CDZ Ruth Bader Ginsburg Proves That No Liberal Is Honest Or Trustworthy

[jwoodie]

So is Marriage life, liberty or property?

Yes.

Which one, Brainiac?

 

[Divine Wind]

Which one, Brainiac?

Why should I reply to a person who is obviously a troll? Do you desire to have an honest discussion or not? If yes, why the bullshit, insults and high school attitude?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Umm...

Ginsberg was on the court when it decided Citizen's United, and her dissent is public record. Why is it "scandalous" that she still expresses that dissent now?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Umm...

Ginsberg was on the court when it decided Citizen's United, and her dissent is public record. Why is it "scandalous" that she still expresses that dissent now?

It's scandalous that a sitting judge would advocate any one political candidate and it is also scandalous that a sitting Justice would advocate overturnng a lawfully made Court decision. Of course she dissented, but she should also put on her big girl panties and say "well I disagree, but a Court ruling is a Court ruling"

 

[jwoodie]

Why should I reply

Only if you were intellectually honest. Why are you afraid to answer a question about your own post?

 

[jwoodie]

Umm...

Ginsberg was on the court when it decided Citizen's United, and her dissent is public record. Why is it "scandalous" that she still expresses that dissent now?

Stare Decisis. Look it up.

 

[Divine Wind]

Why should I reply

Only if you were intellectually honest. Why are you afraid to answer a question about your own post?

Said by a person who is so dishonest, they take a post out of context.

 

[jwoodie]

Why should I reply

Only if you were intellectually honest. Why are you afraid to answer a question about your own post?

Said by a person who is so dishonest, they take a post out of context.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post citing the deprivation of life, liberty or property as a Constitutional basis for gay marriage. If so, I apologize. If not, my question stands and remains unanswered.

 

[GaryDog]

Unlike conservatives, liberals absolutely do not care if the Supreme Court engages in political bias as long as that bias is also liberal.
That is, and always will be, the difference between non-extremest liberals and non-extremest conservatives. Conservatives want fairness, liberals want fascism.

lol that's not true, there are plenty of conservatives who are willing to ignore the COTUS in order to enact laws that they want enacted. Gay marriage springs immediately to mind. NOWHERE is the government empowered to define marriage in the COTUS.

Privileges and Immunities, dude. Google it.

 

[OldLady]

Umm...

Ginsberg was on the court when it decided Citizen's United, and her dissent is public record. Why is it "scandalous" that she still expresses that dissent now?

It's scandalous that a sitting judge would advocate any one political candidate and it is also scandalous that a sitting Justice would advocate overturnng a lawfully made Court decision. Of course she dissented, but she should also put on her big girl panties and say "well I disagree, but a Court ruling is a Court ruling"

I'm sure she DOES say a Court ruling is a Court ruling. Doesn't mean she has to agree with it or like it and there is absolutely no reason on earth why she should change her mind about it. This whole thread is based on an OP which makes no sense.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Umm...

Ginsberg was on the court when it decided Citizen's United, and her dissent is public record. Why is it "scandalous" that she still expresses that dissent now?

It's scandalous that a sitting judge would advocate any one political candidate and it is also scandalous that a sitting Justice would advocate overturnng a lawfully made Court decision. Of course she dissented, but she should also put on her big girl panties and say "well I disagree, but a Court ruling is a Court ruling"

I'm sure she DOES say a Court ruling is a Court ruling. Doesn't mean she has to agree with it or like it and there is absolutely no reason on earth why she should change her mind about it. This whole thread is based on an OP which makes no sense.

Please give thought to ending your partisan ways. For real. Partisanship is destroying this country. We BOTH know that if a Supreme Court Justice had spoke out against Hillary and or advocated overturning Roe v Wade that you would be going ape shit. Don't even bother denying it Old Lady.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Unlike conservatives, liberals absolutely do not care if the Supreme Court engages in political bias as long as that bias is also liberal.
That is, and always will be, the difference between non-extremest liberals and non-extremest conservatives. Conservatives want fairness, liberals want fascism.

lol that's not true, there are plenty of conservatives who are willing to ignore the COTUS in order to enact laws that they want enacted. Gay marriage springs immediately to mind. NOWHERE is the government empowered to define marriage in the COTUS.

Privileges and Immunities, dude. Google it.

What the fuck are you talking about? The government has ZERO authority to define marriage , period. Meaning they have no right, none to tell anyone they can't get married. If 40 midget men want to get married, that is their prerogative.

 

[Divine Wind]

Perhaps I misunderstood your post citing the deprivation of life, liberty or property as a Constitutional basis for gay marriage. If so, I apologize. If not, my question stands and remains unanswered.

The Constitution builds upon the same principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence. More specifically, it is designed not to give or grant rights, but to limit government since we already have those rights as stated in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
​

As such, it's not the place of government to stop citizens from exercising their unalienable Rights. The main purpose of our government is laid out in the Constitution's Preamble. In the case of "gay marriage", we have a 14th Amendment problem stemming from the 1138 Federal rights and benefits granted married couples. There's two ways of frixing that problem; either grant everyone the same rights and benefits or eliminate all of those rights and benefits.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Perhaps I misunderstood your post citing the deprivation of life, liberty or property as a Constitutional basis for gay marriage. If so, I apologize. If not, my question stands and remains unanswered.

The Constitution builds upon the same principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence. More specifically, it is designed not to give or grant rights, but to limit government since we already have those rights as stated in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
​

As such, it's not the place of government to stop citizens from exercising their unalienable Rights. The main purpose of our government is laid out in the Constitution's Preamble. In the case of "gay marriage", we have a 14th Amendment problem stemming from the 1138 Federal rights and benefits granted married couples. There's two ways of frixing that problem; either grant everyone the same rights and benefits or eliminate all of those rights and benefits.

And that is of course what a state could do, they could just stop issuing ANY marriage licenses and that would be legal. You have no right to a state marriage license. BUT if the state does offer one, they can't deny it to others, especially based on religious mores.

 

[OldLady]

Umm...

Ginsberg was on the court when it decided Citizen's United, and her dissent is public record. Why is it "scandalous" that she still expresses that dissent now?

It's scandalous that a sitting judge would advocate any one political candidate and it is also scandalous that a sitting Justice would advocate overturnng a lawfully made Court decision. Of course she dissented, but she should also put on her big girl panties and say "well I disagree, but a Court ruling is a Court ruling"

I'm sure she DOES say a Court ruling is a Court ruling. Doesn't mean she has to agree with it or like it and there is absolutely no reason on earth why she should change her mind about it. This whole thread is based on an OP which makes no sense.

Please give thought to ending your partisan ways. For real. Partisanship is destroying this country. We BOTH know that if a Supreme Court Justice had spoke out against Hillary and or advocated overturning Roe v Wade that you would be going ape shit. Don't even bother denying it Old Lady.

This thread is going from making-no-sense to being downright nonsensical. I am NOT a partisan; I hate Hillary's guts, and I know there are justices on the court who would overturn Roe v Wade if they could. They have the right to their opinion, imo.
If that's the best you can do as a rebuttal, I'm guessing you're done.

 

[Divine Wind]

And that is of course what a state could do, they could just stop issuing ANY marriage licenses and that would be legal. You have no right to a state marriage license. BUT if the state does offer one, they can't deny it to others, especially based on religious mores.

Agreed. The 10th Amendment delineates this:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
​

As long as a state complies with the Constitution, they can do what they want.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Umm...

Ginsberg was on the court when it decided Citizen's United, and her dissent is public record. Why is it "scandalous" that she still expresses that dissent now?

It's scandalous that a sitting judge would advocate any one political candidate and it is also scandalous that a sitting Justice would advocate overturnng a lawfully made Court decision. Of course she dissented, but she should also put on her big girl panties and say "well I disagree, but a Court ruling is a Court ruling"

I'm sure she DOES say a Court ruling is a Court ruling. Doesn't mean she has to agree with it or like it and there is absolutely no reason on earth why she should change her mind about it. This whole thread is based on an OP which makes no sense.

Please give thought to ending your partisan ways. For real. Partisanship is destroying this country. We BOTH know that if a Supreme Court Justice had spoke out against Hillary and or advocated overturning Roe v Wade that you would be going ape shit. Don't even bother denying it Old Lady.

This thread is going from making-no-sense to being downright nonsensical. I am NOT a partisan; I hate Hillary's guts, and I know there are justices on the court who would overturn Roe v Wade if they could. They have the right to their opinion, imo.
If that's the best you can do as a rebuttal, I'm guessing you're done.

Oh, you are obviously a partisan. Hating Hillary doesn't change that .

 

[OldLady]

Umm...

Ginsberg was on the court when it decided Citizen's United, and her dissent is public record. Why is it "scandalous" that she still expresses that dissent now?

It's scandalous that a sitting judge would advocate any one political candidate and it is also scandalous that a sitting Justice would advocate overturnng a lawfully made Court decision. Of course she dissented, but she should also put on her big girl panties and say "well I disagree, but a Court ruling is a Court ruling"

I'm sure she DOES say a Court ruling is a Court ruling. Doesn't mean she has to agree with it or like it and there is absolutely no reason on earth why she should change her mind about it. This whole thread is based on an OP which makes no sense.

Please give thought to ending your partisan ways. For real. Partisanship is destroying this country. We BOTH know that if a Supreme Court Justice had spoke out against Hillary and or advocated overturning Roe v Wade that you would be going ape shit. Don't even bother denying it Old Lady.

This thread is going from making-no-sense to being downright nonsensical. I am NOT a partisan; I hate Hillary's guts, and I know there are justices on the court who would overturn Roe v Wade if they could. They have the right to their opinion, imo.
If that's the best you can do as a rebuttal, I'm guessing you're done.

Oh, you are obviously a partisan. Hating Hillary doesn't change that .

Reminder: You are in the CDZ

 

[Fair&Balanced]

It's scandalous that a sitting judge would advocate any one political candidate and it is also scandalous that a sitting Justice would advocate overturnng a lawfully made Court decision. Of course she dissented, but she should also put on her big girl panties and say "well I disagree, but a Court ruling is a Court ruling"

I'm sure she DOES say a Court ruling is a Court ruling. Doesn't mean she has to agree with it or like it and there is absolutely no reason on earth why she should change her mind about it. This whole thread is based on an OP which makes no sense.

Please give thought to ending your partisan ways. For real. Partisanship is destroying this country. We BOTH know that if a Supreme Court Justice had spoke out against Hillary and or advocated overturning Roe v Wade that you would be going ape shit. Don't even bother denying it Old Lady.

This thread is going from making-no-sense to being downright nonsensical. I am NOT a partisan; I hate Hillary's guts, and I know there are justices on the court who would overturn Roe v Wade if they could. They have the right to their opinion, imo.
If that's the best you can do as a rebuttal, I'm guessing you're done.

Oh, you are obviously a partisan. Hating Hillary doesn't change that .

Reminder: You are in the CDZ

Calling you a partisan is not acceptable in the CDZ? I'm going to disagree with that notion.

However, a challenge, name 3 things you disagree with the Dem Party about....

I could name 20 things that I disagree with each party about without even really giving it deep thought.

 

[OldLady]

I'm sure she DOES say a Court ruling is a Court ruling. Doesn't mean she has to agree with it or like it and there is absolutely no reason on earth why she should change her mind about it. This whole thread is based on an OP which makes no sense.

Please give thought to ending your partisan ways. For real. Partisanship is destroying this country. We BOTH know that if a Supreme Court Justice had spoke out against Hillary and or advocated overturning Roe v Wade that you would be going ape shit. Don't even bother denying it Old Lady.

This thread is going from making-no-sense to being downright nonsensical. I am NOT a partisan; I hate Hillary's guts, and I know there are justices on the court who would overturn Roe v Wade if they could. They have the right to their opinion, imo.
If that's the best you can do as a rebuttal, I'm guessing you're done.

Oh, you are obviously a partisan. Hating Hillary doesn't change that .

Reminder: You are in the CDZ

Calling you a partisan is not acceptable in the CDZ? I'm going to disagree with that notion.

However, a challenge, name 3 things you disagree with the Dem Party about....

I could name 20 things that I disagree with each party about without even really giving it deep thought.

Still at it? Off Topic. No more replies to you. Figure out why Ruth couldn't say what she said about the Citizen's United ruling, or go back to Politics