Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dead

Death Angel

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Messages
32,733
Reaction score
14,971
Points
1,600
Ginsburg is to women's rights what Thurgood Marshall was to women's rights

What did she do for women's rights?
she advocated to have 9 Supreme Court woman justices
that's sexist how about 9 justices who can correctly interpret the intent of the Constitution namely the bill of rights?
no interpretation needed,,,it states its intent in clear english,,,
interpreting it has led us into the mess we are in,,,
True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted
thats bullshit,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,,,,

but youre right,, the left wing democrats and republicans have butchered it,,,
That's why gay marriage is a right and illegals have a right to be in America
the feds have no authority to be involved in marriage,,,

if you read the constitution you would know that,,,
Marriage has a definition. "WE" have allowed the State to REDEFINE marriage. If the state should be out, then it needs to be not controlled by leftists either
 

progressive hunter

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
19,672
Reaction score
6,426
Points
360
Ginsburg is to women's rights what Thurgood Marshall was to women's rights

What did she do for women's rights?
she advocated to have 9 Supreme Court woman justices
that's sexist how about 9 justices who can correctly interpret the intent of the Constitution namely the bill of rights?
no interpretation needed,,,it states its intent in clear english,,,
interpreting it has led us into the mess we are in,,,
True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted
thats bullshit,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,,,,

but youre right,, the left wing democrats and republicans have butchered it,,,
That's why gay marriage is a right and illegals have a right to be in America
the feds have no authority to be involved in marriage,,,

if you read the constitution you would know that,,,
Marriage has a definition. "WE" have allowed the State to REDEFINE marriage. If the state should be out, then it needs to be not controlled by leftists either
correct,,,dems and repubes shouldnt control marriage,,,

and dont include me in the "WE"
 

Death Angel

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Messages
32,733
Reaction score
14,971
Points
1,600
Ginsburg is to women's rights what Thurgood Marshall was to women's rights

What did she do for women's rights?
she advocated to have 9 Supreme Court woman justices
that's sexist how about 9 justices who can correctly interpret the intent of the Constitution namely the bill of rights?
no interpretation needed,,,it states its intent in clear english,,,
interpreting it has led us into the mess we are in,,,
True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted
thats bullshit,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,,,,

but youre right,, the left wing democrats and republicans have butchered it,,,
That's why gay marriage is a right and illegals have a right to be in America
the feds have no authority to be involved in marriage,,,

if you read the constitution you would know that,,,
I'm not disagreeing with you but the feds under obama did get involved
Someone like you or I don't need it interpreted but leftists have comprehensions problems with it.
deal with that problem,,dont compound it by doing what they did,,,

under the 1st amendment any two people have a right to assemble/marry who they want,,,

and YES if ten people want to marry its none of my business,,,
again your fighting the wrong argument with the wrong person
You said it was none of the feds business who people married I said under the obama years he made it federal business there is no right to marry but people made it a federal issue therefore some need it interpreted for its original intent.
how can something that doesnt exist be interpreted???

IT DOESNT EXIST,,,

THIS IS WHY i DONT WANT a conservative as SCOTUS pick and want a constitutionalist,,,
You're right it doesn't exist until Obama made it an issue and bastardized the constitution
The federal income tax is another thing that was added and interpreted incorrectly
The second amendment has been bastardized and interpreted incorrectly
best I can see about the gay marriage issue is they said it was a right which makes sense if you read the first amendment along with the rest of the constitution,,,

as for income tax,, it was done by amendment so its legal just very wrong,,,,
so it needs another amendment to remove it,,,

and yes the dems and repubes have destroyed the 2nd A because they interpreted it instead of reading it,,,
Actually the 16th amendment is not constitutional if you read the history of it
And since the constitution has been misinterpreted takes us back to what I originally said
"True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted"
IT'S NEEDS TO BE INTERPRETED TO GET IT BACK TO IT'S ORIGINAL INTENT.
yes the dems and repubes tried interpreted it instead of reading it,,,

no interpretation needed,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,

what history if the 16th did I miss???
AGAIN IF the constitution has been butchered and bastardized from it's true intent
It must be interpreted by original constitutional scholars to get us back to its true intent.
easier to just read it,,, its in simple english,,,
not when it's been butchered and bastardized
more so when its been bastardized and butchered,,,

how do you interpret things like,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,,,

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAWS,,,
laws have been created around the misinterpreted constitution tha's why we need an original constitutional scholars to get us back to its true intent.
THATS why I want a constitutionalist not a conservative for SCOTUS,,,
Same thing.
 

progressive hunter

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
19,672
Reaction score
6,426
Points
360
Ginsburg is to women's rights what Thurgood Marshall was to women's rights

What did she do for women's rights?
she advocated to have 9 Supreme Court woman justices
that's sexist how about 9 justices who can correctly interpret the intent of the Constitution namely the bill of rights?
no interpretation needed,,,it states its intent in clear english,,,
interpreting it has led us into the mess we are in,,,
True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted
thats bullshit,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,,,,

but youre right,, the left wing democrats and republicans have butchered it,,,
That's why gay marriage is a right and illegals have a right to be in America
the feds have no authority to be involved in marriage,,,

if you read the constitution you would know that,,,
I'm not disagreeing with you but the feds under obama did get involved
Someone like you or I don't need it interpreted but leftists have comprehensions problems with it.
deal with that problem,,dont compound it by doing what they did,,,

under the 1st amendment any two people have a right to assemble/marry who they want,,,

and YES if ten people want to marry its none of my business,,,
again your fighting the wrong argument with the wrong person
You said it was none of the feds business who people married I said under the obama years he made it federal business there is no right to marry but people made it a federal issue therefore some need it interpreted for its original intent.
how can something that doesnt exist be interpreted???

IT DOESNT EXIST,,,

THIS IS WHY i DONT WANT a conservative as SCOTUS pick and want a constitutionalist,,,
You're right it doesn't exist until Obama made it an issue and bastardized the constitution
The federal income tax is another thing that was added and interpreted incorrectly
The second amendment has been bastardized and interpreted incorrectly
best I can see about the gay marriage issue is they said it was a right which makes sense if you read the first amendment along with the rest of the constitution,,,

as for income tax,, it was done by amendment so its legal just very wrong,,,,
so it needs another amendment to remove it,,,

and yes the dems and repubes have destroyed the 2nd A because they interpreted it instead of reading it,,,
Actually the 16th amendment is not constitutional if you read the history of it
And since the constitution has been misinterpreted takes us back to what I originally said
"True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted"
IT'S NEEDS TO BE INTERPRETED TO GET IT BACK TO IT'S ORIGINAL INTENT.
yes the dems and repubes tried interpreted it instead of reading it,,,

no interpretation needed,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,

what history if the 16th did I miss???
AGAIN IF the constitution has been butchered and bastardized from it's true intent
It must be interpreted by original constitutional scholars to get us back to its true intent.
easier to just read it,,, its in simple english,,,
not when it's been butchered and bastardized
more so when its been bastardized and butchered,,,

how do you interpret things like,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,,,

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAWS,,,
laws have been created around the misinterpreted constitution tha's why we need an original constitutional scholars to get us back to its true intent.
THATS why I want a constitutionalist not a conservative for SCOTUS,,,
Same thing.
yep,,,both are leftists,,,
 

Ropey

String tension is not infinite.
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
76,201
Reaction score
11,886
Points
2,070
if it's a woman, he should pick Britt Grant or Barbara Lagoa. Amy Barrett is against the death penalty, i wouldn't pick her

Britt is a close friend of Kavanaugh and the youngest in Trump's list

Barbara is Cuban American, so it would be a historic pick
You spelled 'A Historic Mistake' wrong.
Potential SCOTUS pick Barbara Lagoa on Roe v Wade (to questions from Feinstein)
 

basquebromance

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
60,008
Reaction score
8,286
Points
2,070
if it's a woman, he should pick Britt Grant or Barbara Lagoa. Amy Barrett is against the death penalty, i wouldn't pick her

Britt is a close friend of Kavanaugh and the youngest in Trump's list

Barbara is Cuban American, so it would be a historic pick
Potential SCOTUS pick Barbara Lagoa on Roe v Wade (to questions from Feinstein)
sounds good!
 

Ropey

String tension is not infinite.
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
76,201
Reaction score
11,886
Points
2,070
if it's a woman, he should pick Britt Grant or Barbara Lagoa. Amy Barrett is against the death penalty, i wouldn't pick her

Britt is a close friend of Kavanaugh and the youngest in Trump's list

Barbara is Cuban American, so it would be a historic pick
Potential SCOTUS pick Barbara Lagoa on Roe v Wade (to questions from Feinstein)
sounds good!
Yes, as soon as I heard that Ruth had passed on, I thought the same thing.

Now let's see what happens.
 

basquebromance

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
60,008
Reaction score
8,286
Points
2,070
"There have been 19 SCOTUS nominations in an election year where the same party controlled the Senate and WH. All but two were confirmed"
 

basquebromance

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
60,008
Reaction score
8,286
Points
2,070
"Never forget what they did to Kavanaugh. we owe the left nothing. FILL THE SEAT" - Sen Josh Hawley
 

Ropey

String tension is not infinite.
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
76,201
Reaction score
11,886
Points
2,070
EiSwvKfXcAYCPYL.jpg


She's gone and her volume of work?

It's going to get 'Obama'd."
 

basquebromance

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
60,008
Reaction score
8,286
Points
2,070
RBG's classmates detested her, because she was always the first in her class
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
28,435
Reaction score
7,033
Points
290
as far as what the left will historically do - i give you -


so don't give me this "not fair" crap. while i would 100% prefer we make a rule for when the president can and can't nominate someone, the simple fact is without a rule, he can do it "whenever"

so we either come together and create a law that says when the president will not be able to select a SCOTUS or we live with the way it is.

but the constant bitching at the right for dirty tactics doesn't really hold water when you look at the history here, does it? the only constant is the left is an asshole to every single conservative pick.
 

basquebromance

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
60,008
Reaction score
8,286
Points
2,070
Fleetwood Mac's stevie nicks posthumously inducts rbg into the rock & roll hall of fame. a sentence my brain isn’t quite ready to compute just yet.

 

basquebromance

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
60,008
Reaction score
8,286
Points
2,070
“You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think."- Mitch McConnell to Dems in 2013 after filibuster rule change.

 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top