Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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."
Where are "worker's rights" in the U.S. Constitution? That sounds like Marxism
Scalia id dead.I mean like a Strict Constitutionalist does.You mean like the right wing of the court doesI wonder if you understand that it is not the job of any justice to oppose a political ideology, but to interpret law to ensure it meets with the US Constitution?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.
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."
No such animal from those who identify as left.
You seem confused
No, my posts are simply over your GED level of comprehension.
The sandbox is outside sweetie. Run along.
I have NO IDEA what you're talking about> Who are the rest of us?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.
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."
Where are "worker's rights" in the U.S. Constitution? That sounds like Marxism
The workers rights are in the liberal use of the term 'all who are born here' and the noteworthy lack of the phrase 'white, male, landowners' when The Constitution describes who can participate in the country created by that document.
Any attempt to advantage any 'person', be they flesh and blood with a Social Security Number or a corporate taxpayer with a senator on the payroll, over the rest of us is what's unconstitutional.
Jesus fucking Christ! Liberals -Progressive made this country great. !! They created the middle class which the fascist conservative oligarchs are trying to destroy through wealth and income disparity. You are either wealthy or a fucking moron.!Thank you for that brilliant, eloquent and well thought out commentary. Clearly your one of the valued members here who consistently go all out to raise the level of intellectual discourse. You are a blessing.
Your "brilliance is shining through here".....
Buh LIEVE it
BTW...if the SC was full of your beloved idiot clones, we'd all be poverty stricken by now and in a Jihad with all the ME friends she would have allowed in and China would be our masters.
You'RE such a first class ignoramus. Seriously.
Geeez Wasted on you apparently because you're obviously unable to comprehend the issue that I raised. What was Citizens United?? was it based on evidence. Was it based on the constitution? Or was it partisan advocacy? Get fucking real!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.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.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.
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.?
OK smiley. Since your lazy, dishonest ass would not actually explain what the fuck your talking about, I read throught the interview and I do believe that this is what you're referring to:I am calling you a pest ! What the fuck are you talking about.? Not only are you a pest but you're a lazy pest.You just posted a link to a lengthy article with no explanation as to how it is supposed to support whatever bizarre point that your trying to make. Lazy!!OOOK, so you are calling the NYT liars lolI 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.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
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. ?
It's a direct quote, it's easy to find.
Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
Q: When you say that reproductive rights need to be straightened out, what do you mean?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.
OK smiley. Since your lazy, dishonest ass would not actually explain what the fuck your talking about, I read throught the interview and I do believe that this is what you're referring to:I am calling you a pest ! What the fuck are you talking about.? Not only are you a pest but you're a lazy pest.You just posted a link to a lengthy article with no explanation as to how it is supposed to support whatever bizarre point that your trying to make. Lazy!!OOOK, so you are calling the NYT liars lolI 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.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
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. ?
It's a direct quote, it's easy to find.
Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
There was concern. Who's concern? Was it her concern? I don't think so. She noted that some people were concerned that Medicaid funding for abortion might coerce ( poor ) women into having abortions. What she realized was that because of McRae , poor women would be put at a disadvantage in terms of access to abortion, rather than coerced into abortion.
She goes on to say, which you conveniently avoided :
Q: When you say that reproductive rights need to be straightened out, what do you mean?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.
You're dishonesty and manipulation of reality is truly astounding and shameful. Your implication that she was advocating for eugenics is just fucking degusting!
.
[
Geeez Wasted on you apparently because you're obviously unable to comprehend the issue that I raised. What was Citizens United?? was it based on evidence. Was it based on the constitution? Or was it partisan advocacy? Get fucking real!
Liberals Want to Overturn Citizens United. A New Study Shows Conservatives Do Too
That's the best that you can do in response to my having shredded you stupidity and pathetic attempt to smear Ginsburg? Your taking that statement out of context and you are either to stupid to understand how stupid that makes you look, or, as I said before, you are a shameless liar and right wing shill.OK smiley. Since your lazy, dishonest ass would not actually explain what the fuck your talking about, I read throught the interview and I do believe that this is what you're referring to:I am calling you a pest ! What the fuck are you talking about.? Not only are you a pest but you're a lazy pest.You just posted a link to a lengthy article with no explanation as to how it is supposed to support whatever bizarre point that your trying to make. Lazy!!OOOK, so you are calling the NYT liars lolI 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. ?
It's a direct quote, it's easy to find.
Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
There was concern. Who's concern? Was it her concern? I don't think so. She noted that some people were concerned that Medicaid funding for abortion might coerce ( poor ) women into having abortions. What she realized was that because of McRae , poor women would be put at a disadvantage in terms of access to abortion, rather than coerced into abortion.
She goes on to say, which you conveniently avoided :
Q: When you say that reproductive rights need to be straightened out, what do you mean?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.
You're dishonesty and manipulation of reality is truly astounding and shameful. Your implication that she was advocating for eugenics is just fucking degusting!
.
Definition of eugenics. : a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed.
Ginsburg “particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of”
Jesus fucking Christ! Liberals -Progressive made this country great. !! They created the middle class which the fascist conservative oligarchs are trying to destroy through wealth and income disparity. You are either wealthy or a fucking moron.!
Yes they can be revisited. That is an unusual and almost an honest and accurate statement from you. But the fact is that until they are "revisited" and overturned , they carry the force of law. They are , in fact, Constitutional law . Lawrence, and ObergefellNot quite. All case law and precedence do is reflect the attitude of the time in which they were created. They do not amend the Constitution. They can be revisited at any time, and held or dispensed with like any other law, often quite arbitrarily.
Your assignment if you wish to accept it :Jesus fucking Christ! Liberals -Progressive made this country great. !! They created the middle class which the fascist conservative oligarchs are trying to destroy through wealth and income disparity. You are either wealthy or a fucking moron.!
I know the people of Venezuela are sure digging you "progressives"
I mean, think of all those people who would never have had the pleasure of watching their children starve to death without your leftist policies.
Now you want to treat America to the same!
You're joking, of course. We get a lot of Venezuela news coverage.Your assignment if you wish to accept it :Jesus fucking Christ! Liberals -Progressive made this country great. !! They created the middle class which the fascist conservative oligarchs are trying to destroy through wealth and income disparity. You are either wealthy or a fucking moron.!
I know the people of Venezuela are sure digging you "progressives"
I mean, think of all those people who would never have had the pleasure of watching their children starve to death without your leftist policies.
Now you want to treat America to the same!
Compare and contrast the social, political, and economic conditions in the United States vs, Venezuela in recent history with consideration for the difference between a democratic socialist system and a central government that strictly controls the economy ?Take your time
Your assignment if you wish to accept it :Jesus fucking Christ! Liberals -Progressive made this country great. !! They created the middle class which the fascist conservative oligarchs are trying to destroy through wealth and income disparity. You are either wealthy or a fucking moron.!
I know the people of Venezuela are sure digging you "progressives"
I mean, think of all those people who would never have had the pleasure of watching their children starve to death without your leftist policies.
Now you want to treat America to the same!
Compare and contrast the social, political, and economic conditions in the United States vs, Venezuela in recent history with consideration for the difference between a democratic socialist system and a central government that strictly controls the economy ?Take your time
Your assignment if you wish to accept it :Jesus fucking Christ! Liberals -Progressive made this country great. !! They created the middle class which the fascist conservative oligarchs are trying to destroy through wealth and income disparity. You are either wealthy or a fucking moron.!
I know the people of Venezuela are sure digging you "progressives"
I mean, think of all those people who would never have had the pleasure of watching their children starve to death without your leftist policies.
Now you want to treat America to the same!
Compare and contrast the social, political, and economic conditions in the United States vs, Venezuela in recent history with consideration for the difference between a democratic socialist system and a central government that strictly controls the economy ?Take your time
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.
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 is Lioness, hear her snore:
You're out of your fucking mind. Progressives have destroyed everything country they've ever run: Greece, Cuba, USSR, Communist China, Venezuela, it's one clusterfuck after another. That you dare to give credit for free market and Conservative principles to "Progressives " is laughableJesus fucking Christ! Liberals -Progressive made this country great. !! They created the middle class which the fascist conservative oligarchs are trying to destroy through wealth and income disparity. You are either wealthy or a fucking moron.!Thank you for that brilliant, eloquent and well thought out commentary. Clearly your one of the valued members here who consistently go all out to raise the level of intellectual discourse. You are a blessing.
Your "brilliance is shining through here".....
Buh LIEVE it
BTW...if the SC was full of your beloved idiot clones, we'd all be poverty stricken by now and in a Jihad with all the ME friends she would have allowed in and China would be our masters.
You'RE such a first class ignoramus. Seriously.
