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

mudwhistle

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Jul 21, 2009
138,170
76,183
2,645
Headmaster's Office, Hogwarts
Fairness and honesty are words liberals have forgotten. Even a Supreme Court Justice cannot be trusted to follow the law if they're a leftist. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has shown us that she isn't an impartial judge on any matter, that politics rules her decisions, as we predicted.

July 14, 2016
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a BIG problem for the left
By Thomas Lifson
Having outlived cancer, her husband, and her best friend on the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is speaking out and doesn’t give a crap what anyone else thinks. She’s telling what she thinks is the truth, and in the process, she is exposing the raw politics at the heart of the Supreme Court, the left’s most valuable tool for imposing its agenda.

The sitting justice has revealed that she would approach any future case involving the First Amendment protections of Citizens United with the intent to overturn it: “I’d love to see Citizens United overruled.”

This explodes the mythology that justices weigh constitutional jurisprudence in a scholarly manner and explain what the Constitution really means. It reveals the Court to be a political body, like Congress, where the members vote their political interests. Just like Congress, except no democratic accountability.

At a very critical point – the next justice appointed will determine the political balance of the Court – Ginsburg is delegitimizing the Court. Whoever wins the presidency, and therefore appoints the next justice to replace Scalia, that nominee will face extensive questioning on political beliefs and their relevance to decision-making.

There really isn’t that much that can be done, practically speaking, to Ginsburg. She decides whether or not to recuse herself on cases involving a possible Trump administration.

Ginsburg is taking hits from both the left and right, but is she likely to pay attention? Don’t forget that she was pressured to step down from her seat, to allow Obama to appoint a younger replacement, and did not react as hoped. I’d guess she is not open to such pressures today. She’s a survivor.

Impeachment is unlikely for now, as it has been done only once before to a justice:

Samuel Chase in 1805 was charged with trying to influence “politically sensitive cases,” according to the U.S. Senate website. Chase, a voluble jurist, was accused of “refusing to dismiss biased jurors and of excluding or limiting defense witnesses” in the cases but argued in return that he was being targeted for his political beliefs, which stood at odds with the Jeffersonian Republicans who held the majority in Congress.

Chase was ultimately acquitted and served until his death in 1811. Since then, justices have been often threatened with impeachment, but those hearings have never happened.


If Trump wins and Ginsburg refuses to recuse herself, will she be impeached? It would take some stretching to find a “high crime and misdemeanor” in her decision-making.

What about her colleagues? Is she in for an intervention? The Wall Street Journal’s Review and Outlook column called for one. Would we ever find out if such a meeting occurred?

I suspect that Ginsburg will continue to speak her mind. And continue to hand rope to those who yearn for a Supreme Court bound to the Constitution.
Blog: Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a BIG problem for the left
 
Ahhhh,


But this morning she stated she was out of line with her comment.

That makes it ALLLLLLLL better
 
Ahhhh,


But this morning she stated she was out of line with her comment.

That makes it ALLLLLLLL better



That is the politician's trick. Say something outlandish then walk it back and somehow people just say "oh well they walked it back, so no biggie"

Hopefully she follows in Scalia's footsteps soon.
 
Ginsberg was definitely out of line. The honorable thing for her to do is to resign in order to protect the integrity of the Supreme Court.
 
Ginsberg was definitely out of line. The honorable thing for her to do is to resign in order to protect the integrity of the Supreme Court.

She won't resign, she'll die in office. Probably while tethered to a life support system that keeps her alive for a decade or so in which she obviously ins't contributing anything to the Court, but she won't ever resign.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Ginsberg was definitely out of line. The honorable thing for her to do is to resign in order to protect the integrity of the Supreme Court.
The integrity of the court was shot when Obama appointed two activist judges......and the integrity of the Justice Department is totally shot when they let Hillary walk.
 
Ginsberg was definitely out of line. The honorable thing for her to do is to resign in order to protect the integrity of the Supreme Court.
The integrity of the court was shot when Obama appointed two activist judges......and the integrity of the Justice Department is totally shot when they let Hillary walk.
Congress put those judges on the bench.
 
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.
Correct the Constitution doesn't define marriage, but it does define "equal protection of the laws". Ergo, if you're going given 1138 Federal rights and benefits to groups of people, then all people should have access to those same rights and benefits. If it was up to me, we'd have just eliminated the vast majority of those rights and benefits, but there is still the problem of parentage of minors, adopted, surrogate or otherwise, survivorship, etc.

...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
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.

WHat?...wow
 
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.

WHat?...wow

What is so wow about that? The COTUS very CLEARLY limits the powers of the federal government. NOWHERE is the word marriage or any similar term used to vest the federal government with the authority to define marriage.
 
Fairness and honesty are words liberals have forgotten. Even a Supreme Court Justice cannot be trusted to follow the law if they're a leftist. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has shown us that she isn't an impartial judge on any matter, that politics rules her decisions, as we predicted.

July 14, 2016
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a BIG problem for the left
By Thomas Lifson
Having outlived cancer, her husband, and her best friend on the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is speaking out and doesn’t give a crap what anyone else thinks. She’s telling what she thinks is the truth, and in the process, she is exposing the raw politics at the heart of the Supreme Court, the left’s most valuable tool for imposing its agenda.

The sitting justice has revealed that she would approach any future case involving the First Amendment protections of Citizens United with the intent to overturn it: “I’d love to see Citizens United overruled.”

This explodes the mythology that justices weigh constitutional jurisprudence in a scholarly manner and explain what the Constitution really means. It reveals the Court to be a political body, like Congress, where the members vote their political interests. Just like Congress, except no democratic accountability.

At a very critical point – the next justice appointed will determine the political balance of the Court – Ginsburg is delegitimizing the Court. Whoever wins the presidency, and therefore appoints the next justice to replace Scalia, that nominee will face extensive questioning on political beliefs and their relevance to decision-making.

There really isn’t that much that can be done, practically speaking, to Ginsburg. She decides whether or not to recuse herself on cases involving a possible Trump administration.

Ginsburg is taking hits from both the left and right, but is she likely to pay attention? Don’t forget that she was pressured to step down from her seat, to allow Obama to appoint a younger replacement, and did not react as hoped. I’d guess she is not open to such pressures today. She’s a survivor.

Impeachment is unlikely for now, as it has been done only once before to a justice:

Samuel Chase in 1805 was charged with trying to influence “politically sensitive cases,” according to the U.S. Senate website. Chase, a voluble jurist, was accused of “refusing to dismiss biased jurors and of excluding or limiting defense witnesses” in the cases but argued in return that he was being targeted for his political beliefs, which stood at odds with the Jeffersonian Republicans who held the majority in Congress.

Chase was ultimately acquitted and served until his death in 1811. Since then, justices have been often threatened with impeachment, but those hearings have never happened.


If Trump wins and Ginsburg refuses to recuse herself, will she be impeached? It would take some stretching to find a “high crime and misdemeanor” in her decision-making.

What about her colleagues? Is she in for an intervention? The Wall Street Journal’s Review and Outlook column called for one. Would we ever find out if such a meeting occurred?

I suspect that Ginsburg will continue to speak her mind. And continue to hand rope to those who yearn for a Supreme Court bound to the Constitution.
Blog: Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a BIG problem for the left


I saw an interview with Milo Yiannopoulis on YouTube..........he wants these leftists to come out of the shadows and loudly and proudly state who they are...since that is the best way to show how stupid and incompetent and corrupt they are.......she did that perfectly.......
 
Ginzburg illustrated why we cannot have Clinton as President stuffing the SCOTUS with 3 or 4 more Ginzburgs.
Mitch McConnell can simply veto any and all of Hillary's nominations.

Then the SCOTUS will drop to 7 eventually and again there will be a strict-constructionist majority with Kennedy as the swing vote.

Ginsberg just needs to die first or resign.

Hillary as president is essentially unavoidable by now.

Trump shot off his mouth way too much and alienated many of the swing states.
 
Fairness and honesty are words liberals have forgotten. Even a Supreme Court Justice cannot be trusted to follow the law if they're a leftist. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has shown us that she isn't an impartial judge on any matter, that politics rules her decisions, as we predicted.

July 14, 2016
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a BIG problem for the left
By Thomas Lifson
Having outlived cancer, her husband, and her best friend on the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is speaking out and doesn’t give a crap what anyone else thinks. She’s telling what she thinks is the truth, and in the process, she is exposing the raw politics at the heart of the Supreme Court, the left’s most valuable tool for imposing its agenda.

The sitting justice has revealed that she would approach any future case involving the First Amendment protections of Citizens United with the intent to overturn it: “I’d love to see Citizens United overruled.”

This explodes the mythology that justices weigh constitutional jurisprudence in a scholarly manner and explain what the Constitution really means. It reveals the Court to be a political body, like Congress, where the members vote their political interests. Just like Congress, except no democratic accountability.

At a very critical point – the next justice appointed will determine the political balance of the Court – Ginsburg is delegitimizing the Court. Whoever wins the presidency, and therefore appoints the next justice to replace Scalia, that nominee will face extensive questioning on political beliefs and their relevance to decision-making.

There really isn’t that much that can be done, practically speaking, to Ginsburg. She decides whether or not to recuse herself on cases involving a possible Trump administration.

Ginsburg is taking hits from both the left and right, but is she likely to pay attention? Don’t forget that she was pressured to step down from her seat, to allow Obama to appoint a younger replacement, and did not react as hoped. I’d guess she is not open to such pressures today. She’s a survivor.

Impeachment is unlikely for now, as it has been done only once before to a justice:

Samuel Chase in 1805 was charged with trying to influence “politically sensitive cases,” according to the U.S. Senate website. Chase, a voluble jurist, was accused of “refusing to dismiss biased jurors and of excluding or limiting defense witnesses” in the cases but argued in return that he was being targeted for his political beliefs, which stood at odds with the Jeffersonian Republicans who held the majority in Congress.

Chase was ultimately acquitted and served until his death in 1811. Since then, justices have been often threatened with impeachment, but those hearings have never happened.


If Trump wins and Ginsburg refuses to recuse herself, will she be impeached? It would take some stretching to find a “high crime and misdemeanor” in her decision-making.

What about her colleagues? Is she in for an intervention? The Wall Street Journal’s Review and Outlook column called for one. Would we ever find out if such a meeting occurred?

I suspect that Ginsburg will continue to speak her mind. And continue to hand rope to those who yearn for a Supreme Court bound to the Constitution.
Blog: Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a BIG problem for the left


I saw an interview with Milo Yiannopoulis on YouTube..........he wants these leftists to come out of the shadows and loudly and proudly state who they are...since that is the best way to show how stupid and incompetent and corrupt they are.......she did that perfectly.......
She already did it with her dissent in Heller v. DC.

She thinks the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias.
 
"Ruth Bader Ginsburg Proves That No Liberal Is Honest Or Trustworthy"

One cannot expect ‘clean debate’ when the thread premise fails as both a hasty generalization fallacy and straw man fallacy, as its premise is clearly a lie.
 
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.
Correct the Constitution doesn't define marriage, but it does define "equal protection of the laws". Ergo, if you're going given 1138 Federal rights and benefits to groups of people, then all people should have access to those same rights and benefits. If it was up to me, we'd have just eliminated the vast majority of those rights and benefits, but there is still the problem of parentage of minors, adopted, surrogate or otherwise, survivorship, etc.

...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So is Marriage life, liberty or property?
 

Forum List

Back
Top