Ruth Bader Ginzburg: If Trump wins move to New Zealand

CaptainObvious said:
Like I said, this is serious stuff. Even the NYT admits it. You know you've gone off the hardcore leftist rails when the NYT says you've gone too far. Whatever capacity for objectivity, the rule of law and adherence to the constitution this woman may have had is now gone. She needs to be removed immediately. She is a threat to liberty and freedom. Congress needs to act on this and NOW. If we need an amendment to do it, then it's needs to be written. You cannot call yourself an American and support her position.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/o...t-about-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg.html?_r=0
More...
That's a little over the top, Cap'n. From your own link:

There is no legal requirement that Supreme Court justices refrain from commenting on a presidential campaign. But Justice Ginsburg’s comments show why their tradition has been to keep silent.

And from a link in your own link:

Then-Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was criticized by some in 2000 after Newsweek reported her saying, "This is terrible," at an election-night watch party after Florida was prematurely called for Al Gore. Some argued that she should have recused herself from Bush v. Gore.

(Notice, though, how no one thought she was a threat to liberty and freedom and called for her immediate removal from the bench?)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-crossed-a-very-important-line/?tid=pm_pop_b

But it seems this forum is replete with Constitutional scholars who know better...
 
Last edited:
Frederick Foresight said:
That's a little over the top, Cap'n. From your own link:

There is no legal requirement that Supreme Court justices refrain from commenting on a presidential campaign. But Justice Ginsburg’s comments show why their tradition has been to keep silent.

And from a link in your own link:

Then-Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was criticized by some in 2000 after Newsweek reported her saying, "This is terrible," at an election-night watch party after Florida was prematurely called for Al Gore. Some argued that she should have recused herself from Bush v. Gore.

(Notice, though, how no one thought she was a threat to liberty and freedom and called for her immediate removal from the bench?)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-crossed-a-very-important-line/?tid=pm_pop_b

But it seems this forum is replete with Constitutional scholars who know better...
More...
Just as there is no legal requirement for presidential candidates to disclose their taxes.
: )
 
Ricter said:
Just as there is no legal requirement for presidential candidates to disclose their taxes.
: )
More...
For now...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/tax-returns-candidates-donald-trump-senate.html

Frankly, I'm more than a bit surprised that Trump's devotees are apparently not the least bit troubled by his unwillingness to disclose his tax returns. You would think that a celebrated businessman with a "good brain" would jump at the chance to show evidence of his acumen. I suppose we'll find out in due course whether we're dealing with a tycoon or a typhoon -- substance or just hot air.
 
Last edited:
actually there is a legal requirement called ethics and it goes hand in hand with respecting the constitution and the fact that marbury vs madison created judicial review out of thin air.

What she did was also dangerous. .
supreme ct justices should practice ethics and they should restrain from creating obvious potential for a constitution crisis out of respect for the country.

I can't state how highly disgusting her comment was to anyone that spends a few minutes thinking about the potential for another gore v bush situation.





Frederick Foresight said:
That's a little over the top, Cap'n. From your own link:

There is no legal requirement that Supreme Court justices refrain from commenting on a presidential campaign. But Justice Ginsburg’s comments show why their tradition has been to keep silent.

And from a link in your own link:

Then-Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was criticized by some in 2000 after Newsweek reported her saying, "This is terrible," at an election-night watch party after Florida was prematurely called for Al Gore. Some argued that she should have recused herself from Bush v. Gore.

(Notice, though, how no one thought she was a threat to liberty and freedom and called for her immediate removal from the bench?)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-crossed-a-very-important-line/?tid=pm_pop_b

But it seems this forum is replete with Constitutional scholars who know better...
More...
 
jem said:
I can't state how highly disgusting her comment was to anyone that spends a few minutes thinking about the potential for another gore v bush situation.
More...
You mean like when this happened?

Frederick Foresight said:
Then-Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was criticized by some in 2000 after Newsweek reported her saying, "This is terrible," at an election-night watch party after Florida was prematurely called for Al Gore. Some argued that she should have recused herself from Bush v. Gore.
More...

Remind me: did she recuse herself?
 
Can you see a tiny difference between public comments and private remarks at a party? Private remarks that were not recorded and were repeated second hand?
 
Frederick Foresight said:
That's a little over the top, Cap'n. From your own link:

There is no legal requirement that Supreme Court justices refrain from commenting on a presidential campaign. But Justice Ginsburg’s comments show why their tradition has been to keep silent.

And from a link in your own link:

Then-Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was criticized by some in 2000 after Newsweek reported her saying, "This is terrible," at an election-night watch party after Florida was prematurely called for Al Gore. Some argued that she should have recused herself from Bush v. Gore.

(Notice, though, how no one thought she was a threat to liberty and freedom and called for her immediate removal from the bench?)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-crossed-a-very-important-line/?tid=pm_pop_b

But it seems this forum is replete with Constitutional scholars who know better...
More...
It's kind of an apples and oranges comparison. An off the cuff remark at a not so private party isn't the same as sitting down with a reporter doing an in depth interview.
I'm not arguing that these type people can't have a personal opinion, and frankly it's not reality to expect them to not have some bias as a result, but publicly they should be trying a hell of a lot harder to remain above the fray. I don't care whether it's this incident, or the "you lie", or Mitch and shit, Harry and his we won and that's all that matters b.s., or any of the rest of them. These people are not at all acting in a professional manner.
 
CaptainObvious said:
It's kind of an apples and oranges comparison. An off the cuff remark at a not so private party isn't the same as sitting down with a reporter doing an in depth interview.
I'm not arguing that these type people can't have a personal opinion, and frankly it's not reality to expect them to not have some bias as a result, but publicly they should be trying a hell of a lot harder to remain above the fray.
More...
Point taken. But I think you will agree that the Republicans have a way of squeezing the last bit of juice out of every opportunity while being fairly dismissive of ~similar conduct when it pertains to their own. Arguably more so than Democrats. Not that Dems don't go after their opposition, but I think they are somewhat more even handed. Relatively peaking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top