Ginsburg says she regrets comments on Trump

tsuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why do they have to maintain that illusion? That's all it is.

Too much overreaction. They're not impartial. Everyone knows it. Oh well.
 
Thing1 said:
Why do they have to maintain that illusion? That's all it is.

Too much overreaction. They're not impartial. Everyone knows it. Oh well.
Click to expand...

hinestly it is because if we ever admitted that we gave this much power to unelected officials then we would have to abolish the supreme court. We have to at least convince ourselves that they are there because they understand the law better than anyone and can be imparitial in applying it.
 
Thing1 said:
Why do they have to maintain that illusion? That's all it is.

Too much overreaction. They're not impartial. Everyone knows it. Oh well.
Click to expand...

And this, coming from someone who thinks Trump could be the next Hitler lol.

Which is kind of the point with Ginsburg: she over reacted and found herself in partisan hyperbolic land. To her credit, she saw the error of her ways and backed off of it.

The larger lesson in this [which I'm certain won't be learned lol] is that we shouldn't stack the court with ideological warriors like Ginsburg.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
And this, coming from someone who thinks Trump could be the next Hitler lol.

Which is kind of the point with Ginsburg: she over reacted and found herself in partisan hyperbolic land. To her credit, she saw the error of her ways and backed off of it.

The larger lesson in this [which I'm certain won't be learned lol] is that we shouldn't stack the court with ideological warriors like Ginsburg.
Click to expand...

Would you call Scalia & Thomas "ideological warriors" lol?
 
Thing1 said:
Why do they have to maintain that illusion? That's all it is.

Too much overreaction. They're not impartial. Everyone knows it. Oh well.
Click to expand...

These dopes want Ginsberg to resign over cases that might or might not happen and a man who might or might not get elected, and we're the dumb ones?

I think they just want a 4-3 court in the hopes that Trump will win and appoint two conservative justices.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Actually, the correct response would be for you to demonstrate that textualism is an ideology lol.
Click to expand...
of course it cannot be. text is a reference to go to when stare decisis is in question. It's a starting point,


Every judge has an ideology, every judge has a political bent.
The ability to look past one's ideology and politics is what makes a good judge.

One way that is demonstrated is decorum - something severely lacking by Ginsberg
 
Thing1 said:
Why do they have to maintain that illusion? That's all it is.

Too much overreaction. They're not impartial. Everyone knows it. Oh well.
Click to expand...

you knew Ginsberg was a liberal.....did you know she was daffy enough to think that if Trump got elected she should move to New Zealand?......didn't you like having the illusion that she was still sane?......
 
Textualism is a formalist theory of the interpretation of law, holding that a legal text's ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquiries into non-textual sources such as the intention of the legislature in passing the law, the problem it was intended to remedy, or substantive questions of the justice and rectitude of the law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textualism
 
anatta said:
of course it cannot be. text is a reference to go to when stare decisis is in question. It's a starting point,


Every judge has an ideology, every judge has a political bent.
The ability to look past one's ideology and politics is what makes a good judge.

One way that is demonstrated is decorum - something severely lacking by Ginsberg
Click to expand...

Bingo. Hence my point about not nominating *strong* ideologues like Ginsburg to the court.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Bingo. Hence my point about not nominating *strong* ideologues like Ginsburg to the court.
Click to expand...
I prefer centrists, but first requirement is legal talent, and that overrides everything else.
A strong ideology is not particulary welcome - but a demonstrated ability to rule on the case by the law is best.
That overrides any personal ideology

Ginsberg has become this cult figure "Notorious RBG" -andI think it's gotten to her head.
She def. needs to go -this last rant is proof she no longer capable of applies law without bias.

The next thing is judges like Kagan (bland and predictable) as place holders -I'm no fan of them either.
Or Sotomayor with her "Latina woman" bent actually written into decisions.

Scalia was biting wit- but at least he was on firm legal ground with textualism as a base. one cannot refute the text.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Bingo. Hence my point about not nominating *strong* ideologues like Ginsburg to the court.
Click to expand...

Yet we have Thomas and Alito now, and Scalia from the past. You don't mind if they're *your* strong ideologues, lol.

Btw, nobody considers Merrick Garland to be a strong ideologue but cons still won't give him a hearing.
 
christiefan915 said:
Take the blinders off. Just because he's your guy doesn't mean you can't criticize his outlandish ideas.
Click to expand...

hey, I'm just pointing out that you've gone full-speed, no-brakes, non-stop bonkers this election cycle.....him having outlandish ideas is far different than [shudder] "IMPERILING THE RULE OF LAW".....[/shudder]........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top