Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Liberal Lioness of The Supreme Court

[DrLove]

View attachment 194871

We can always count on you for a load!

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-ruth-bader-ginsburg-say-that-pedophilia-was-good-for-children/

 

[Marion Morrison]

View attachment 194871

We can always count on you for a load!

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-ruth-bader-ginsburg-say-that-pedophilia-was-good-for-children/

I guess you guys like loads. Que Surprise!

















































Not.

 

[bodecea]

You do know that she hates the U.S. Constitution, right?

Well, you've been told that and I'm sure you swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

 

[bodecea]

She is an inspirational justice

You can tell how effective she is, even at her age, by how much all the Alt-Right trumpanzees foam at the mouth.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Where are "worker's rights" in the U.S. Constitution? That sounds like Marxism

I read 'worker's rights' in the preamble to the constitution. At least the constitution recognizes 'we the people'. Nothing in the constitution about 'them the corporations', which the majority of the supreme court now works for. In fact, the predatory nature of corporations is the reason this country went to war against england for in the first place. The east india company. See below...We the people....promote the general welfare...

We the People of the United StatesIn Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Corporations are composed of - wait for it - "we the people".

You are a gullible fool. Yes , since the founding of this once great nation, they have, legally gained much of the same rights as individual people- but they are not people in the sense that the founders intended- and they often can buy a hell of a lot more free speech real people can individually

'Corporations Are People' Is Built on an Incredible 19th-Century Lie

How exactly did corporations come to be understood as “people” bestowed with the most fundamental constitutional rights? The answer can be found in a bizarre—even farcical—series of lawsuits over 130 years ago involving a lawyer who lied to the Supreme Court, an ethically challenged justice, and one of the most powerful corporations of the day.

That corporation was the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, owned by the robber baron Leland Stanford. In 1881, after California lawmakers imposed a special tax on railroad property, Southern Pacific pushed back, making the bold argument that the law was an act of unconstitutional discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment. Adopted after the Civil War to protect the rights of the freed slaves, that amendment guarantees to every “person” the “equal protection of the laws.” Stanford’s railroad argued that it was a person too, reasoning that just as the Constitution prohibited discrimination on the basis of racial identity, so did it bar discrimination against Southern Pacific on the basis of its corporate identity.

Read it all, you may come away somewhat wiser.......or not

Idiot. You are not "bestowing" anything upon a corporation. You'll agree that individuals have the right of free speech, yes? You'll agree that each individual within a group of individuals has the right of free speech, yes? You will agree that a corporation is a group comprised of individuals each having the right of free speech, yes?

Now, how is a corporation comprised of individuals each expressing an idea within their right of free speech in a like-minded fashion with the others any different than a political group comprised of individuals each expressing an idea within their right of free speech in a like-minded fashion with the others, or a protest march comprised of individuals each expressing an idea within their right of free speech in a like-minded fashion with the others?

they often can buy a hell of a lot more free speech real people can individually

Aye, and there's what's poking you in the ass, eh?

So what.

How is that different from any other influential group of people expressing like-minded ideas as a unified group?

Well, I said that you might come away wise- or not - and now it know which it is. THE POINT IS that your free speech as an individual, IS NOT EQUAL- to that of any group who can pool resources to BUY free speech. Get it now? Dhaaa

DOH! applies fully to your POV.

Of course an idea with the support of one is not as powerful or compelling as an idea with the support of many. That is elementary, and even you should be able to "get it".

 

[Aba Incieni]

From working so hard.

She must work a lot harder than all the rest of them.

Besides, I think she said she had too much vodka.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Where are "worker's rights" in the U.S. Constitution? That sounds like Marxism

The workers rights are in the liberal use of the term 'all who are born here' and the noteworthy lack of the phrase 'white, male, landowners' when The Constitution describes who can participate in the country created by that document.

Any attempt to advantage any 'person', be they flesh and blood with a Social Security Number or a corporate taxpayer with a senator on the payroll, over the rest of us is what's unconstitutional.

I have NO IDEA what you're talking about> Who are the rest of us?

All of us.

Not just one of y'all, all y'all.

So unless you're a white male, landowner who was born here you have no workers rights? You forgot "Christian" It would seen that you are not playing with full deck bubba

Did you actually read the post?

The worker's rights are built in to The Constitution right along with the rights of those unable or unwilling to work, and the rights of the owners and producers: with the liberal use of the word 'all', and nary a mention of limiting participation to white, land-owning, Christian males.

That's the point. The people who wrote The Constitution couldn't live up to it's ideals, and neither do we. But we're doing better than the generations who got us here and I for one am hopeful for the future.

As more and more weirdos successfully wield The Constitution to claim their rightful slice of The American Pie at the expense of white, land-owning Christian males, we get closer and closer to living up to the document.

Baby steps to the stars.​

P.S. It would seem that your deck is missing the sarcasm card. Go get your jokers out of the little box in the junk drawer and shuffle 'em back in, eh?

​

 

[Uncensored2008]

Thank you for proving my point. You (stupidly - but that is beside the point) agree with Citizens United, so that is not "legislating from the bench-or judicial activism, and if it is, it's ok in this case.

I support freedom of speech, so naturally I support Citizens United.

It's funny, you Communists had no problem with Michael Moore creating a film about Bush, but the idea that mere peasants would DARE produce a film about Hillary had you fucking Stalinists losing your shit. How DARE these peasants engage in political speech that questions a ruler like Hillary? You'll have none of it - the proles will be SILENT in front of their masters.

I get it dude, you seek to crush free speech.

CU upheld the First Amendment right of the people to engage in political speech. You Stalinist scum had outlawed speech by the Proles. but that violated the Constitution, which you're down with, but luckily we had enough honest SCOTUS justices to defend the Bill of Rights.

Citizens United, a political action committee using small donations from individuals produced "HIllary, the Movie" detailing the criminal acts of Hillary Clinton. The FEC dropped trou and took a shit all over the first amendment, outlawing the movie as banned political speech - you fucking scum totalitarians cheered.

But LIBERTY prevailed in that case.

Now I'm convinced that you are absolutely insane and residing in an alternative reality. CU put a thumb on the scale in favor of big money controlling the message. In no way did it bolster the right of individual free speech which is what the first amendment is really about. But because the decision favored a conservative cause it was not judicial activism or legislating from the bench, it was merely upholding the constitution. Such a fucking hypocrite!

So Basically, you WANT a society where people can be arrested and imprisoned for making movies critical of politicians.

Of course you live under the delusion that you Stalinist scum will always have absolute power.

Oh and you fucking lying retard,the decision did NOT favor a conservative cause, it upheld the right to free speech.

A society that puts people in prison for criticizing politicians is a tyranny - which is what you and the other Stalinist pigs like you desire.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Thank you for proving my point. You (stupidly - but that is beside the point) agree with Citizens United, so that is not "legislating from the bench-or judicial activism, and if it is, it's ok in this case.

I support freedom of speech, so naturally I support Citizens United.

It's funny, you Communists had no problem with Michael Moore creating a film about Bush, but the idea that mere peasants would DARE produce a film about Hillary had you fucking Stalinists losing your shit. How DARE these peasants engage in political speech that questions a ruler like Hillary? You'll have none of it - the proles will be SILENT in front of their masters.

I get it dude, you seek to crush free speech.

CU upheld the First Amendment right of the people to engage in political speech. You Stalinist scum had outlawed speech by the Proles. but that violated the Constitution, which you're down with, but luckily we had enough honest SCOTUS justices to defend the Bill of Rights.

Citizens United, a political action committee using small donations from individuals produced "HIllary, the Movie" detailing the criminal acts of Hillary Clinton. The FEC dropped trou and took a shit all over the first amendment, outlawing the movie as banned political speech - you fucking scum totalitarians cheered.

But LIBERTY prevailed in that case.

Now I'm convinced that you are absolutely insane and residing in an alternative reality. CU put a thumb on the scale in favor of big money controlling the message. In no way did it bolster the right of individual free speech which is what the first amendment is really about. But because the decision favored a conservative cause it was not judicial activism or legislating from the bench, it was merely upholding the constitution. Such a fucking hypocrite!

Interesting. How is it that you see an individual individually exercising freedom of speech as constitutional, but individuals banding together to exercise the right together as a group is not?

What makes you think he favors "individual individually exercising freedom of speech"?

He is a Marxist, he seeks to strictly control what the Proles can say, or think.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Thank you for proving my point. You (stupidly - but that is beside the point) agree with Citizens United, so that is not "legislating from the bench-or judicial activism, and if it is, it's ok in this case.

I support freedom of speech, so naturally I support Citizens United.

It's funny, you Communists had no problem with Michael Moore creating a film about Bush, but the idea that mere peasants would DARE produce a film about Hillary had you fucking Stalinists losing your shit. How DARE these peasants engage in political speech that questions a ruler like Hillary? You'll have none of it - the proles will be SILENT in front of their masters.

I get it dude, you seek to crush free speech.

CU upheld the First Amendment right of the people to engage in political speech. You Stalinist scum had outlawed speech by the Proles. but that violated the Constitution, which you're down with, but luckily we had enough honest SCOTUS justices to defend the Bill of Rights.

Citizens United, a political action committee using small donations from individuals produced "HIllary, the Movie" detailing the criminal acts of Hillary Clinton. The FEC dropped trou and took a shit all over the first amendment, outlawing the movie as banned political speech - you fucking scum totalitarians cheered.

But LIBERTY prevailed in that case.

Now I'm convinced that you are absolutely insane and residing in an alternative reality. CU put a thumb on the scale in favor of big money controlling the message. In no way did it bolster the right of individual free speech which is what the first amendment is really about. But because the decision favored a conservative cause it was not judicial activism or legislating from the bench, it was merely upholding the constitution. Such a fucking hypocrite!

Interesting. How is it that you see an individual individually exercising freedom of speech as constitutional, but individuals banding together to exercise the right together as a group is not?

What makes you think he favors "individual individually exercising freedom of speech"?

"He's not a doctor, but he plays one on USMB."

 

[Uncensored2008]

OP is a Communist faggot, but Citizens United is bad. Legalizing bribery is bad, mmmk?

Ginsberg is probably on the death watch list. She also is one to pervert the Constitution, it's no wonder OP likes her, being TheRegressivePervert that he is.

What do you have against freedom of speech?

I suspect you are entirely ignorant of the CU V. FEC case.

Remember, Communist lie. Citizens United is a political action committee. A 501.3C non-profit. Don't be taken in by the bullshit that gutter scum like the OP post.

The case deals with the FEC outlawing "Hillary, The Movie" which exposed the Korrupt Klintin Kunt. It seems that McCain and Feingold outlawed speech critical of democrats.

CU v. FEC is on the level of Brown v. BOE in importance to civil rights.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

o Basically, you WANT a society where people can be arrested and imprisoned for making movies critical of politicians.

That is really stupid! Where , when and how did I ever suggest such a thing?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Of course you live under the delusion that you Stalinist scum will always have absolute power.

Stalinist ? Thinking that I or any progressives are Stalinist is really stupid and pathetic.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Oh and you fucking lying retard,the decision did NOT favor a conservative cause, it upheld the right to free speech.

The decision favored a conservative organization. Are you to stupid to know that? But that is not my problem with the decision. My problem with it is that MONY buys free speech by whoever has it, Can you get that?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A society that puts people in prison for criticizing politicians is a tyranny - which is what you and the other Stalinist pigs like you desire.

I agree ! Your boy T-rump is the one who wants to do that. Are you so stupid that you don't know that. ?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Thank you for proving my point. You (stupidly - but that is beside the point) agree with Citizens United, so that is not "legislating from the bench-or judicial activism, and if it is, it's ok in this case.

I support freedom of speech, so naturally I support Citizens United.

It's funny, you Communists had no problem with Michael Moore creating a film about Bush, but the idea that mere peasants would DARE produce a film about Hillary had you fucking Stalinists losing your shit. How DARE these peasants engage in political speech that questions a ruler like Hillary? You'll have none of it - the proles will be SILENT in front of their masters.

I get it dude, you seek to crush free speech.

CU upheld the First Amendment right of the people to engage in political speech. You Stalinist scum had outlawed speech by the Proles. but that violated the Constitution, which you're down with, but luckily we had enough honest SCOTUS justices to defend the Bill of Rights.

Citizens United, a political action committee using small donations from individuals produced "HIllary, the Movie" detailing the criminal acts of Hillary Clinton. The FEC dropped trou and took a shit all over the first amendment, outlawing the movie as banned political speech - you fucking scum totalitarians cheered.

But LIBERTY prevailed in that case.

Now I'm convinced that you are absolutely insane and residing in an alternative reality. CU put a thumb on the scale in favor of big money controlling the message. In no way did it bolster the right of individual free speech which is what the first amendment is really about. But because the decision favored a conservative cause it was not judicial activism or legislating from the bench, it was merely upholding the constitution. Such a fucking hypocrite!

Interesting. How is it that you see an individual individually exercising freedom of speech as constitutional, but individuals banding together to exercise the right together as a group is not?

What makes you think he favors "individual individually exercising freedom of speech"?

He is a Marxist, he seeks to strictly control what the Proles can say, or think.

That is too fucking idiotic. I am not a Marxist and do not want to control what people say or think. That would be the Tumpanzies

 

[Aba Incieni]

A society that puts people in prison for criticizing politicians is a tyranny - which is what you and the other Stalinist pigs like you desire.

I agree ! Your boy T-rump is the one who wants to do that. Are you so stupid that you don't know that. ?

I hope this is true. You'll spend the rest of your aids-riddled life in the hole.

Not that hole. A dark room.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

She's so dynamic........

Holy Fuck!!!!
Look at the liver spots on her hand!!!

 

[GreenBean]

God Bless her!!! If only we all could still have a brain on our shoulder at 85 years old! HOLY SMOKES!!!

85 !!?? - most of you Liberals lost yours a long long time ago - those that ever had any to begin with that is ....

 

[GreenBean]

Also known as the notorious RBG, Justice Ginsburg, at 85 is showing no sign of slowing down or letting up on opposing the conservatives on the high court. On Monday, she delivered a scathing dissenting opinion on the narrowly decided labor relations case.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes off the gloves - CNNPolitics ​

As she did on Monday in an important employee wage dispute, Ginsburg dons her classic dissenting collar -- black with silver crystal accents -- over her robe when she is about to take the unusual step of protesting a majority decision from the bench.
"Nothing compels the destructive result the court reaches today," she said, adding in her written opinion that the majority was "egregiously wrong," retrenching on 80 years of federal labor law that sought "to place employers and employees on more equal footing."

Here is more:

This Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dissent Is An Unforgettable Defense Of Workers' Rights In America

On Monday, the so-called Notorious RBG opposed the majority of her colleagues in a landmark decision that inhibits the ability for employees with mandatory arbitration contracts to collectively sue their employers. In a fiery dissent on workers' rights, Ruth Bader Ginsburg lambasted the conservative justices that decided in favor of bolstering mandatory arbitration clauses that frequently appear in employment contracts, describing the ruling as "egregiously wrong."

As part of her dissent, RBG warned that inhibiting the right for workers to collectively sue their employers for compensation-related issues, or other workplace problems, could pitch U.S. labor rights back nearly a century. "The end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th was a tumultuous era in the history of our Nation’s labor relations," Ginsburg wrote. "Under economic conditions then prevailing, workers often had to accept employment on whatever terms employers dictated."

Where are "worker's rights" in the U.S. Constitution? That sounds like Marxism

In Judaism the The Talmud and Torah are Holy books upon which thousands of volumes, analysis, interpretations and critiques have been written over the Centuries, probably enough to fill the library of congress. One of the developers of early Judaism was a rabbi named Hillel who summed the entire torah up with ... "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn"

In America The Constitution and Biil of Rights are Holy books upon which thousands of volumes, analysis, interpretations and critiques have been written .....