Ginsburg says she regrets comments on Trump

signalmankenneth said:
She was pretty in her day!
ruth-bader-ginsburg-supreme-court-justice-young-photo-31.jpg
December, 1953Studio photograph of Ruth Bader, taken in Dec. 1953 when she was a Senior at Cornell University.">
Click to expand...
She still is! But thanks, lovely picture
 
Leonthecat said:
I have to ask.
Did Scalia ever pretend, in any way, to be politically impartial?
The obvious fact that Justices are selected and appointed by political figures,(Presidents) makes political impartiality virtually impossible. To imply otherwise is just a silly game of lets pretend.
If Justices must be totally impartial politically, in the Bush v. Gore decision shouldn't all the Justices have recused themselves because of the fact that they were all appointed by either a Democratic or Republican President?
Supreme Court Justices have always been political entities and always will be, unless the means of their selection is changed.
RBG gave her personal political opinion just as Scalia often did in very public ways.
For her to pretend not to have a political opinion would be to lie.
Click to expand...

why are you guys not getting this? It's about ethics, decorum, and actions. Everyone knows RBG is a liberal and everyone know Scalia was a conservative. That still doesn't change the fact that it is inappropriate to stump for a president. You can still have conservative beliefs or liberal beliefs though and when it comes time to analyze the law, approach it with an open mind. Just like I hate many of you on this site but when it comes to the rules I can look at them objectively.

Her behavior was not the type of behavior one should have from one of the highest justices in the land. Period. That's why nearly every liberal main stream publication disagreed with her, and that's why she herself realized she made a mistake. It's about the integrity of the judicial branch.
 
Clock Town said:
why are you guys not getting this? It's about ethics, decorum, and actions. Everyone knows RBG is a liberal and everyone know Scalia was a conservative. That still doesn't change the fact that it is inappropriate to stump for a president. You can still have conservative beliefs or liberal beliefs though and when it comes time to analyze the law, approach it with an open mind. Just like I hate many of you on this site but when it comes to the rules I can look at them objectively.

Her behavior was not the type of behavior one should have from one of the highest justices in the land. Period. That's why nearly every liberal main stream publication disagreed with her, and that's why she herself realized she made a mistake. It's about the integrity of the judicial branch.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Well stated and I don't think all that difficult to understand.
 
Clock Town said:
you are missing the point, as usual. It's really frustrating when people keep spoon feeding you what the actual issue is and you are either too dumb to understand it or you intentionally ignore it.
Click to expand...

You're such an insufferable moron. I already said more than once that I thought she was wrong. And you're too dumb to understand the discussion moved on from that initial comment.
 
Thing1 said:
You said it. I get that it was borderline, but the false outrage is unreal.

Partisan nonsense, really.
Click to expand...

the reason why we have no finality in decisions is that no one really thinks the court is impartial which is a huge problem. People dont think that they argue the merits of a case and then decide based on that , but rather they think that they decide based on partisan lines and next time there is a ideological shift caused by a new member then everything the previous one decided goes out the window.

The judiciary can literally order that you die. No other branch of government has that much power over its citizens. Not to mention it decides almost everything else. For people to have faith in the system again then they need to at least have the illusion that the court is impartial.

I mean thomas probably doesnt like hillary and is partial to Trump (maybe he is one of Trumps slaves :D) but he is not going to pull a ginsburg and do something like this.
 
Clock Town said:
why are you guys not getting this? It's about ethics, decorum, and actions. Everyone knows RBG is a liberal and everyone know Scalia was a conservative. That still doesn't change the fact that it is inappropriate to stump for a president. You can still have conservative beliefs or liberal beliefs though and when it comes time to analyze the law, approach it with an open mind. Just like I hate many of you on this site but when it comes to the rules I can look at them objectively.

Her behavior was not the type of behavior one should have from one of the highest justices in the land. Period. That's why nearly every liberal main stream publication disagreed with her, and that's why she herself realized she made a mistake. It's about the integrity of the judicial branch.
Click to expand...

Maybe you are not Legion Troll's sock.

That begs the question as to why you constantly defend him, despite being against him previously, at times.
 
tsuke said:
the reason why we have no finality in decisions is that no one really thinks the court is impartial which is a huge problem. People dont think that they argue the merits of a case and then decide based on that , but rather they think that they decide based on partisan lines and next time there is a ideological shift caused by a new member then everything the previous one decided goes out the window.

The judiciary can literally order that you die. No other branch of government has that much power over its citizens. Not to mention it decides almost everything else. For people to have faith in the system again then they need to at least have the illusion that the court is impartial.

I mean thomas probably doesnt like hillary and is partial to Trump (maybe he is one of Trumps slaves :D) but he is not going to pull a ginsburg and do something like this.
Click to expand...


Should Thomas recuse himself from any cases involving the admin because of what his wife did?

"Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas' impartiality was called into question in 2010 after his wife launched a tea party-linked lobbying group dedicated to spotlighting the "tyranny" of President Obama and congressional Democrats."
 
Last edited:
christiefan915 said:
Should Thomas recuse himself from any cases involving the admin because of what his wife did?

"Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas' impartiality was called into question in 2010 after his wife launched a tea party-linked lobbying group dedicated to spotlighting the "tyranny" of President Obama and congressional Democrats."
Click to expand...

Unless my phone is messed up your link takes me to an article about three kids
 
christiefan915 said:
Should Thomas recuse himself from any cases involving the admin because of what his wife did?

"Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas' impartiality was called into question in 2010 after his wife launched a tea party-linked lobbying group dedicated to spotlighting the "tyranny" of President Obama and congressional Democrats."
Click to expand...

wife is different from the actual person :)

we already know the supreme court is partisan as hell. They at least need to provide the illusion that they are not.
 
tsuke said:
wife is different from the actual person :)

we already know the supreme court is partisan as hell. They at least need to provide the illusion that they are not.
Click to expand...
Kennedy does shift -Breyer on the rare occasion - Roberts afterall upheld Obama care. The "liberal block" is just that.

it's more then an illusion (cosmetic) and anything that exasperated ideological voting blocks is to be avoided.
 
tsuke said:
the reason why we have no finality in decisions is that no one really thinks the court is impartial which is a huge problem. People dont think that they argue the merits of a case and then decide based on that , but rather they think that they decide based on partisan lines and next time there is a ideological shift caused by a new member then everything the previous one decided goes out the window.

The judiciary can literally order that you die. No other branch of government has that much power over its citizens. Not to mention it decides almost everything else. For people to have faith in the system again then they need to at least have the illusion that the court is impartial.

I mean thomas probably doesnt like hillary and is partial to Trump (maybe he is one of Trumps slaves :D) but he is not going to pull a ginsburg and do something like this.
Click to expand...

I love the bolded.

Thomas could go into a voting booth blindfolded, with only the "R's" written in braille, and he'd know how to vote.
 
Thing1 said:
I love the bolded.

Thomas could go into a voting booth blindfolded, with only the "R's" written in braille, and he'd know how to vote.
Click to expand...

sure and ginsburg would do the same thing for democrats. The thing is when you hold literal life or death powers over people or the power to beggar people with a single decision then you have to at least maintain the illusion of impartiality.

DId it ever occur to you to ask why of the 8 justices only one did this? If it was acceptable then all 8 would have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top