• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, No Fan of Donald Trump, Critiques Last Term (1 Viewer)

Samhain

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
4,939
Reaction score
2,131
Location
Northern Ohio
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/u...-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.html?_r=0

“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” she said. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

Well that sounds like an unbaised type of opinion for someone to be on the nation's top court.

One of the 4-4 ties, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, averted what would have been a severe blow to public unions had Justice Scalia participated. “This court couldn’t have done better than it did,” Justice Ginsburg said of the deadlock. When the case was argued in January, the majority seemed prepared to overrule a 1977 precedent that allowed public unions to charge nonmembers fees to pay for collective bargaining. A second deadlock, in United States v. Texas, left in place a nationwide injunction blocking Mr. Obama’s plan to spare more than four million unauthorized immigrants from deportation and allow them to work. That was unfortunate, Justice Ginsburg said, but it could have been worse.“Think what would have happened had Justice Scalia remained with us,” she said. Instead of a single sentence announcing the tie, she suggested, a five-justice majority would have issued a precedent-setting decision dealing a lasting setback to Mr. Obama and the immigrants he had tried to protect.

Thank goodness Scalia is dead? With friends like this, who needs enemies.

Wondering how much longer she really has when she's this far off the deep end.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/u...-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.html?_r=0



Well that sounds like an unbaised type of opinion for someone to be on the nation's top court.



Thank goodness Scalia is dead? With friends like this, who needs enemies.

Wondering how much longer she really has when she's this far off the deep end.

She's a very good judge indeed - I'm very proud of her.

Come November, y'all are going to be wishing y'all had agreed to the guy that Obama recommended for SCOTUS...because Hillary may very well nominate someone farther to the Left, and since we'll likely have the Senate too, he or she will be confirmed.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/u...-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.html?_r=0



Well that sounds like an unbaised type of opinion for someone to be on the nation's top court.



Thank goodness Scalia is dead? With friends like this, who needs enemies.

Wondering how much longer she really has when she's this far off the deep end.

Think what would have happened had Justice Scalia remained with us,” she said.

Think in the reverse. She passes away suddenly. US v Texas is being weighed upon by the Court. Antonin Scalia utters the words "Think of what would have happened had Justice Ginsburg remained with us".

The liberal media would be howling like scorched cats.
 
Think what would have happened had Justice Scalia remained with us,” she said.

Think in the reverse. She passes away suddenly. US v Texas is being weighed upon by the Court. Antonin Scalia utters the words "Think of what would have happened had Justice Ginsburg remained with us".

The liberal media would be howling like scorched cats.
I think they would have been louder. and commenting on how inappropriate it is for a sitting
justice to be making political commentary.
 
Think what would have happened had Justice Scalia remained with us,” she said.

Think in the reverse. She passes away suddenly. US v Texas is being weighed upon by the Court. Antonin Scalia utters the words "Think of what would have happened had Justice Ginsburg remained with us".

The liberal media would be howling like scorched cats.

:doh


"I'm going to whine and moan about how much liberals would whine and moan should this have happened in reverse!"
 
Think what would have happened had Justice Scalia remained with us,” she said.

Think in the reverse. She passes away suddenly. US v Texas is being weighed upon by the Court. Antonin Scalia utters the words "Think of what would have happened had Justice Ginsburg remained with us".

The liberal media would be howling like scorched cats.

That is precisely correct.

But this is the woman who admitted that her support for abortion was partially couched in eugenics, and no one cared, so.... :shrug:
 
Justice Ginsberg's comments should put the lie to and leave no doubt that the liberal Justices on your Supreme Court are highly political, highly ideological, and don't give a rats ass about what the Constitution or the laws of the land may be so long as they can manipulate government control to their liking. These comments are shameful for a Justice of your highest court, but on an individual basis, considering the friendship and deference Justice Scalia showed Justice Ginsberg, they are depraved and disgraceful. One would hope no one spits on her grave in the same manner when she passes on.
 
That is precisely correct.

But this is the woman who admitted that her support for abortion was partially couched in eugenics, and no one cared, so.... :shrug:

well the early progressive were into eugenics and supported killing people which did not meet their standards
 
That is precisely correct.

But this is the woman who admitted that her support for abortion was partially couched in eugenics, and no one cared, so.... :shrug:

Not that ****ing lie again, jesus christ you people just buy everything you're told and hang onto it forever.
 
I disagreed about the public unions ruling, but as to the rest, Ginsburg isn't meant to be politically agnostic, but rather being somewhat free to do her duties without needing to consider political obedience.

At the moment Ginsburg's bet is paying off, but should Trump be elected, she should have in retrospect opted for having a moderate replace her in Obama's early second term.

well the early progressive were into eugenics and supported killing people which did not meet their standards

Killing people, not really. Sterilization, yes. Though one could reasonably argue that euthanasia was only a few steps removed from the eugenicist's favored means.

Aside from the inherent difficulty of identifying progressives from non-progressives in that time period (it's been a several decade debate among scholars), it must be stated that eugenics was popular not with just out-and-out Bull Moosers and Wilsonian Democrats, but among many crevices in American life. Conservatives and liberals alike (again, the terminology gets tricky in 1890s-1920 American society).

Plenty of religious entities focused their intentions on positive eugenics, which stressed the attributes by which one ought to breed rather than negative eugenics which stressed who ought not breed. They were also often natalists, wanting the congregation to understand that being fruitful and multiplying was a virtue.

Moderately left-wing professionals and social justice advocates (including many Protestant ministers) adopted eugenics as a medical-social hierarchy hybrid, whereby the diagnosed and poor ought to be prevented from breeding and those stock already in existence need be raised in State institutions.

Another brand of eugenics was found within Southern conservative society which often stressed less the diagnostics than the character that is accrued from race and ethnicity. The model thus more explicitly focused its energies on using early intelligence testing and other diagnostic tools to explain the pathologies that befell other races and ethnicities.

Then once more, for example, early 20th African American activists utilized eugenics in other distinct ways. Folks like W.E.B Dubois argued that the smartest of his race needed to be cultivated for intellectual and public life, in contrast with Booker T Washington's career and technical education route. Further the early NAACP used baby pageants as a way to symbolically demonstrate the superiority one one family or another's stock against the rest.

Speaking of which, beauty pageants as a whole have a distinctly eugenic vibe as well.
 
I disagreed about the public unions ruling, but as to the rest, Ginsburg isn't meant to be politically agnostic, but rather being somewhat free to do her duties without needing to consider political obedience.

At the moment Ginsburg's bet is paying off, but should Trump be elected, she should have in retrospect opted for having a moderate replace her in Obama's early second term.



Killing people, not really. Sterilization, yes. Though one could reasonably argue that euthanasia was only a few steps removed from the eugenicist's favored means.

Aside from the inherent difficulty of identifying progressives from non-progressives in that time period (it's been a several decade debate among scholars), it must be stated that eugenics was popular not with just out-and-out Bull Moosers and Wilsonian Democrats, but among many crevices in American life. Conservatives and liberals alike (again, the terminology gets tricky in 1890s-1920 American society).

Plenty of religious entities focused their intentions on positive eugenics, which stressed the attributes by which one ought to breed rather than negative eugenics which stressed who ought not breed. They were also often natalists, wanting the congregation to understand that being fruitful and multiplying was a virtue.

Moderately left-wing professionals and social justice advocates (including many Protestant ministers) adopted eugenics as a medical-social hierarchy hybrid, whereby the diagnosed and poor ought to be prevented from breeding and those stock already in existence need be raised in State institutions.

Another brand of eugenics was found within Southern conservative society which often stressed less the diagnostics than the character that is accrued from race and ethnicity. The model thus more explicitly focused its energies on using early intelligence testing and other diagnostic tools to explain the pathologies that befell other races and ethnicities.

Then once more, for example, early 20th African American activists utilized eugenics in other distinct ways. Folks like W.E.B Dubois argued that the smartest of his race needed to be cultivated for intellectual and public life, in contrast with Booker T Washington's career and technical education route. Further the early NAACP used baby pageants as a way to symbolically demonstrate the superiority one one family or another's stock against the rest.

Speaking of which, beauty pageants as a whole have a distinctly eugenic vibe as well.

listen to Margaret Sanger on the subject
 
then you missed it

In regards to euthanasia? No, she objected to it.

There were other contemporaries or hers who did subscribe to euthanasia.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/u...-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.html?_r=0



Well that sounds like an unbaised type of opinion for someone to be on the nation's top court.



Thank goodness Scalia is dead? With friends like this, who needs enemies.

Wondering how much longer she really has when she's this far off the deep end.
She's obviously speaking here of Justice Scalia's affect on rulings where she differs, not praising the death of a human being on a personal level. And I'm sure you know that.
 
Dude Fiddy is 100% right.
Eugenics was rather popular for many different ideologies in that time

And this is from someone (me) who has issues with a lot of liberals who are somewhat becoming apologists for Sanger and her eugenic colleagues (with the understanding she had her differences with many of the mainstream movement), because it adds a significant asterisk to her legacy.
 
Justice Ginsberg's comments should put the lie to and leave no doubt that the liberal Justices on your Supreme Court are highly political, highly ideological, and don't give a rats ass about what the Constitution or the laws of the land may be so long as they can manipulate government control to their liking. These comments are shameful for a Justice of your highest court, but on an individual basis, considering the friendship and deference Justice Scalia showed Justice Ginsberg, they are depraved and disgraceful. One would hope no one spits on her grave in the same manner when she passes on.
Justice Ginsberg has her reading and interpretation, as Justice Scalia has his. No two humans will ever read and interpret exactly alike. And I don't see how one can be personally faulted, but not the other.

I myself have often disagreed with Justice Scalia's readings in the later years of his tenure, but I have very little doubt he believes his interpetation just as I read differently!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom