While I share Justice Ginsburgâs obvious opinion of Donald Trump, I wish she hadnât gone there. Though sheâlike every other U.S. citizenâhas a right to free speech, she holds a very unique, very special position in our society, our democracy: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a sitting Supreme Court Justice. It has always bothered me when that asshat Antonin Scalia made known his opinions about certain subjectsâin particular gay rights of any sort, pushing religion onto others through the rule of law, or pretty much anything big corporationâand I always felt he should recuse himself from a lot of those cases. Justices Kagan and Sotomayor are the only two I have noticed recusing themselves. If a case involving Trump reaches the High Court while Ginsburg is still a sitting Justice, she likely will be expected to recuse herself. Believe me, I totally understand her sincere concern for this nation should Trump ascend to the Oval Office â I get that. I believe she is expending a lot of capital here and forever tarnishing her near-perfect reputation as a Jurist. That said, Iâm not in her head â I have no inside knowledge to her thinking, her calculations. Still, sheâs Spot On with her observations about Donald J. Trump.
I also regret Justice Ginsburgâs remarks. But is there anyone who does not think that the Court has become political? Politicians all want to stack the court in their direction. Can we not find jurists who are not chained to an ideology?
Are there many people just waking up from 20-year comas?
Bush v. Gore was decided along political lines. A strict constitutional constructionist would not have tread on a matter pertaining to a particular state. This was a state election to choose state electors. If Florida could not have made a decision by the time the electors met to vote, then the House should have decided the election. Strictly by the ConstitutionâŚbut that wasnât how the strict constructionists decided it, was it?
Humanity requires that all who can speak against the rise of fascism in America. The justices who fail to do so lack humanity and integrity both. There is no integrity which includes Trump, as he has none himself.
This âJustice Sandra Day OâConnor muttered, âthis is terribleâ after George W. Bush was declared the winner of the 2000 election, according to Newsweek.â is incorrect. She said it after Gore was declared the apparent victor in Florida. Here is the quote from Newsweek
âThis is terrible,â she exclaimed. She explained to another partygoer that Goreâs reported victory in Florida meant that the election was âover,â since Gore had already carried two other swing states, Michigan and Illinois."
ââŚher remarks present an unexpected break with tradition and could sow distrust by leading people to believe that the nationâs highest court is a political player.â
Would anyone who believes the fairy tale that the Supreme Court is now apolitical please step forward? Iâd just like to check to see whether you also believe we live in a democracy, that our vote matters, that the nation was founded on egalitarianism, and all those other fairy tales we were brainwashed with in grade school.
For crying out loud, significant portions of our Presidential elections revolve around Supreme Court implications. There will be campaign speeches and adverts coming out of our ears over it.
This is no time for people of conscience to be silent. Trump has been touted as breaking all the rules. So be it.
I meanâŚof course she walks a fine line. She knows it too. Sheâs not stupid.
Sheâs not criticizing a sitting President and I believe thatâs where the distinction should be made.
And to act like the Court hasnât been political is hilarious.
I too wish she had not gone there, and I am sure she would not have if she was not at the end of her career. That being said, I a struck at how little commotion this has actually caused at websites like Weekly Standard and National Review. Itâs almost like they are glad it happened because it unleashes guys like Alito and Thomas.
The court wasnât political in 2000? Or when they gutted the Voting Rights Act? This right wing court is the most activist court ever stacking the deck for Republicans every chance they can.
If I had to guess, I suspect sheâs planning to retire fairly soon. She wanted to say her piece now because she certainly did not want her replacement to be nominated by the likes of D. Drumpf.
As sheâs well aware, Drumpf is the most unqualified individual (both mentally and temperamentally) to be a presumptive nominee of a major party in the modern age.
Does anyone think that people with authority and respect for the rule of law should have remained silent as fascism rose in Europe? Ruth Bader Ginsburg can tell the difference between a legitimate political candidate and an impostor who respects no lines, fine or red, who has launched a racial attack on a judge whose authority over him he doesnât like and just slurred RBG with dementia. Is it enough for liberals to deplore the raw Supreme Court politics of the 2000 election? To be quietly outraged when Scalia went hunting with Dick Cheney? To stand up for restraint? Whereâs the fine line between silence and complicity?
Just released! Here is the Republican Party platform for itâs upcoming convention!
I used the one link with colorful little drawings so the majority vast of itâs poorly educated, racist, and homophobic etc lemmings & supporters wonât have any problems in understanding what they are attempting to read or comprehending what theyâve just read!
14 Points of fascism: The warning signs
Itâs not like Trump criticized her during a State of the Union, and she shook her head and mouthed âNot trueâ. http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-now/2010/01/justice-alito-mouths-not-true-024608
Love your avatar. Tip of the hat.
Scalia never politicized the bench. Yeah right.
Here again the degradation of the left. Starting about 30 years ago, the right became entirely politicized. Everything was politics to them. The news media, Christmas, the entire PC thing. Now it seems the left has caught up with this disgusting attitude. This isnât about idealism Itâs about cynicism.
This was a well-researched and well-written article.
I reject the opinion of the âexpertsâ â their opinion of what a Justice is supposed to do, based on the way the world is supposed to work.
In a nation based on equality, Ginsburg is no different than anyone else, and enjoys the same freedom and responsibility to speak out.
Itâs the âexpertsâ who associate her title with her opinion, not her.
One candidate for POTUS sleeps daily in a bed he sh^ts daily.
And we get served up breathless pearl-clutching
from a series of MsManners-sounding sources.
Sounding straight out of the 1950s.
There is a tsunami of lies, bigotries, and empty rhetoric
put forth by a corrupt nominee for POTUS-- on any given day.
Instead we get gasping âoh-noes!â from the mezzanine
over obvious truths being uttered by a respected SCOTUS jurist.
jw1
ââŚher remarks present an unexpected break with tradition and could sow distrust by leading people to believe that the nationâs highest court is a political player.â
The Supreme Court inserting itself in the 2000 presidential election already accomplished that, so pearl-clutching is a bit late.