• 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

no hes not

I'll say it just one more time so as to minimize the digression.

She was a negative eugenicist who often clashed the natalism strain found within many/most eugenicists. However, euthanasia was not a largely supported method of securing eugenic ends. Sanger, herself, wanted the "unfit" to no longer exist, but she didn't want to kill that which was already born. Housed, controlled, and "fixed," yes. Their lives ended? No.
 
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.

Indeed. Thankfully, he's dead.

He was the judicial equivalent of a 5 lbs of human excrement in a thimble.

An utterly reprehensible man and lousy, hypocritical judge.
 
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.

It was indelicately stated for public ears, but nevertheless a truism for her interpretation of the Constitution and how numbers of the court influence which interpretation win out.
 
It was indelicately stated for public ears, but nevertheless a truism for her interpretation of the Constitution and how numbers of the court influence which interpretation win out.
Yes, there were better ways to word it for sure!

But I find it hard to believe everyone of the nine doesn't generally attempt to promote their heartfelt interpretation of the Constitution, and how it applies to the times and issues.

Look at the public disagreement of the simple phrase "keep & bear arms", and the differing opinion it has among the citizens just in this forum!

Now imagine how many words in the entire document. Imagine understanding the meaning in the context of jurisprudence. In the historical context? Etc., etc.!

Yowza!
 
Other shoe theory

Can you imagine if Alito said that he shudders to think of Hillary Clinton President based on her reckless disregard for the law?
 
Ok, I can't help you.
Only you can help yourself.

He gave a well reasoned, logically laid out argument, that is grounded in truth.
Saying "nuh uh" doesn't change that.
sorry no, just saying something does not show a well reasoned argument, if he is so positive, because it knows the situation so closely, then he should have no problem proceeding something from the woman disavowing what i accused her of.
 
I'll say it just one more time so as to minimize the digression.

She was a negative eugenicist who often clashed the natalism strain found within many/most eugenicists. However, euthanasia was not a largely supported method of securing eugenic ends. Sanger, herself, wanted the "unfit" to no longer exist, but she didn't want to kill that which was already born. Housed, controlled, and "fixed," yes. Their lives ended? No.

when you should have no problem proving this, by something from the woman disavowing it.
 
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!

Good afternoon Chomsky,

You're most charitable to Justice Ginsberg. From her own words, she's more concerned with President Obama's legacy than she is with upholding her oath of office and fealty to the Constitution. And the fact she's glad her supposed good friend, Justice Scalia, is dead so that legacy is partially protected is ghoulish and decadent. I seldom agreed with her interpretation of the law, but now I'm left having zero respect for the woman as a person as well.
 
:doh


"I'm going to whine and moan about how much liberals would whine and moan should this have happened in reverse!"

Thanks for your contribution to the thread. At least I know the subject is Ruth Bader-Ginsburg and her comments. You seem a tad confused. The subject isn't me.
 
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.

Of course he knew that. Except for one ignorant comment elsewhere in this thread, nobody praised Scalia's death, including Ginsburg.

But her choice of words was very very poor, and it's disingenuous not to acknowledge that.
 
well the early progressive were into eugenics and supported killing people which did not meet their standards

The Fabian Society comes to mind. George Bernard Shaw was one of those.
 
What do you expect from a left wing judge who believes the founding fathers are out of date?
 
Thanks for your contribution to the thread. At least I know the subject is Ruth Bader-Ginsburg and her comments. You seem a tad confused. The subject isn't me.

It was a comment in reference to yours, and certainly doesn't only apply to you, but to a large swath of people in general. If you feel it was off topic I strongly encourage you to report it. But your comment was perfectly in line with an over all motif I've seen in conservative circles. Non-stop whining about how liberals are the whiny ones. It's a hilariously vicious circle.
 
Good afternoon Chomsky,

You're most charitable to Justice Ginsberg. From her own words, she's more concerned with President Obama's legacy than she is with upholding her oath of office and fealty to the Constitution. And the fact she's glad her supposed good friend, Justice Scalia, is dead so that legacy is partially protected is ghoulish and decadent. I seldom agreed with her interpretation of the law, but now I'm left having zero respect for the woman as a person as well.
Fair enough, as to your opinion.

I'm a bit more sanguine, but it's true none of us can really know what's in any individual's head.

Have a good one! :cheers:
 
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!

It's funny how Ginsberg and Scalia were such good pals. The rest of us would be better of by following their example of "friendship" despite being almost total opposites on some of the most important decisions concerning the issues of millions of people.
 
Of course he knew that. Except for one ignorant comment elsewhere in this thread, nobody praised Scalia's death, including Ginsburg.

But her choice of words was very very poor, and it's disingenuous not to acknowledge that.
A terrible way to phrase her point - agreed.
 
It's funny how Ginsberg and Scalia were such good pals. The rest of us would be better of by following their example of "friendship" despite being almost total opposites on some of the most important decisions concerning the issues of millions of people.
Bingo!

We need to remember we're all fellow Americans, before anything else!

There are very few of us still around that were of cognitive age in 1945 (no, I'm not one! :mrgreen:)

But today, we need more of what they had then! :cheers:
 
It was a comment in reference to yours, and certainly doesn't only apply to you, but to a large swath of people in general. If you feel it was off topic I strongly encourage you to report it. But your comment was perfectly in line with an over all motif I've seen in conservative circles. Non-stop whining about how liberals are the whiny ones. It's a hilariously vicious circle.

I'm not going to report your comment. I'm just waiting (again) for you to make a post about the subject of the thread. Do you have something to add about the thread subject?
 
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.

So now if a justice votes for a candidate that means they:

..."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."​

You are more than slightly hyperbolic in your opinion it seems.
 
So now if a justice votes for a candidate that means they:

..."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."​

You are more than slightly hyperbolic in your opinion it seems.

I have no idea whom Justice Ginsburg voted for and that's entirely irrelevant to the comments I posted. You're batting zero today when it comes to your powers of intuitive analysis. Perhaps you'd be better off attempting comprehension rather than repropositioning the comments of others.
 
Indeed. Thankfully, he's dead.

He was the judicial equivalent of a 5 lbs of human excrement in a thimble.

An utterly reprehensible man and lousy, hypocritical judge.

Want to see what's wrong with American politics? This poster, right here.
Because of political differences, he has cast a very smart, and admirable judge as some sort of terrible villain.
The poster could not justify his words against Justice Scalia's professional and personal behavior, deeds or words.
The poster was told to to hate Scalia, because Scalia has a differing political outlook.
That is enough for the poster to hate a good man.

America is being torn apart by people like this poster.
 
I have no idea whom Justice Ginsburg voted for and that's entirely irrelevant to the comments I posted. You're batting zero today when it comes to your powers of intuitive analysis. Perhaps you'd be better off attempting comprehension rather than repropositioning the comments of others.

You are highly offended that she, as a member of the SCOTUS, actually has an opinion on presidential candidates. Pretty absurd stuff. You're batting 1000 with your victim card posts.
 
You are highly offended that she, as a member of the SCOTUS, actually has an opinion on presidential candidates. Pretty absurd stuff. You're batting 1000 with your victim card posts.

I'm not the slightest offended that she has an opinion on presidential candidates. Your fantasy world is in full bloom tonight.

I am offended that she has zero respect for the oath of office she swore but I'm not the slightest surprised. She is, after all, a progressive, so honesty and integrity are foreign to her being. And extoling the virtues of the precipitous loss of conservative voices on the Supreme Court due to the untimely death of a colleague that she supposedly liked as a friend seems totally in keeping with the mindset of the average liberal progressive.
 
Want to see what's wrong with American politics? This poster, right here.

No, not really. I know the man's history and have read many of his opinions. That allows me to match his statements to his actions. It's nothing you'd understand.
Because of political differences, he has cast a very smart, and admirable judge as some sort of terrible villain.

Huh. You seem to be struggling intellectually with a very simple concept: the man was a terrible judge and utterly bereft of anything approaching honor. Again, if you knew his record, you'd understand why.
The poster could not justify his words against Justice Scalia's professional and personal behavior, deeds or words.

But, of course, unlike you, I can actually back up my opinions. Not something you seem all that familiar with.
The poster was told to to hate Scalia, because Scalia has a differing political outlook.
That is enough for the poster to hate a good man.

You're welcome to your opinions, no matter how unhinged from reality they are.

I suggest you know what you're talking about before actually talking.
America is being torn apart by people like this poster.

Only in your rather laughable and emotional opinion.
 
Back
Top Bottom