Ruth Bader Ginsberg predicts another Dem in the White House. Do you Agree?

[Sherman123]

In an interview with The Washington Post, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the oldest Supreme Court Justice and also one of the most liberal, said that she predicts another Democrat in the White House.

From The Washington Post:


Do you agree with her? or is she just a crazy old bat?

Source: Rare.us | Ruth Bader Ginsberg predicts another Dem in the White House.

At this point I think she has as much of an idea as anyone else. The election is years away.

 

[a351]

She was discussing the timing of her potential retirement from the court. For her to comment on the likelihood and hope that a like minded justice is appointed in her place is entirely appropriate. Kennedy and Scalia have made similar comments in the past.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I think she is correct. My belief is as long as the GOP runs their candidates through FOX NEWS they will always cause the wrong candidate to be nominated. Their viewers love the far right extremes, but the public doesn't want extremes on either side of the political spectrum. For the GOP to win again, they need to nominate a moderate conservative. IMO. I believe Jon Huntsman could have beaten President Obama.

Your missing the forest for the trees: Fox news is responding to demographic demands, not making them. Also, an activist base is an issue for the democrats, as well. This is why Obama went through great pains casting himself as a stalwart progressive in the 2004 primary and Hillary as an establishment type DC centrist. You'll also note his shift to the center was almost immediate after securing the primary.

So the difference between the two is a matter of degree and how much influence that base carries, and the ability to still appeal to it while courting the centrists

 

[disneydude]

In an interview with The Washington Post, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the oldest Supreme Court Justice and also one of the most liberal, said that she predicts another Democrat in the White House.

From The Washington Post:


Do you agree with her? or is she just a crazy old bat?

Source: Rare.us | Ruth Bader Ginsberg predicts another Dem in the White House.

Thats a pretty easy prediction. With the GOP self-destructing at the hands of the teabaggers...it is only adding to their already heavy burden of problems that they are facing in 2016. If Hilary runs, there isn't a Republican in the current field that will beat her. It will be another Clinton/Dole, Reagan/Mondale landslide.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

WTF is a Supreme Court Justice doing making public partisan political comments?!

Because she was commenting as a citizen and not acting within her role as a SCJ

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

The Republicans could win it if they would stop running the candidate the left keeps choosing for them. They need to run a conservative who is not afraid to be a conservative. Romney? McCain? What kind of choices are these for conservatives?

Because the crazy elements of the GOP turns off both the unaffiliated elements of the electorate and the more moderate republicans

 

[tech30528]

i suppose it depends on your opinion of crazy, and those demographics have failed to bring it home over and over. I've talked to our representative (Tom Graves) and I don't see crazy, I see someone who hasn't been in government so long that he can't relate to his constituents. The majority of the Republicans in Congress need to be sent home along with the Democrats. I'm all for what Cruz did, we need more of that. I've heard that the GOP is dead, I think most of them are just so close to it they smell that way.

 

[year2late]

As long as the teavangelicals are running the show, Republicans hold little hope - especially if one of their chosen ones are on the ticket.

 

[iacardsfan]

Ssshhhhh! Don't tell them that!. They still think they can win the White House by appealing to old white guys and trashing everybody else!

truuuuue

 

[Paschendale]

With the extreme right around its neck like a weight, the Republican party will continue to sink farther and farther.

Works for me.

 

[johndylan1]

As long as the population keeps rising, and the raw numbers of impoverished along with it, there will be "disaffected" people in a number of ways who will look to the socialist rescue candidate for hope .. and that candidate is always the liberal Dem candidate.

For the Republicans to win back the White House, they will have to run on a more centrist platform of ending in/out -sourcing, "encouraging" self-deportation of illegals, restoring prosperity for American citizens, always-legal immigrants (pardon my obvoius redundancy), and American businesses, to in all matters emphasize a philosophy of a dynamic balance of both liberty and justice for all American citizens as our pledge of allegiance states, and to create a population change rate that is significantly less than zero.

And, they will have to run a candidate who is super intelligent, a great speaker, an obvious leader, is opposed to typical liberal and conservative policies, and who really cares about the American people, but also someone, however, who recognizes that capitalism is still the game, no matter how many governing factors we need to regulate it, and that socialism isn't feasible at this time over-populated time.

The great majority of Americans are neither liberal or conservative, having simply had to chose between the lesser of these two evils, and are instead very centrist, not "political", and are tired of Americans taking it in the shorts for both Multi-Cultural Internationalists and Corporate Global Expansionists.

This is a bit off topic, but your commentary seems way too far off to let it go....
You assume impoverished people will vote for the "socialist". Many poor people vote conservative because they believe in economic freedom, and are pro life. I know people who would rather work two low paying jobs, than take a dime from the dole. As a matter of fact I did.

 

[Wiggen]

Why is a Supreme Court Justice speaking about elections and politics and showing favoritism towards one party over another. She's a prime example of why people think the US Supreme Court is politically biased and rules not by the law but by their political bent.

Disgusting

Not showing favoritism at all - merely stating her opinion, which is hardly unique. A great many smart Republicans have said the same thing. And you're confusing her with Scalia if you are looking for a politically biased Justice. Or are they only biased when they don't agree with you?

 

[Wiggen]

Because the crazy elements of the GOP turns off both the unaffiliated elements of the electorate and the more moderate republicans

I agree with you, but as a Democrat you'll understand if I don't see this as a bad thing.

 

[Helix]

impossible to predict at this point.

 

[Wiggen]

Id say this about a conservative justice as well...ANY supreme court justices that waxes politically ought to be removed from their seat on the court. As the third component of our system of checks and balances, their lifetime appointment was meant to ensure Constitutional impartiality. I would say of the 9 currently seated, MAYBE Roberts and Kennedy should stay. MAYBE.

Gee, two arch conservatives. Color me surprised.

 

[Wiggen]

The Republicans could win it if they would stop running the candidate the left keeps choosing for them. They need to run a conservative who is not afraid to be a conservative. Romney? McCain? What kind of choices are these for conservatives?

I don't much care who they run for President, I want Dave Ramsey for VP. Could you imagine seeing him in a budget negotiation?

"What the hell is this? You're spending more than you're bringing in. That doesn't work in my house, and it doesn't work here. Bring it back when the math is right!"

I think you have a great message and you need to spread it far and wide. "The reason we can't win is because our candidates aren't bat-**** crazy enough"! Sounds like a winning strategy to me!

 

[johndylan1]

In an interview with The Washington Post, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the oldest Supreme Court Justice and also one of the most liberal, said that she predicts another Democrat in the White House.

From The Washington Post:


Do you agree with her? or is she just a crazy old bat?

Source: Rare.us | Ruth Bader Ginsberg predicts another Dem in the White House.

NO, at least I hope not. What I find interesting is the context that was attributed. In effect saying that she could continue to serve the court into the next term with out worrying that she might be replaced by a republican appointment. Now, I know there are different judicial philosophies, but are Supreme court Justices supposed to be partisans? Kinda makes me sick! She needs to go!

 

[VanceMack]

Gee, two arch conservatives. Color me surprised.

obviously you missed the MAYBE part and only because both have shown an ability to view both sides. Neither has been labelled strictly a conservative. But color me not at all surprised that you lack the capacity to look past partisanship.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Not showing favoritism at all - merely stating her opinion, which is hardly unique. A great many smart Republicans have said the same thing. And you're confusing her with Scalia if you are looking for a politically biased Justice. Or are they only biased when they don't agree with you?

Any person who really thinks Justice Ginsberg isn't a liberal party flack on the bench either isn't very smart or isn't paying attention.

 

[Oftencold]

With the extreme right around its neck like a weight, the Republican party will continue to sink farther and farther.

Works for me.

There is almost no such thing ans a significant "extreme right" in the country. Merely a moderate right (or rational) position that confuses the fantasists and low information serf of the Left. A few minutes of clear thinking supported by a casual perusal of facts will make this abundantly clear.

 

[Ontologuy]

Most of what you say is right, but you ruin it all at the very beginning. It is not just incorrect but despicable to call "rescue candidates" "socialists."

This nation needs to elect the kind of Presidents and Congressmen who will make it unnecessary to ever elect another "rescue candidate."

Or, to put it another way: You people who hate Obama, he never would have been elected in 2008 and 2012 if John Kerry had been elected in 2004, or if Al Gore had been allowed to accept his rightful victory in 2000. The country would have been far better off, we wouldn't have had the Crash of 2008, we wouldn't have had that stupid war in Iraq, we'd have had a health care reform that's better than ObamaCare, and, today, Barack Obama might still be in the Illinois State Senate, and he might be okay with that.

All of what I said is true.

It is not "despicable" to refer to the disaffected coalition pandering candidates typically fielded by the liberal Dems as "socialists". They, by nature, present many rescue planks in their platform to appeal to the many "disaffected" groups, rescue planks that are intrinsically socialist.

I presented the kind of President the people need to elect, that, rather, the GOP needs to field, a candidate that is, obiously, not a disaffected coalition rescue candidate.

Your possible projection or transference that I'm an Obama-hater is false.

The rescue candidate socialist aspects of both Kerry and Gore were also quite obvious, and, thus obviously, they would not have been able to prevent The Great Recesssion, and would merely have hastened in all likelihood.

Obama won handly in 2008 because he was clearly a socialistic rescue candidate (Obamacare and ludicrous amnesty for 20 million illegals obvious indications) and because his skin was black, making him a hugely idealistically appealing candidate to the disaffected masses. Clearly, all such candidates do is make matters far worse.

The desired candidate I described in my previous post is far different from Obama, Kerry, and Gore and he is far different from Bush, McCain and Romney, and all six of these people I just listed could not have helped but bring America down.

We can do better.

 

[Ontologuy]

This is a bit off topic, but your commentary seems way too far off to let it go....
You assume impoverished people will vote for the "socialist". Many poor people vote conservative because they believe in economic freedom, and are pro life. I know people who would rather work two low paying jobs, than take a dime from the dole. As a matter of fact I did.

In presenting an accurate comparison, the vast majority of disaffected and impoverished people do vote "bread and circuses" and will thus vote for the socialistic rescue candidate.

This is understandable, as they experience themselves in bottom-tier dire straits, and do not have the luxury of higher level academic analytical pursuits in Maslow's Hierarchy of Need.

These people are clamoring for the security previous policy did not provide, they are clamoring for the justice in "liberty and justice for all" because too many small special interests (such as the sub-prime security speculators who knew exactly what the great recession result of their get-rich scheme would be) took liberty that did not rightly belong to them, thereby perpetrating a huge injustice on so many people.

Thus, with respect to accurate presentation, comparatively very few disaffected and impoverished people vote the economic "freedom" (economic/fiscal conservative candidate) line. They are greatly execeptions to the rule.

They vote the economic security line, and for the liberal Dem candidate that stumps that line.

 

[rocket88]

Any person who really thinks Justice Ginsberg isn't a liberal party flack on the bench either isn't very smart or isn't paying attention.

She's partisan, to be sure. Which makes her no worse or better than Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

 

[CanadaJohn]

She's partisan, to be sure. Which makes her no worse or better than Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

No doubt - I've said several times that your Supreme Court is disrespected by the public because it is so partisan. However, in my view, it's even worse when a justice becomes political too.

 

[Comunitee]

In her case, trying to keep up with Antonin Scalia.

So you have no problem with Supreme Court Justices making public political statements. I see.

I have a problem with Supreme Court Justices ruling on cases on which they have a vested interest. I also have a problem with Supreme Court Justices lying: Corporations are NOT people, and money is NOT speech, and there was NO legal or moral reason to stop the Florida recount.

Scalia should have been impeached 3 times over by now.