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.
Whoooo... whoooo... whooo... there skippy... you're not supposed to talk like that in zone 2... oh wait... you're a liberal... you'll probably get away with it...No, no, no, you stupid fucking douchebag, nobody said, "he couldn't possibly be biased because he's a judge".All the leftwing douche bags in here defended the judge in the Trump university case and said he couldn't possibly be biased because he's a judge.
You are a fucking moron.
The author makes a good point. All the leftwing douche bags in here defended the judge in the Trump university case and said he couldn't possibly be biased because he's a judge. Yet here is Ginzburg putting her obvious bias on display.
Ginsburg’s ridicule is very symptomatic of the liberal mind and likely to end up aiding Trump in multiple ways.
It was only a month ago when, in an effort to make Trump seem unreasonable, pundits were spending several hours/days of airtime and column inches explaining how federal judges are impartial and completely unbiased in response to Trump’s arguments about the Mexican judge in the Trump University legal matter.
Now those same pundits and voices are having to defend the transparently obvious bias within the snarky comments presented by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
“He is a faker,” she said of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, going point by point, as if presenting a legal brief. “He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. … How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.”
WASHINGTON – For Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, falling asleep at the State of the Union address is nothing new. All it takes is a good glass of wine.
As she did two years ago, Ginsburg admitted Thursday night that, yes, the photos of her appearing to nod off at President Obama's big speech last month showed her dozing. "As I often do," she said.
But there was a good reason, she added: "I wasn't 100% sober."
Seems before the address, some of the justices got together for dinner, and the lone Californian among them, Justice Anthony Kennedy, supplied some excellent California wine. Ginsburg had sworn she would stick to sparkling water, but "the dinner was so delicious, it needed wine."
USA TODAY
My name isn't Donald Trump. I would be equally against Ginzburg making biased comments about Clinton or Sanders, as should you. She is a Supreme Court Justice not a talk show host.Her comments were totally inappropriate for a sitting Supreme Court judge just as her endorsement of Clinton would be totally inappropriate. That is the issue, not Trump's blunt but true, response. She's 83 and needs to be sleeping and drooling on herself on her own Veranda, not on the Supreme Court.
Donald Trump complaining about someone saying something inappropriate.
You can't make this shit up.
My name isn't Donald Trump. I would be equally against Ginzburg making biased comments about Clinton or Sanders, as should you. She is a Supreme Court Justice not a talk show host.Her comments were totally inappropriate for a sitting Supreme Court judge just as her endorsement of Clinton would be totally inappropriate. That is the issue, not Trump's blunt but true, response. She's 83 and needs to be sleeping and drooling on herself on her own Veranda, not on the Supreme Court.
Donald Trump complaining about someone saying something inappropriate.
You can't make this shit up.
Trump has promised to appoint biased judges. How come you muppets aren't complaining about that?
Their biased RIGHT instead of LEFT, like you!
So biased judges are acceptable as long as their biased to the right?
lol, good one.
Only a liberal would consider following the Constituting as being biased.
Meh. What if games are for kids. This is reality, and in reality, this justice is admitting bias.My name isn't Donald Trump. I would be equally against Ginzburg making biased comments about Clinton or Sanders, as should you. She is a Supreme Court Justice not a talk show host.Her comments were totally inappropriate for a sitting Supreme Court judge just as her endorsement of Clinton would be totally inappropriate. That is the issue, not Trump's blunt but true, response. She's 83 and needs to be sleeping and drooling on herself on her own Veranda, not on the Supreme Court.
Donald Trump complaining about someone saying something inappropriate.
You can't make this shit up.
Sure you would. But if you did, you'd be in the 1% of RW'ers who took that view. If this were a conservative judge making the same sort of comments 99% of conservatives would be defending her.
Meh. What if games are for kids. This is reality, and in reality, this justice is admitting bias.My name isn't Donald Trump. I would be equally against Ginzburg making biased comments about Clinton or Sanders, as should you. She is a Supreme Court Justice not a talk show host.Her comments were totally inappropriate for a sitting Supreme Court judge just as her endorsement of Clinton would be totally inappropriate. That is the issue, not Trump's blunt but true, response. She's 83 and needs to be sleeping and drooling on herself on her own Veranda, not on the Supreme Court.
Donald Trump complaining about someone saying something inappropriate.
You can't make this shit up.
Sure you would. But if you did, you'd be in the 1% of RW'ers who took that view. If this were a conservative judge making the same sort of comments 99% of conservatives would be defending her.
Wow, giant leap there, thus ignored.Meh. What if games are for kids. This is reality, and in reality, this justice is admitting bias.My name isn't Donald Trump. I would be equally against Ginzburg making biased comments about Clinton or Sanders, as should you. She is a Supreme Court Justice not a talk show host.Her comments were totally inappropriate for a sitting Supreme Court judge just as her endorsement of Clinton would be totally inappropriate. That is the issue, not Trump's blunt but true, response. She's 83 and needs to be sleeping and drooling on herself on her own Veranda, not on the Supreme Court.
Donald Trump complaining about someone saying something inappropriate.
You can't make this shit up.
Sure you would. But if you did, you'd be in the 1% of RW'ers who took that view. If this were a conservative judge making the same sort of comments 99% of conservatives would be defending her.
No, it's a justice saying she doesn't think Trump should be president. That is not a court case before her. That is her right to an opinion and the right to express it as an American citizen.
Would you deny judges the right to vote? Are you a Nazi?
shown impartiality on what? Is there a case before the supreme court that her opinion on Donald Trump is involved with? IF SO, then she should recuse herself....Wow, giant leap there, thus ignored.Meh. What if games are for kids. This is reality, and in reality, this justice is admitting bias.My name isn't Donald Trump. I would be equally against Ginzburg making biased comments about Clinton or Sanders, as should you. She is a Supreme Court Justice not a talk show host.Donald Trump complaining about someone saying something inappropriate.
You can't make this shit up.
Sure you would. But if you did, you'd be in the 1% of RW'ers who took that view. If this were a conservative judge making the same sort of comments 99% of conservatives would be defending her.
No, it's a justice saying she doesn't think Trump should be president. That is not a court case before her. That is her right to an opinion and the right to express it as an American citizen.
Would you deny judges the right to vote? Are you a Nazi?
She can say all she wants who she doesn't think should be president, but she is also a SC justice, and by doing so, she has planted doubt about her impartiality. If I am an NFL referee, I can say that I love the Dallas Cowboys, but if I do, I'd better be prepared to have every call I make in a game they're playing assumed to be biased.
Ah, therein lies the rub. One, I do not for a minute believe she would recuse herself, though she should. Two, by making this statement, she casts into doubt her impartiality on many things. Going back to the NFL reference, if a ref is a vocal Cowboys fan, even his calls in a Redskins game will be questioned. Basically, though she has the freedom of speech to express her opinion, doing so is not a real smart thing to do.shown impartiality on what? Is there a case before the supreme court that her opinion on Donald Trump is involved with? IF SO, then she should recuse herself....Wow, giant leap there, thus ignored.Meh. What if games are for kids. This is reality, and in reality, this justice is admitting bias.My name isn't Donald Trump. I would be equally against Ginzburg making biased comments about Clinton or Sanders, as should you. She is a Supreme Court Justice not a talk show host.
Sure you would. But if you did, you'd be in the 1% of RW'ers who took that view. If this were a conservative judge making the same sort of comments 99% of conservatives would be defending her.
No, it's a justice saying she doesn't think Trump should be president. That is not a court case before her. That is her right to an opinion and the right to express it as an American citizen.
Would you deny judges the right to vote? Are you a Nazi?
She can say all she wants who she doesn't think should be president, but she is also a SC justice, and by doing so, she has planted doubt about her impartiality. If I am an NFL referee, I can say that I love the Dallas Cowboys, but if I do, I'd better be prepared to have every call I make in a game they're playing assumed to be biased.
It goes to professionalism and the gravity of the office.She didn't put down republicans or the republican party, she didn't speak about any right or left wing issue...
i personally wish she kept her mouth shut on Trump, but apparently she believes the risks with him and his lack of any constitutional knowledge, is too great!
she obviously KNOWS she is retiring...Ah, therein lies the rub. One, I do not for a minute believe she would recuse herself, though she should. Two, by making this statement, she casts into doubt her impartiality on many things. Going back to the NFL reference, if a ref is a vocal Cowboys fan, even his calls in a Redskins game will be questioned. Basically, though she has the freedom of speech to express her opinion, doing so is not a real smart thing to do.shown impartiality on what? Is there a case before the supreme court that her opinion on Donald Trump is involved with? IF SO, then she should recuse herself....Wow, giant leap there, thus ignored.Meh. What if games are for kids. This is reality, and in reality, this justice is admitting bias.Sure you would. But if you did, you'd be in the 1% of RW'ers who took that view. If this were a conservative judge making the same sort of comments 99% of conservatives would be defending her.
No, it's a justice saying she doesn't think Trump should be president. That is not a court case before her. That is her right to an opinion and the right to express it as an American citizen.
Would you deny judges the right to vote? Are you a Nazi?
She can say all she wants who she doesn't think should be president, but she is also a SC justice, and by doing so, she has planted doubt about her impartiality. If I am an NFL referee, I can say that I love the Dallas Cowboys, but if I do, I'd better be prepared to have every call I make in a game they're playing assumed to be biased.
Which brings into question, why she would not have done so before Trump was even in question. Maybe she slept through Obama's admin and just now woke up.she obviously KNOWS she is retiring...Ah, therein lies the rub. One, I do not for a minute believe she would recuse herself, though she should. Two, by making this statement, she casts into doubt her impartiality on many things. Going back to the NFL reference, if a ref is a vocal Cowboys fan, even his calls in a Redskins game will be questioned. Basically, though she has the freedom of speech to express her opinion, doing so is not a real smart thing to do.shown impartiality on what? Is there a case before the supreme court that her opinion on Donald Trump is involved with? IF SO, then she should recuse herself....Wow, giant leap there, thus ignored.Meh. What if games are for kids. This is reality, and in reality, this justice is admitting bias.
No, it's a justice saying she doesn't think Trump should be president. That is not a court case before her. That is her right to an opinion and the right to express it as an American citizen.
Would you deny judges the right to vote? Are you a Nazi?
She can say all she wants who she doesn't think should be president, but she is also a SC justice, and by doing so, she has planted doubt about her impartiality. If I am an NFL referee, I can say that I love the Dallas Cowboys, but if I do, I'd better be prepared to have every call I make in a game they're playing assumed to be biased.
