

The Courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise will instead of judgement; the consequences would be the substitution of their pleasure for that of the legislative body.

Having opinions is not an impeachable offense, idiots.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

1. Any SCOTUS Decision overturning a law must be ratified by 3/4 of the states in order for it to become effective
2. 10 year term limit on SCOTUS justices

So if the State of California were to pass a ban on all hand guns- you don't think that the Supreme Court Justice should be able to overturn that law?

Not without the legislatures of 3/4 of the states ratifying the decision?

Originally number 1 was: No Progressive shall ever hold elected office nor be appointed to any court, but I modified it

 

[BlindBoo]

So Supreme Court Justices have no First Amendment Rights?

She was not deciding a case in law, she was speaking her opinion.

No law against that, yet.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

So Supreme Court Justices have no First Amendment Rights?

She was not deciding a case in law, she was speaking her opinion.

No law against that, yet.

Knowing my opinion on those filthy non-human sacks of shit that sneak across our border, would you trust my ruling on the legality of illegal immigration?

 

[depotoo]

Read some of her opinions. She expresses her "pleasure" rather than "the sense of the law". She attempts to rewrite the Constitution. That is why this is streaming over into her comments of Trump. It hurts her credibilty, particularly if Trump were to become President.

So Supreme Court Justices have no First Amendment Rights?

She was not deciding a case in law, she was speaking her opinion.

No law against that, yet.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Read some of her opinions. She expresses her "pleasure" rather than "the sense of the law". She attempts to rewrite the Constitution. That is why this is streaming over into her comments of Trump.

So Supreme Court Justices have no First Amendment Rights?

She was not deciding a case in law, she was speaking her opinion.

No law against that, yet.

how can her judgement be trusted with anything that involves Trump. She will judge against him every time. She needs to be removed.

 

[kaz]

She should be impeached for displaying it so openly though. Of course liberals will alibi her. But if a conservative justice skewered Clinton like that, I think they should be impeached too. It's not their role, and worse, it shows overt bias

The moronic Ginsberg has advocated federal judges looking at cases in foreign courts to help them decide cases in U.S courts. We have a federal justice system based on "common law." This type of activity advocated by Dimsberg goes outside those parameters of that system.

Kennedy has cited foreign law in his majority/minority opinions. It's pathetic

 

[Wolfpack1]

Her behavior is very questionable. Openly campaigning for a particular candidate, seems to be a big ethics violation. Trump may be justified in demanding she step down.

 

[kaz]

Yup. Throw every single one of those damned liberals in prison. Way to go, Herr Kaz.

My OP post was three sentences. Try reading it slower

GFY. Your implications are clear. RWNJ's need to find a reason to get ALL these bad acting liberals out of the way!!! You're all crying Hillary isn't in prison and now you're going to put ole Ruth there for speaking to a biographer off camera? Would you be screaming if Scalia had given Trump the thumbs up in the privacy of his living room?
When you get a little older you just don't give a shit what people think when you speak your mind. She'd probably have announced her retirement already if the goddamned senate would replace anyone who left. But they won't, so she's still working.

Yes, my implications are clear. Actually they aren't "implications" at all. I directly said it. No one on the court should be overtly throwing themselves into the political process. ON BOTH SIDES. I SAID THAT. I also said "if a conservative justice skewered Clinton like that, I think they should be impeached too." And you come away with, OMG, you're OK with right wingers doing it!

Go back, read my OP, s-l-o-w-e-r and see if you can pick that up. It's three sentences for crying out loud

 

[kaz]

She should be impeached for displaying it so openly though. Of course liberals will alibi her. But if a conservative justice skewered Clinton like that, I think they should be impeached too. It's not their role, and worse, it shows overt bias

This comes from the school of “thought” that you’re incapable of impartiality if you have a Hispanic sounding name….

How is saying that judges on neither side should be directly inserting themselves into the political arena in any way like that?

 

[depotoo]

Merely as ornament, not as swaying the actual decision. Basing a decision on international /foreign law is much different.

She should be impeached for displaying it so openly though. Of course liberals will alibi her. But if a conservative justice skewered Clinton like that, I think they should be impeached too. It's not their role, and worse, it shows overt bias

The moronic Ginsberg has advocated federal judges looking at cases in foreign courts to help them decide cases in U.S courts. We have a federal justice system based on "common law." This type of activity advocated by Dimsberg goes outside those parameters of that system.

Kennedy has cited foreign law in his majority/minority opinions. It's pathetic

 

[OldLady]

Having opinions is not an impeachable offense, idiots.

A supreme court justice should not show emotional opinion openly like that. It shows the rest of us, ( those that can think ) that she is unable to do the job properly.
She needs to have a stroke and live out the rest of her life drooling on herself in a rundown retirement home.

So you're saying what she did was 'politically incorrect'.

lolol, good one!

Im saying what she did was a violation of her job. She should be removed and sent to the farm with the other worthless old politicians.

It's not. If it's a violation of her job then you should have no trouble citing the code where the violation is delineated.

the Supreme court is supposed to be impartial, they are supposed to rule based on law, not their personal emotion. If she can not do that then the wrinkled old senile prune needs to be wheeled out of the court and set in a home where she can die with at least a little dignity left. Right now, she has no dignity.

She wasn't ruling on anything! She was spouting her opinion during an interview for a book that it is being written about her. Who spread it around?

 

[Care4all]

Her behavior is very questionable. Openly campaigning for a particular candidate, seems to be a big ethics violation. Trump may be justified in demanding she step down.

Really? When out of session, the SC Justices do not have their 1st Amendment rights?

Did she campaign for Hillary, or did she simply put down Trump's character, demeanor, and lack of presidential qualities?

I wish she would have reserved her first Amendment rights, but it is, what it is...

ALSO, she did not break the law in any way....she can be involved in politics especially while out of session and if it does not involve a case the justices are working on...

Did you know that in our History, we have had a Supreme Court Justice RUN as a Candidate for the office of Governor, twice*, while he was still in the SC?

So apparently, this is acceptable?
edit
*it was for Governor of NY, he ran twice while sitting on the bench...

 

[Maryland Patriot]

A supreme court justice should not show emotional opinion openly like that. It shows the rest of us, ( those that can think ) that she is unable to do the job properly.
She needs to have a stroke and live out the rest of her life drooling on herself in a rundown retirement home.

So you're saying what she did was 'politically incorrect'.

lolol, good one!

Im saying what she did was a violation of her job. She should be removed and sent to the farm with the other worthless old politicians.

It's not. If it's a violation of her job then you should have no trouble citing the code where the violation is delineated.

the Supreme court is supposed to be impartial, they are supposed to rule based on law, not their personal emotion. If she can not do that then the wrinkled old senile prune needs to be wheeled out of the court and set in a home where she can die with at least a little dignity left. Right now, she has no dignity.

She wasn't ruling on anything! She was spouting her opinion during an interview for a book that it is being written about her. Who spread it around?

Learn to read.
I never said she was ruling. I asked if her opinion on future rulings could be trusted now that she has openly spoke out against Donald Trump in such a fashion. I dont think her senile ass can be trusted at all.

 

[candycorn]

She should be impeached for displaying it so openly though. Of course liberals will alibi her. But if a conservative justice skewered Clinton like that, I think they should be impeached too. It's not their role, and worse, it shows overt bias

This comes from the school of “thought” that you’re incapable of impartiality if you have a Hispanic sounding name….

How is saying that judges on neither side should be directly inserting themselves into the political arena in any way like that?

Pretending Drumpf is anything other than a snake oil salesman is silly. Justice Ginsberg doesn’t strike me as being silly.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Ginsburg proves again the Supreme Court is a political appointment

You just figured this out?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

She should be impeached for displaying it so openly though. Of course liberals will alibi her. But if a conservative justice skewered Clinton like that, I think they should be impeached too. It's not their role, and worse, it shows overt bias

This comes from the school of “thought” that you’re incapable of impartiality if you have a Hispanic sounding name….

How is saying that judges on neither side should be directly inserting themselves into the political arena in any way like that?

Pretending Drumpf is anything other than a snake oil salesman is silly. Justice Ginsberg doesn’t strike me as being silly.

Ginsberg is an idiot. Trump at least shows intellect.