Ginsburg says she regrets comments on Trump

anatta said:
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.
Click to expand...

Looks like it's only the women of the court on your list of "blah' justices. :(
 
christiefan915 said:
Looks like it's only the women of the court on your list of "blah' justices. :(
Click to expand...
I don't look at things that way. it is what it is.

Kennedy to be fair is ethereal in his language -making up things like being in a partnership is a superior state
of happiness ( gay marriage decision)
Thomas is a grumpy old reactionary -not a fan of him either. Alito has a good mind, but he rules way too predicable..

It's a human institution, and limited by human foibles. But there are basic ethics and decorum that at least elevate it past gross partisanship
 
A supreme court judge need only to rule based on the Constitutionality of each case before them. They may use precedence, they may be compelled by the merits of the argument, but at the end of the day, they must provide us a ruling that is clearly Constitutional.
 
J Craft said:
A supreme court judge need only to rule based on the Constitutionality of each case before them. They may use precedence, they may be compelled by the merits of the argument, but at the end of the day, they must provide us a ruling that is clearly Constitutional.
Click to expand...

that is not how liberals see things....in their mind a SCJ must determine where the legislative branch has failed to do what liberals want done and then do it........
 
anatta said:
she's tarnished her fellow jurists/shown her impartiality doesn't exist -she is incapable of rendering a decision without her objectivity being questioned
Why should she stay another minute on the bench? because she has "regrets??"
Click to expand...

The sky is falling.
 
Rune said:
Shut up retard.None of this is up to you.
Click to expand...
look what the cat dragged up..
185
 
anatta said:
you need to link up reference -do you mean the speech before the federalist society?

That wasn't blatant partisanship for one, and Ginsburg would HAVE to rule on any case coming from the Trump Adm.
Or even if it's Hillary -her overt bias- causes her to be disqualified in any ruling along partisan grounds.

Also this goes to her judicial (in)temperament. Those were extreme speeches. and she's done it before -if not to this extent.

Nobody could have any confidence they were getting a fair hearing by her.

Justice Scalia Goes to Conservative Legal Event, Gives Boring Speech
But such complaints have not caused Scalia and his conservative brethren to rethink their cozy relationship with the Federalist Society, and this morning the group could once again boast a big get—the often fiery justice who is a hero within conservative legal circles. But if any of the conventioneers were hoping for fireworks from Scalia, they were sorely disappointed. Rather than opine on Hobby Lobby and religious freedom or the Affordable Care Act and government overreach, Scalia spent 30 minutes at the dais lecturing on the history of Magna Carta—"No definite article!" he insisted—and its influence on American law.

Scalia mostly stuck to legal issues from the 13th century. He might well have been a curator from the Library of Congress, where the Magna Carta is currently on exhibit (sponsored, incidentally, by the Federalist Society). Scalia ended his speech by urging everyone to go see the 800-year-old document.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/11/justice-antonin-scalia-federalist-society-supreme-court
Click to expand...

Female liberal justice bad
Male conservative justice good

Now tell us how you are a centrist you foolish misogynist.
 
anatta said:
the fact you equalize the 2 events shows desperation.
presiding over a wedding impacts his impartiality? It's a pro-forma event.
Ginsberg has slithered into the slime pit of presidential politics, in full regale
Click to expand...

The fact that you think she tarnished anyone but herself shows your desperation and frankly your stupidity.
 
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...

Logical fallacy.
 
tsuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

Clearly they can as Roberts proved.
 
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...

Yeah by one slip up in 83 years.
Alito on the other hand was a constant conservative mouthpiece. Your faux outrage and misogyny are noted.
 
anatta said:
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.
Click to expand...

So three females bad
One male good.
Thanks misogynistic pig.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top