Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Liberal Lioness of The Supreme Court

[Syriusly]

Also known as the notorious RBG, Justice Ginsburg, at 85 is showing no sign of slowing down or letting up on opposing the conservatives on the high court. On Monday, she delivered a scathing dissenting opinion on the narrowly decided labor relations case.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes off the gloves - CNNPolitics ​

As she did on Monday in an important employee wage dispute, Ginsburg dons her classic dissenting collar -- black with silver crystal accents -- over her robe when she is about to take the unusual step of protesting a majority decision from the bench.
"Nothing compels the destructive result the court reaches today," she said, adding in her written opinion that the majority was "egregiously wrong," retrenching on 80 years of federal labor law that sought "to place employers and employees on more equal footing."

Here is more:

This Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dissent Is An Unforgettable Defense Of Workers' Rights In America

On Monday, the so-called Notorious RBG opposed the majority of her colleagues in a landmark decision that inhibits the ability for employees with mandatory arbitration contracts to collectively sue their employers. In a fiery dissent on workers' rights, Ruth Bader Ginsburg lambasted the conservative justices that decided in favor of bolstering mandatory arbitration clauses that frequently appear in employment contracts, describing the ruling as "egregiously wrong."

As part of her dissent, RBG warned that inhibiting the right for workers to collectively sue their employers for compensation-related issues, or other workplace problems, could pitch U.S. labor rights back nearly a century. "The end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th was a tumultuous era in the history of our Nation’s labor relations," Ginsburg wrote. "Under economic conditions then prevailing, workers often had to accept employment on whatever terms employers dictated."

She sucks hairy ass...

Remember the days when Conservatives could be friends with Liberals.....and even treat each other with respect....

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Proof that bear513 is lying.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CHRG-GINSBURG/pdf/GPO-CHRG-GINSBURG-2-4-3-12.pdf

Stop lying.

Proof you are spinning this .


A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and: (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force; or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than twelve years old."

No, YOU"RE lying by omission. You left this part out

As with her opinion that the rights of workers should be equal to that of employers, this shows that she was actually saying the law should treat men and women equally.

Ginsburg and her coauthor argue that the law should be rewritten to outlaw sexual abuse of any minor, male or female, by any person who is significantly older, male or female (thereby obviating the absurd possibility that a 13-year-old boy would be prosecuted for seducing a 15-year-old girl).

And the part that you posted in, in no way an endorsement of pedophilia

If we are debating about it...she is guilty as charged. All you are doing is defending her asinine behavior .

Thank you for admitting that you actually believe that she is in favor of pedophilia. It is fucking moronic.

 

[Desperado]

She is the reason there should be term limits on the Supreme Court

 

[Desperado]

Also known as the notorious RBG, Justice Ginsburg, at 85 is showing no sign of slowing down or letting up on opposing the conservatives on the high court. On Monday, she delivered a scathing dissenting opinion on the narrowly decided labor relations case.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes off the gloves - CNNPolitics ​

As she did on Monday in an important employee wage dispute, Ginsburg dons her classic dissenting collar -- black with silver crystal accents -- over her robe when she is about to take the unusual step of protesting a majority decision from the bench.
"Nothing compels the destructive result the court reaches today," she said, adding in her written opinion that the majority was "egregiously wrong," retrenching on 80 years of federal labor law that sought "to place employers and employees on more equal footing."

Here is more:

This Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dissent Is An Unforgettable Defense Of Workers' Rights In America

On Monday, the so-called Notorious RBG opposed the majority of her colleagues in a landmark decision that inhibits the ability for employees with mandatory arbitration contracts to collectively sue their employers. In a fiery dissent on workers' rights, Ruth Bader Ginsburg lambasted the conservative justices that decided in favor of bolstering mandatory arbitration clauses that frequently appear in employment contracts, describing the ruling as "egregiously wrong."

As part of her dissent, RBG warned that inhibiting the right for workers to collectively sue their employers for compensation-related issues, or other workplace problems, could pitch U.S. labor rights back nearly a century. "The end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th was a tumultuous era in the history of our Nation’s labor relations," Ginsburg wrote. "Under economic conditions then prevailing, workers often had to accept employment on whatever terms employers dictated."

She sucks hairy ass...

Remember the days when Conservatives could be friends with Liberals.....and even treat each other with respect....

View attachment 194917

Thankfully those days are long gone

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Ginsberg doesn't follow the constitution, and she is a left wing wacko.

Judge Ginsberg once said “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe(abortion) was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of”

She has never satisfactorily explained who the Left Wingers do not want “too many of”.
She sounds like a genocidal racist.

You would not just be making that shit up , like you're known to do. When you make outlandish claims like that , you might want to include a source, even a bogus one, so that you don't look completely stupid

 

[WelfareQueen]

Also known as the notorious RBG, Justice Ginsburg, at 85 is showing no sign of slowing down or letting up on opposing the conservatives on the high court. On Monday, she delivered a scathing dissenting opinion on the narrowly decided labor relations case.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes off the gloves - CNNPolitics ​

As she did on Monday in an important employee wage dispute, Ginsburg dons her classic dissenting collar -- black with silver crystal accents -- over her robe when she is about to take the unusual step of protesting a majority decision from the bench.
"Nothing compels the destructive result the court reaches today," she said, adding in her written opinion that the majority was "egregiously wrong," retrenching on 80 years of federal labor law that sought "to place employers and employees on more equal footing."

Here is more:

This Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dissent Is An Unforgettable Defense Of Workers' Rights In America

On Monday, the so-called Notorious RBG opposed the majority of her colleagues in a landmark decision that inhibits the ability for employees with mandatory arbitration contracts to collectively sue their employers. In a fiery dissent on workers' rights, Ruth Bader Ginsburg lambasted the conservative justices that decided in favor of bolstering mandatory arbitration clauses that frequently appear in employment contracts, describing the ruling as "egregiously wrong."

As part of her dissent, RBG warned that inhibiting the right for workers to collectively sue their employers for compensation-related issues, or other workplace problems, could pitch U.S. labor rights back nearly a century. "The end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th was a tumultuous era in the history of our Nation’s labor relations," Ginsburg wrote. "Under economic conditions then prevailing, workers often had to accept employment on whatever terms employers dictated."

Liberal Lioness......

 

[WEATHER53]

The Great Cats do sleep a lot

 

[Nia88]

Ruth Bader is a geriatric socialist / commie who hates America and the Constitution.

Which makes a darling to the liberals and an idol to the far left.. ....

Of course anyone who doesn't push loony right wing policies is a socialist and a commie (despite socialism and communism being two very different things).

 

[Syriusly]

Also known as the notorious RBG, Justice Ginsburg, at 85 is showing no sign of slowing down or letting up on opposing the conservatives on the high court. On Monday, she delivered a scathing dissenting opinion on the narrowly decided labor relations case.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes off the gloves - CNNPolitics ​

As she did on Monday in an important employee wage dispute, Ginsburg dons her classic dissenting collar -- black with silver crystal accents -- over her robe when she is about to take the unusual step of protesting a majority decision from the bench.
"Nothing compels the destructive result the court reaches today," she said, adding in her written opinion that the majority was "egregiously wrong," retrenching on 80 years of federal labor law that sought "to place employers and employees on more equal footing."

Here is more:

This Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dissent Is An Unforgettable Defense Of Workers' Rights In America

On Monday, the so-called Notorious RBG opposed the majority of her colleagues in a landmark decision that inhibits the ability for employees with mandatory arbitration contracts to collectively sue their employers. In a fiery dissent on workers' rights, Ruth Bader Ginsburg lambasted the conservative justices that decided in favor of bolstering mandatory arbitration clauses that frequently appear in employment contracts, describing the ruling as "egregiously wrong."

As part of her dissent, RBG warned that inhibiting the right for workers to collectively sue their employers for compensation-related issues, or other workplace problems, could pitch U.S. labor rights back nearly a century. "The end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th was a tumultuous era in the history of our Nation’s labor relations," Ginsburg wrote. "Under economic conditions then prevailing, workers often had to accept employment on whatever terms employers dictated."

She sucks hairy ass...

Remember the days when Conservatives could be friends with Liberals.....and even treat each other with respect....

View attachment 194917

Thankfully those days are long gone

The contards do hate civility.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Also known as the notorious RBG, Justice Ginsburg, at 85 is showing no sign of slowing down or letting up on opposing the conservatives on the high court. On Monday, she delivered a scathing dissenting opinion on the narrowly decided labor relations case.

TRANSLATION: The justice who cannot retire do to her politics and therefore is hanging on by her fingernails delivered a rambling rant because the majority refuses to legislate from the bench like in the good ol days...most know her anger isn't really just about this case, but what she sees as the direction of all future decisions that most assuredly makes the "hanging on" very distasteful and not worth hanging around just to continue losing to THE DON.

You people make me laugh when you try to act like you actually know what you’re talking about. There is not a single Justice that is completely free of being influenced by politics and ideology, as well as personal values. But for you, it only legislating from the bench when you don’t like the decision.

You love to bleat about “activist judges” and “Legislating from the bench" But, they are just words that both sides use to decry decisions that they don't like. Call it what you want. The fact is that is what is also called case law or court made law is an important and recognized part of constitutional law.

Courts make decisions on matters of law, and on finding of facts. Higher courts uphold or overturn lower court decisions. Is every case in which they overturn a decision legislating from the bench and is it always wrong to do so? If not, when may they legitimately overturn a decision?

Example: If the appeals court had ruled that the ban on same sex marriage was constitutional, and SCOTUS upheld that ruling, would that have been legislating from the bench to? It would certainly be setting a precedent that carries the force of law. What if SCOTUS ruled that marriage was a matter for the states to decide and turned it back to them? In each of these scenarios, case law-or binding precedents are being set that carry the force of law . Again call it what you like . but if you are going to rail against legislating from the bench, consider this- what can the court do that effects the way the constitution and the law is applied that is not legislating from the bench.?

 

[Borillar]

Also known as the notorious RBG, Justice Ginsburg, at 85 is showing no sign of slowing down or letting up on opposing the conservatives on the high court. On Monday, she delivered a scathing dissenting opinion on the narrowly decided labor relations case.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes off the gloves - CNNPolitics ​

As she did on Monday in an important employee wage dispute, Ginsburg dons her classic dissenting collar -- black with silver crystal accents -- over her robe when she is about to take the unusual step of protesting a majority decision from the bench.
"Nothing compels the destructive result the court reaches today," she said, adding in her written opinion that the majority was "egregiously wrong," retrenching on 80 years of federal labor law that sought "to place employers and employees on more equal footing."

Here is more:

This Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dissent Is An Unforgettable Defense Of Workers' Rights In America

On Monday, the so-called Notorious RBG opposed the majority of her colleagues in a landmark decision that inhibits the ability for employees with mandatory arbitration contracts to collectively sue their employers. In a fiery dissent on workers' rights, Ruth Bader Ginsburg lambasted the conservative justices that decided in favor of bolstering mandatory arbitration clauses that frequently appear in employment contracts, describing the ruling as "egregiously wrong."

As part of her dissent, RBG warned that inhibiting the right for workers to collectively sue their employers for compensation-related issues, or other workplace problems, could pitch U.S. labor rights back nearly a century. "The end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th was a tumultuous era in the history of our Nation’s labor relations," Ginsburg wrote. "Under economic conditions then prevailing, workers often had to accept employment on whatever terms employers dictated."

May she outlive all her opponents.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Constitutional Accountability Center

 

[Desperado]

Also known as the notorious RBG, Justice Ginsburg, at 85 is showing no sign of slowing down or letting up on opposing the conservatives on the high court. On Monday, she delivered a scathing dissenting opinion on the narrowly decided labor relations case.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes off the gloves - CNNPolitics ​

As she did on Monday in an important employee wage dispute, Ginsburg dons her classic dissenting collar -- black with silver crystal accents -- over her robe when she is about to take the unusual step of protesting a majority decision from the bench.
"Nothing compels the destructive result the court reaches today," she said, adding in her written opinion that the majority was "egregiously wrong," retrenching on 80 years of federal labor law that sought "to place employers and employees on more equal footing."

Here is more:

This Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dissent Is An Unforgettable Defense Of Workers' Rights In America

On Monday, the so-called Notorious RBG opposed the majority of her colleagues in a landmark decision that inhibits the ability for employees with mandatory arbitration contracts to collectively sue their employers. In a fiery dissent on workers' rights, Ruth Bader Ginsburg lambasted the conservative justices that decided in favor of bolstering mandatory arbitration clauses that frequently appear in employment contracts, describing the ruling as "egregiously wrong."

As part of her dissent, RBG warned that inhibiting the right for workers to collectively sue their employers for compensation-related issues, or other workplace problems, could pitch U.S. labor rights back nearly a century. "The end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th was a tumultuous era in the history of our Nation’s labor relations," Ginsburg wrote. "Under economic conditions then prevailing, workers often had to accept employment on whatever terms employers dictated."

She sucks hairy ass...

Remember the days when Conservatives could be friends with Liberals.....and even treat each other with respect....

View attachment 194917

Thankfully those days are long gone

The contards do hate civility.

No, just liberals

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Ginsberg doesn't follow the constitution, and she is a left wing wacko.

Judge Ginsberg once said “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe(abortion) was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of”

She has never satisfactorily explained who the Left Wingers do not want “too many of”.
She sounds like a genocidal racist.

You would not just be making that shit up , like you're known to do. When you make outlandish claims like that , you might want to include a source, even a bogus one, so that you don't look completely stupid

well known things should not have to be sourced, but ok
"particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of”
She slipped-up and was being candid.
The Place of Women on the Court

 

[Sunni Man]

(despite socialism and communism being two very different things).

Socialism is just Commie lite. .....

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Ginsberg doesn't follow the constitution, and she is a left wing wacko.

Judge Ginsberg once said “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe(abortion) was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of”

She has never satisfactorily explained who the Left Wingers do not want “too many of”.
She sounds like a genocidal racist.

You would not just be making that shit up , like you're known to do. When you make outlandish claims like that , you might want to include a source, even a bogus one, so that you don't look completely stupid

well known things should not have to be sourced, but ok
"particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of”
She slipped-up and was being candid.
The Place of Women on the Court

I have a news flash for you. It is the voices in your head that are telling you about well known things. They are well know to you and anyone else that you share the mass delusion with and that is all.

And what in the name of chirst is this link? Do you really think that anyone is going to read it and try to figure out what your point is. ?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Guess who President Pence would put on the SC???????????????
Can you say 'Ted Cruz'?

From your lips to God's ears. Maybe Trump will anyway. That's the best way Cruz can serve this country.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Ginsberg doesn't follow the constitution, and she is a left wing wacko.

Judge Ginsberg once said “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe(abortion) was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of”

She has never satisfactorily explained who the Left Wingers do not want “too many of”.
She sounds like a genocidal racist.

You would not just be making that shit up , like you're known to do. When you make outlandish claims like that , you might want to include a source, even a bogus one, so that you don't look completely stupid

well known things should not have to be sourced, but ok
"particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of”
She slipped-up and was being candid.
The Place of Women on the Court

I have a news flash for you. It is the voices in your head that are telling you about well known things. They are well know to you and anyone else that you share the mass delusion with and that is all.

And what in the name of chirst is this link? Do you really think that anyone is going to read it and try to figure out what your point is. ?

OOOK, so you are calling the NYT liars lol

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Also known as the notorious RBG, Justice Ginsburg, at 85 is showing no sign of slowing down or letting up on opposing the conservatives on the high court. On Monday, she delivered a scathing dissenting opinion on the narrowly decided labor relations case.

TRANSLATION: The justice who cannot retire do to her politics and therefore is hanging on by her fingernails delivered a rambling rant because the majority refuses to legislate from the bench like in the good ol days...most know her anger isn't really just about this case, but what she sees as the direction of all future decisions that most assuredly makes the "hanging on" very distasteful and not worth hanging around just to continue losing to THE DON.

You people make me laugh when you try to act like you actually know what you’re talking about. There is not a single Justice that is completely free of being influenced by politics and ideology, as well as personal values. But for you, it only legislating from the bench when you don’t like the decision.

You love to bleat about “activist judges” and “Legislating from the bench" But, they are just words that both sides use to decry decisions that they don't like. Call it what you want. The fact is that is what is also called case law or court made law is an important and recognized part of constitutional law.

Courts make decisions on matters of law, and on finding of facts. Higher courts uphold or overturn lower court decisions. Is every case in which they overturn a decision legislating from the bench and is it always wrong to do so? If not, when may they legitimately overturn a decision?

Example: If the appeals court had ruled that the ban on same sex marriage was constitutional, and SCOTUS upheld that ruling, would that have been legislating from the bench to? It would certainly be setting a precedent that carries the force of law. What if SCOTUS ruled that marriage was a matter for the states to decide and turned it back to them? In each of these scenarios, case law-or binding precedents are being set that carry the force of law . Again call it what you like . but if you are going to rail against legislating from the bench, consider this- what can the court do that effects the way the constitution and the law is applied that is not legislating from the bench.?

geez, so much wasted text...legislating from the bench is when the courts are advocating, not deciding on evidence, but you will soon see what folks like myself are complaining about, for folks like yourself it will be far easier for you to see it when it is happening to you rather than for you.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Also known as the notorious RBG, Justice Ginsburg, at 85 is showing no sign of slowing down or letting up on opposing the conservatives on the high court. On Monday, she delivered a scathing dissenting opinion on the narrowly decided labor relations case.

TRANSLATION: The justice who cannot retire do to her politics and therefore is hanging on by her fingernails delivered a rambling rant because the majority refuses to legislate from the bench like in the good ol days...most know her anger isn't really just about this case, but what she sees as the direction of all future decisions that most assuredly makes the "hanging on" very distasteful and not worth hanging around just to continue losing to THE DON.

You people make me laugh when you try to act like you actually know what you’re talking about. There is not a single Justice that is completely free of being influenced by politics and ideology, as well as personal values. But for you, it only legislating from the bench when you don’t like the decision.

You love to bleat about “activist judges” and “Legislating from the bench" But, they are just words that both sides use to decry decisions that they don't like. Call it what you want. The fact is that is what is also called case law or court made law is an important and recognized part of constitutional law.

Courts make decisions on matters of law, and on finding of facts. Higher courts uphold or overturn lower court decisions. Is every case in which they overturn a decision legislating from the bench and is it always wrong to do so? If not, when may they legitimately overturn a decision?

Example: If the appeals court had ruled that the ban on same sex marriage was constitutional, and SCOTUS upheld that ruling, would that have been legislating from the bench to? It would certainly be setting a precedent that carries the force of law. What if SCOTUS ruled that marriage was a matter for the states to decide and turned it back to them? In each of these scenarios, case law-or binding precedents are being set that carry the force of law . Again call it what you like . but if you are going to rail against legislating from the bench, consider this- what can the court do that effects the way the constitution and the law is applied that is not legislating from the bench.?

also it is "liberal lyiness"