Ginsburg knows, if Trump wins, the rule of law is at risk

SmarterthanYou said:
that adoption does nothing more than allow for those opposed to your beliefs to regulate the rights that you hold dear as well. the establishment thanks you for playing......right in to their hands.
Click to expand...
So, do you, you went to work, instead of the rebellion, so kiss my butt with your bs!
 
Rana said:
Wow, you have forgotten already! lol Funny, so has the rest of America and a man lost his life for your cause, how sad.
Click to expand...

this is how you show your stupidity. YOU call it a rebellion because you're a retard statist. it was a protest, nothing more. your precious federal government murdered a man because he didn't bow down to your authority figures. how sad that you celebrate that shit.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
this is how you show your stupidity. YOU call it a rebellion because you're a retard statist. it was a protest, nothing more. your precious federal government murdered a man because he didn't bow down to your authority figures. how sad that you celebrate that shit.
Click to expand...

How sad you lie and misrepresent my position on his death, it was needless and senseless, he basically committed suicide by federal agent, it was not murder.

They wanted it to be a rebellion, but too many of you had to work! Isn't it a pity!
 
Rana said:
Our right are natural, the Constitution merely limits the power of the government to infringe on those rights, it doesn't grant us rights.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Click to expand...

That's nice that you pay lip service to such tenets, but for this particular point, all you are showing is that you really don't understand the legal mechanism by which the right to privacy and thus its derivative rights of abortion, contraception and gains made in LGBT rights, was recognized and secured. Sure, it has as it's core foundation the 9th Amendment but the 9th is not a claimable right in and of itself.

It is my argument that liberal hostility for the RKBA and the 2nd Amendment casts doubt on the legitimacy of penumbral rights theory.

If one of the fundamental rights that constitute the "rational continuum of liberty" can be excised and discarded, then the theory that relies on that continuum of individual rights being inviolate and unbroken, simply can not be true.

Your side's political agenda demands the 9th be reinterpreted to say,

The enumeration of certain rights, while forming the foundation for the recognition of unenumerated rights, shall not be considered all that important. Violate and ignore whenever appropriate while demanding the inviolate nature of unenumerated rights be respected.

If you don't understand penumbral rights theory please refrain from replying and save yourself the embarrassment.
 
Abatis said:
That's nice that you pay lip service to such tenets, but for this particular point, all you are showing is that you really don't understand the legal mechanism by which the right to privacy and thus its derivative rights of abortion, contraception and gains made in LGBT rights, was recognized and secured. Sure, it has as it's core foundation the 9th Amendment but the 9th is not a claimable right in and of itself.

It is my argument that liberal hostility for the RKBA and the 2nd Amendment casts doubt on the legitimacy of penumbral rights theory.

If one of the fundamental rights that constitute the "rational continuum of liberty" can be excised and discarded, then the theory that relies on that continuum of individual rights being inviolate and unbroken, simply can not be true.

Your side's political agenda demands the 9th be reinterpreted to say,

The enumeration of certain rights, while forming the foundation for the recognition of unenumerated rights, shall not be considered all that important. Violate and ignore whenever appropriate while demanding the inviolate nature of unenumerated rights be respected.

If you don't understand penumbral rights theory please refrain from replying and save yourself the embarrassment.
Click to expand...

I don't know all the legal jargon, I am not a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar, you are correct, so I can not argue with you on your level. Good bye!
 
Rana said:
How sad you lie and misrepresent my position on his death, it was needless and senseless, he basically committed suicide by federal agent, it was not murder.

They wanted it to be a rebellion, but too many of you had to work! Isn't it a pity!
Click to expand...

is this what passes for warped reality of liberals???????
 
Rana said:
I don't know all the legal jargon, I am not a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar, you are correct, so I can not argue with you on your level. Good bye!
Click to expand...

65066941.jpg
 
Rana said:
It's called honesty STY, you should try it!
Click to expand...

Remember when he threatened to kill if he had to pay the Obamacare penalty?

SmarterthanFew said:
I was very specific. any agent or volunteer of the government who attempts to enforce a punishment for failure to adhere to an unconstitutional law or mandate better be prepared to kill me or die trying.
Click to expand...

SmarterthanFew said:
i've drawn my line in the sand. I personally don't give a fuck what you think it is. point blank, any attempt to enforce any kind of punishment for not adhering to an unconstitutional law will result in gunfire.
Click to expand...

SmarterthanFew said:
If i'm tested, I figure that all I HAVE to do is hold out for 2 or 3 days. long enough for word to hit both the airwaves and the 3%ers network.
Click to expand...


It's been 6 years...killed anyone yet? :dunno:

I predict that STF will claim I'm obsessed and am saving all his old quotes because he doesn't know how the Search function works. :rofl2:
 
christiefan915 said:
Is he wrong?

Paul Butler is a former federal prosecutor and a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center. He is the author of "Let’s Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice.''

"Normally Supreme Court justices should refrain from commenting on partisan politics. But these are not normal times. The question is whether a Supreme Court justice – in this case, the second woman on the court, a civil rights icon and pioneering feminist -- has an obligation to remain silent when the country is at risk of being ruled by a man who has repeatedly demonstrated that he is a sexist and racist demagogue. The answer must be no.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s recent critique of Donald Trump has drawn bipartisan jeers. Ginsburg is being pilloried for publicly saying what many other Americans think, likely including some of her colleagues on the Supreme Court.

Still I understand the concern about Ginsburg going public with her views. Perceptions are important for the legitimacy of the Supreme Court -- that’s why the justices wear those silly black robes, sit high on a bench, and make everybody stand up when they enter the courtroom. Pretending that they are above the political fray is part of the same bag of tricks.

It is significant that Ginsburg chose to speak out now. She has been on the court during the presidential campaigns of several conservative Republicans, including George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney. She never criticized them. But there is, as even many Republicans have acknowledged, something different about the Donald.

It’s not just Trump’s misogyny.
It’s not only that he described Mexican immigrants as rapists and proposed barring Muslims from entering the United States.
It’s not just that he questions whether Mexican-American and Muslim-American judges are capable of being fair to him.
It’s not just his statement, as an African-American protester was being ejected from one of his rallies: “See in the good old days this didn’t happen because they used to treat them very very rough.”
It’s not only that Trump was reluctant to reject the endorsement of white supremacist David Duke, or that he has found nice things to say about Saddam Hussein, Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un.
It’s also that Trump has no governing principles or coherent ideologies other than “believe me and do what I say” and an appeal to a radical ethnocentrism among white people. This is the mark of a fascist.

When despots have ascended to power in other regimes, one wonders how judges should have responded. Should they have adhered to a code of silence while their country went to hell? Not on the watch of the Notorious R.B.G. She understands that if Trump wins, the rule of law is at risk.

In speaking out, Ginsburg has refused to elevate the appearance of justice over justice itself. The Washington chattering classes may not appreciate the breach of protocol, but history -- should the United States remain a democracy - will be a kinder judge."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/can-a-supreme-court-justice-denounce-a-candidate/ar-BBueCsf
Click to expand...

Indeed....a concern about the RULE of LAW coming from a leftist judicial radical who pisses on the constitution with extreme prejudice. :whoa: Who has openly stated that if she had her way she would negate the law found in the US constitution in favor of abiding by the laws that come from the United Nations.

What she and all leftists fear is the cessation of the Dog and Phony show where MONEY purchases the best radical judges that money can buy and places them on the supreme court in an effort to by-pass and circumvent the legislation of constitutional law from the peoples representative in congress.....the cessation of legislating NEW LAW from the bench by changing (amending) the words of the constitution by opinion only void of the required 75% super majority state representation required by the US RULE OF LAW.

Right....err....Left, she is a firm believer in the "US RULE OF LAW and THE CONSTITUTION"...she firmly believes that US LAW should only be subject to interpretation from the standard of US LAW...the US Constitution.....NOT!!!!

www.scotusblog.com/2010/07/ginsburg-on-kagan-and-foreign-law/
 
Last edited:
Legion Troll said:
Remember when he threatened to kill if he had to pay the Obamacare penalty?

It's been 6 years...killed anyone yet? :dunno:
Click to expand...
haven't had to. i've had a job for the last 6 years. when are you going to get one?

Legion Troll said:
I predict that STF will claim I'm obsessed and am saving all his old quotes because he doesn't know how the Search function works. :rofl2:
Click to expand...

didn't I already do that? i'm sure you have that quote saved as well. :good4u:

living rent free in trolls brain pan.
 
tsuke said:
Wait... so Gingsburg thinks that the rule of law is in danger under trump and her response to this is to make sure that one of the 9 justices who would most likely be against trump would be asked to recuse herself whenever a case against his administration is brought up?

She pretty much just invalidated her seat for a Trump presidency. Maybe she is mentally feeble and needs to go.
Click to expand...

Did all the S C Justices recuse in the Bush vs Gore decision?
Being that they were all appointed by either a Democratic or Republican President, they should have, right?
Unless we change the way they are selected, SCJs are political entities, like it or not.
 
Ziggy said:
Presidents do not have either the power to make or enforce laws, so exactly what rule of law are you blabbing about?
Click to expand...

:Googler:rule of law

1. the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws.

 
christiefan915 said:
:Googler:rule of law

1. the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws.

Click to expand...

Reality, U.S. Presidents DO NOT MAKE OR ENFORCE LAWS.

Executive branch
Judicial branch
Legislative branch
Branches that Mexicans that can not swim use to cross the Rio Grand for the free healthcare that you enjoy paying for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top