Ruth Bader Ginsburg, No Fan of Donald Trump, Critiques Last Term

[JasperL]

Rumors, and nothing more. I think she should step down. I also thought that Rehnquist stayed on too long. He had problems as well.

Rumors of what, spread by whom? I've not seen or read any indication that she's losing her ability to reason and try cases. If you have any cites, that would be nice.

It's one thing to have an opinion someone should step down - fine. But it's low class to sling unsupported and insulting rumors you're not willing to defend even to the point of articulating them.

There are surprises from time to time. A whole lot depends on the nature of the cases they agree to hear. Some are clear cut. Most aren't. Some of that comes from decisions of the district courts, and they can vary depending on the district.

That's kind of my point - many of the cases, and virtually all of the contentious ones, are NOT clear cut and so the justices predictably have always made decisions based in part on their own biases and preferences. Don't see how that's avoidable.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I'm not sure she can even find the ring. I'm chuckling a little about it, but the woman is of advanced age and has some serious health problems. If a little wine helps her, who am I to say she shouldn't indulge herself? OTOH, the SC is no place for her in that condition. Just my thoughts.

It is not just her, the court is very substandard in its entirety. Fixing the place has to be at the top of the to-do list for the mucking out DC project.

And I want to be very clear here.....we need to get on it, ASAP.

 

[TurtleDude]

She's right. Scalia was an embarrassment.

that's really stupid. That sort of nonsense comes from people who don't have any training in the law or who are wannabe legal scholars. BTW the WSJ ripped up RBG pretty well today

 

[JasperL]

I'm not sure she can even find the ring. I'm chuckling a little about it, but the woman is of advanced age and has some serious health problems. If a little wine helps her, who am I to say she shouldn't indulge herself? OTOH, the SC is no place for her in that condition. Just my thoughts.

In what condition? Drunk? If so, it would be nice to back that up with ANYTHING indicating she's drinking on the job, suffers from dementia, or whatever it is you're implying there.

 

[TurtleDude]

In what condition? Drunk? If so, it would be nice to back that up with ANYTHING indicating she's drinking on the job, suffers from dementia, or whatever it is you're implying there.

RBG has survived colon and pancreatic (she got lucky, they found it on a check up scan for the colon cancer) cancer. I have no reason to believe she is mentally incompetent though she was braying about overturning Heller (good move, that would probably destroy the Democrat party electorally for years) and Citizens United. And the WSJ took her to the woodshed for signaling how she would vote.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Judges shouldn't be advocating candidates directly on either side. It damages their impartiality or the appearance of it. The only one harmed by her words was her and her credibility.

 

[humbolt]

Rumors of what, spread by whom? I've not seen or read any indication that she's losing her ability to reason and try cases. If you have any cites, that would be nice.

It's one thing to have an opinion someone should step down - fine. But it's low class to sling unsupported and insulting rumors you're not willing to defend even to the point of articulating them.

Here's the thing. Renhquist was known to have physical problems. You will not find much written about it. They are, after all, SC Justices, so you're not going to find a whole lot of anything documenting such problems anymore than any of JFK's physical problems were well known during the time he held office. They live in a protected world. Ginsberg's problems have been mentioned. Beyond that, you just won't find much.

That's kind of my point - many of the cases, and virtually all of the contentious ones, are NOT clear cut and so the justices predictably have always made decisions based in part on their own biases and preferences. Don't see how that's avoidable.

That depends on the person and their dedication to the Constitution. There will always be a time when it appears better to set what has been said aside for the greater good, depending on how one perceives it. That, from my perspective, is always the pitfall. And no, I'm not necessarily a literalist when it comes to the constitution. I go there first, though.

 

[CanadaJohn]

You have to do two things there - conclude that she will decide the case to fit Obama's agenda, and that such a decision is also contrary to the law as she understands it. There is no evidence for either, and there are plenty of times including some very high profile ones where RBG has joined a unanimous court against positions argued by the Obama administration.



But you wanted the Court to legislate by striking down the ACA. Isn't that the role of Congress, the POTUS, and the American people?

The answer is you want them to legislate from the bench WHEN YOU AGREE with legislating from the bench, otherwise, you want them to stay out of legislative decisions! I'm guessing for example that you were all in favor of the SC legislating from the bench striking down the Medicaid expansion, and the Voting Rights Act? And similarly the SC striking down Texas' abortion law was probably just more liberals legislating from the bench like libruls do, etc.....

You have to be naïve not to take Justice Ginsburg's comments at face value. She said clearly, if Justice Scalia was still alive President Obama's assistance to immigrants would have been struck down and that would have been worse than the court simply passing. That's a political agenda for anyone who's not wedded to blindness.

Secondly, I never once said I wanted the Supreme Court to legislate. It's their job to determine the constitutionality of legislation passed by Congress and ratified by the President. It's quite simple. And in the case of the ACA, the President and his team, in support of the legislation, determinedly swore the mandate was not a tax in any way, shape or form and Chief Justice Roberts has been identified as saying that he was prepared to rule against the ACA on the basis it wasn't a tax but then had a change of heart and determined he didn't want his court overruling the other branches of government and so fabricated a belief that the mandate was a tax, and thus constitutional. That's politics and that's legislating from the bench and that, in my opinion is wrong and dangerous.

 

[JasperL]

Here's the thing. Renhquist was known to have physical problems. You will not find much written about it. They are, after all, SC Justices, so you're not going to find a whole lot of anything documenting such problems anymore than any of JFK's physical problems were well known during the time he held office. They live in a protected world. Ginsberg's problems have been mentioned. Beyond that, you just won't find much.

OK, so you're just slinging scurrilous crap you've made up or spread by sources so suspect you won't mention them. Got it. :roll:

That depends on the person and their dedication to the Constitution. There will always be a time when it appears better to set what has been said aside for the greater good, depending on how one perceives it. That, from my perspective, is always the pitfall. And no, I'm not necessarily a literalist when it comes to the constitution. I go there first, though.

You're missing my point, which is OK. If the decision is not clear cut, then 'dedication to the Constitution' isn't actually going to be the deciding factor.

 

[JasperL]

You have to be naïve not to take Justice Ginsburg's comments at face value. She said clearly, if Justice Scalia was still alive President Obama's assistance to immigrants would have been struck down and that would have been worse than the court simply passing. That's a political agenda for anyone who's not wedded to blindness.

It's just not if she believes, and I assume she does, that her interpretation of the law is correct. If that's her view, it's not in fact a "political" agenda but an agenda to interpret the law as she sees it.

Secondly, I never once said I wanted the Supreme Court to legislate. It's their job to determine the constitutionality of legislation passed by Congress and ratified by the President. It's quite simple. And in the case of the ACA, the President and his team, in support of the legislation, determinedly swore the mandate was not a tax in any way, shape or form and Chief Justice Roberts has been identified as saying that he was prepared to rule against the ACA on the basis it wasn't a tax but then had a change of heart and determined he didn't want his court overruling the other branches of government and so fabricated a belief that the mandate was a tax, and thus constitutional. That's politics and that's legislating from the bench and that, in my opinion is wrong and dangerous.

First of all, what the political operatives call something doesn't determine what it is.

Second, if his view (and that's a normally conservative view) is that laws should be sustained unless clearly unconstitutional, then what is "liberal" about him effectively deferring to the legislature and the POTUS and the public on the ACA? What's "conservative" about 5 justices striking a law supported by a majority of Congress, 60 senators and the president? It's judicial activism unless there is no way to square the ACA into existing law, which Roberts did and presumably saw as his obligation as a member of the court and especially as Chief Justice? He didn't legislate at all - he and the majority let the Congress legislate, and threw the issue back into the political arena where it's (arguably) appropriately handled.

 

[CanadaJohn]

It's just not if she believes, and I assume she does, that her interpretation of the law is correct. If that's her view, it's not in fact a "political" agenda but an agenda to interpret the law as she sees it.



First of all, what the political operatives call something doesn't determine what it is.

Second, if his view (and that's a normally conservative view) is that laws should be sustained unless clearly unconstitutional, then what is "liberal" about him effectively deferring to the legislature and the POTUS and the public on the ACA? What's "conservative" about 5 justices striking a law supported by a majority of Congress, 60 senators and the president? It's judicial activism unless there is no way to square the ACA into existing law, which Roberts did and presumably saw as his obligation as a member of the court and especially as Chief Justice? He didn't legislate at all - he and the majority let the Congress legislate, and threw the issue back into the political arena where it's (arguably) appropriately handled.

I won't discuss Ginsburg any longer - nothing gained - you have your view, I have mine.

As to the ACA matter, it's my understanding that lower courts had reviewed the matter and came to differing conclusions - some found it constitutional, others found it unconstitutional. As a result, the Supreme Court had to adjudicate the dispute. President Obama was defending the legislation, so his representatives were speaking for him - not just some "political operatives" - but I'm sure you knew that. Roberts' actions in ignoring the President's position in defense of the legislation was totally political and beyond the oath he swore.

This is why your Supreme Court is held in such low esteem - it's a rogue body that breaks its oath on a regular basis.

 

[humbolt]

OK, so you're just slinging scurrilous crap you've made up or spread by sources so suspect you won't mention them. Got it. :roll:

Tell me then, exactly what did you know of Rehnquist's situation when he was Chief Justice? Exactly what did you know of Kennedy's problems while he was in office, if you're old enough to remember? Yes, they were known. No, you wouldn't find a source willing to commit to anything definitive. I'm certain that Ginsberg is a very, very sharp woman. I'm also certain she is no longer reliably so. Rolling your eyes won't change that.

You're missing my point, which is OK. If the decision is not clear cut, then 'dedication to the Constitution' isn't actually going to be the deciding factor.

Nah, didn't miss it. I just don't view it as a tenable position to take in such matters. Actually, when the decision isn't clear cut, the Constitution should be the deciding factor. You might read Scalia's comments on this very subject. They're insightful. I doubt you will, given that he was conservative, but they are instructive none the less.

 

[bubbabgone]

I'm not sure she can even find the ring. I'm chuckling a little about it, but the woman is of advanced age and has some serious health problems. If a little wine helps her, who am I to say she shouldn't indulge herself? OTOH, the SC is no place for her in that condition. Just my thoughts.

I think losing the Laugh-in gig took it's toll on the woman.

 

[humbolt]

I think losing the Laugh-in gig took it's toll on the woman.

That, and the Olive Oyl bun is probably a liiiiitle too tight.

 

[Top Cat]

that's really stupid. That sort of nonsense comes from people who don't have any training in the law or who are wannabe legal scholars. BTW the WSJ ripped up RBG pretty well today

Oh the irony. Didn't he agree that assault weapons could be banned?

 

[TurtleDude]

Oh the irony. Didn't he agree that assault weapons could be banned?

no he never said that and since the weapons Bannerrhoids call assault weapons are both common and not unusually dangerous, they cannot be

 

[JasperL]

I won't discuss Ginsburg any longer - nothing gained - you have your view, I have mine.

As to the ACA matter, it's my understanding that lower courts had reviewed the matter and came to differing conclusions - some found it constitutional, others found it unconstitutional. As a result, the Supreme Court had to adjudicate the dispute. President Obama was defending the legislation, so his representatives were speaking for him - not just some "political operatives" - but I'm sure you knew that.

Doesn't change anything. In this case you're demanding that Roberts accept the Obama team's characterization of the amount paid to IRS as a not-tax/fine/penalty, and in the next breath demanding that Roberts reject all the rest of their legal arguments. Bottom line is what anyone calls something simply does not establish what it IS for legal purposes.

Roberts' actions in ignoring the President's position in defense of the legislation was totally political and beyond the oath he swore.

That you and lots of 'conservative' commentators disagree, even vehemently, simply does not even begin to imply that he violated his oath. What you've done is foreclosed the very possibility that Roberts is a man who takes his oath and his position as Chief Justice very, very, very seriously and made the decision he felt was necessary at the time for any number of reasons, among them but not exclusively that it was the correct decision on the merits - uphold the law and let the legislature deal with legislative matters as intended.

This is why your Supreme Court is held in such low esteem - it's a rogue body that breaks its oath on a regular basis.

I'd say the more likely reason it's held in such low esteem is a bunch of comments like yours above, but from right and left wing partisans who cannot accept that anyone can have a legitimate difference of opinion on a contentious legal issue and so characterize disagreements as akin to treason, but in any event corrupt, self serving, violations of their very OATH, etc. Let the public hear that for a decade or two and, sure, the Court will be held in low esteem, since with every close decision, the losing side is told the other side is nothing but a bunch of corrupt plutocrats/oligarchs, etc.

 

[Top Cat]

no he never said that and since the weapons Bannerrhoids call assault weapons are both common and not unusually dangerous, they cannot be

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/

 

[TurtleDude]

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/

are you aware that the MI carbine and the AR 15 are functionally almost the same weapons and are you aware that the US GOVERNMENT sold about 2 million of those rifles to US civilians? Sort of hard to claim such weapons (40 million or so semi auto rifles in private hands) are not in common use or Unusually dangerous

Heller concluded that semi auto handguns (which are used in 40X more murders than all RIFLES combined) are not unusually dangerous. Sort of hard to say Semi auto rifles are

 

[Quazimodo]

are you aware that the MI carbine and the AR 15 are functionally almost the same weapons and are you aware that the US GOVERNMENT sold about 2 million of those rifles to US civilians? Sort of hard to claim such weapons (40 million or so semi auto rifles in private hands) are not in common use or Unusually dangerous

Heller concluded that semi auto handguns (which are used in 40X more murders than all RIFLES combined) are not unusually dangerous. Sort of hard to say Semi auto rifles are

Kinda like trying to have a pleasant conversation with a ham sandwich, idnit?

 

[JasperL]

Tell me then, exactly what did you know of Rehnquist's situation when he was Chief Justice? Exactly what did you know of Kennedy's problems while he was in office, if you're old enough to remember? Yes, they were known. No, you wouldn't find a source willing to commit to anything definitive. I'm certain that Ginsberg is a very, very sharp woman. I'm also certain she is no longer reliably so. Rolling your eyes won't change that.

I'm rolling my eyes at the total lack of any evidence you're able to offer to support your scurrilous rumor mongering. You won't even describe what the evidence might be if you could disclose it (e.g. I have contacts at the Supreme Court, or my second cousin has a girlfriend whose husband works there, etc.)

"Trust me, I'm a random anonymous dude on the interwebs, but I knows stuff!" isn't very persuasive. And pointing out that Kennedy had issues that the general public wasn't aware of, as did FDR and many others, like Reagan supposedly, isn't actually evidence that RBG has mental issues any more than it's evidence W. Bush was a coke addict, homosexual who fell off the wagon and was frequently drunk in the last part of his presidency, which is why Laura secretly left the WH and stayed in a motel for weeks, which are all actual rumors I did actually hear about W.

Nah, didn't miss it. I just don't view it as a tenable position to take in such matters. Actually, when the decision isn't clear cut, the Constitution should be the deciding factor. You might read Scalia's comments on this very subject. They're insightful. I doubt you will, given that he was conservative, but they are instructive none the less.

If the Constitution is the deciding factor, it's clear cut, at least how I view the issue, so we're not connecting somehow.

And if you'd link to which comments you have in mind, sure I'll read them. I have read many of Scalia's opinions, some for my job and some just because I enjoy his writing even when I disagree, and as much as I have disagreed with where he ended up, I do think he was a principled person. He and RBG were/are the only two SC justices I'd make a real point to hear give a talk, or at least they'd be at the top of my list...

 

[danarhea]

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.

What's that expression? Oh yea. He who smelt it dealt it. :mrgreen:

 

[sanman]

Why the hell is a Supreme Court justice mouthing off over a presidential candidate?

It's completely unprecedented - and completely uncalled for. Absolutely inappropriate. What the hell was she thinking?

I think that a Supreme Court Justice advocating for or against a particular presidential candidate is even worse than a religious institution like a Church doing the same thing.

Ginsberg has absolutely no business venturing into this area of public commentary.

 

[humbolt]

I'm rolling my eyes at the total lack of any evidence you're able to offer to support your scurrilous rumor mongering. You won't even describe what the evidence might be if you could disclose it (e.g. I have contacts at the Supreme Court, or my second cousin has a girlfriend whose husband works there, etc.)

"Trust me, I'm a random anonymous dude on the interwebs, but I knows stuff!" isn't very persuasive. And pointing out that Kennedy had issues that the general public wasn't aware of, as did FDR and many others, like Reagan supposedly, isn't actually evidence that RBG has mental issues any more than it's evidence W. Bush was a coke addict, homosexual who fell off the wagon and was frequently drunk in the last part of his presidency, which is why Laura secretly left the WH and stayed in a motel for weeks, which are all actual rumors I did actually hear about W.

My sources are from within SC court staff. Ethical people don't offer attribution in such instances, which is why such things remain in the rumor category. You can either accept that or not. It's the way things are done when issues such as the integrity of the SC are questioned. You might have put that together yourself with all the other instances mentioned had you thought about it with the welfare of the nation in mind rather than partisan politics.

If the Constitution is the deciding factor, it's clear cut, at least how I view the issue, so we're not connecting somehow.

And if you'd link to which comments you have in mind, sure I'll read them. I have read many of Scalia's opinions, some for my job and some just because I enjoy his writing even when I disagree, and as much as I have disagreed with where he ended up, I do think he was a principled person. He and RBG were/are the only two SC justices I'd make a real point to hear give a talk, or at least they'd be at the top of my list...

This quote from Scalia sums it up. "If you’re going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you’re not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you’re probably doing something wrong."

 

[JasperL]

My sources are from within SC court staff. Ethical people don't offer attribution in such instances, which is why such things remain in the rumor category. You can either accept that or not. It's the way things are done when issues such as the integrity of the SC are questioned. You might have put that together yourself with all the other instances mentioned had you thought about it with the welfare of the nation in mind rather than partisan politics.

How is anyone supposed to read your mind? And give me a break with the "welfare of the nation rather than partisan politics" bs. You spread scurrilous rumors with nothing, no evidence, not even a hint of your sources. That kind of stuff should be summarily dismissed 100% of the time because it is exactly the kind of thing spread by partisan hacks, and I don't know you and have no way of divining out of thin air that you might indeed have sources inside the building.

This quote from Scalia sums it up. "If you’re going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you’re not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you’re probably doing something wrong."

OK, but that doesn't really address the issue, at least how I'm seeing the problem. If the law is clear, obviously many times judges are forced to make decisions with which they will disagree. The issue is when the law is not clear and they're forced to effectively make new law. This is common with tax cases - where I deal with the SC decisions on a practical matter. They take a mushy code and regs and by deciding a case create new law. It's there where someone's biases will predictably matter, and there is no way to avoid them being influenced by their ideology or biases when effectively making new law.