Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Excuse Me, Justice Ginsburg, But Your Politics Are Showing
Agape Press ^ | 9/26/05 | Stephen Crampton

Posted on 09/26/2005 6:12:00 PM PDT by wagglebee

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last
To: RGSpincich

Was Ruth the model for the "Old Maid" card game?


41 posted on 09/26/2005 7:07:17 PM PDT by TruthWillWin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

The Left shows it's fangs once again.


42 posted on 09/26/2005 7:08:30 PM PDT by Gritty ("Last week, 4/5 of New Orleans was under water and the other 4/5 should be under indictment-Mk Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
That goes without saying. I was being sarcastic, contrasting her powers as delineated by the Constitution, versus the powers she apparently thinks she has ;-).
43 posted on 09/26/2005 7:09:19 PM PDT by IYellAtMyTV (The left -- playing russian roulette with an automatic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
What's funny about the Dems voting against Roberts to assuage their base is that it will backfire. Roberts' temperament and intellect were so much in contrast with the Dems that he made them look petty and frankly, pitiful.

My folks, who are Bush hating aficionados, love Roberts. He did more in those hearings to illustrate the absurdity of modern day Democrats than family discussions, editorials, et. al. could ever do.

I suspect the mask has finally come off the modern day Democrats for many of the JFK Democrats who now see them in the appropriate light.

44 posted on 09/26/2005 7:11:14 PM PDT by Mensius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

Ginsberg wants quotas. A system which ONLY allows left leaning women and excludes all straight men.


45 posted on 09/26/2005 7:12:27 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze
Astute observations, the author is correct to be concerned.

These comments .. she has already decided and prejudged how she will vote when a case is presented to the USSC

46 posted on 09/26/2005 7:17:03 PM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

I think it should be a ROUTINE motion to recuse Ginsburg every time ANY ACLU brief is filed.

She may not recuse herself but if it is done 100% of the time, it sends a message to the public that Ginsberg is biased to favor anything the ACLU does.


47 posted on 09/26/2005 7:21:50 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

bump


48 posted on 09/26/2005 7:21:51 PM PDT by jdhljc169
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Justice Ginsburg was kind enough to give us some insight into what she thinks important in a nominee. She would exclude those "who would not advance human rights or women's rights."

Justice Ginsburg is coming close to violating the separation of powers, and the alleged non-partisan natur eof the Supreme Court. Should she cross the line of partisanship, that should be an impeachable offense.

49 posted on 09/26/2005 7:26:04 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Ruthie is to the Constitution what a billy goat is to a garden.


50 posted on 09/26/2005 7:27:30 PM PDT by Dionysius (ACLU is the enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Yes it is the truth. We as Republicans are fooling ourselves by insisting that the selection of a SC justice should be non-partisan. It is deeply partisan. The Democrats have made it so, and its time Republicans countered.


51 posted on 09/26/2005 7:28:26 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I cannot even look at ginsberg without thinking of the wicked witch of the west.


52 posted on 09/26/2005 7:28:33 PM PDT by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like what you say))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

Republicans voted unanimously to appoint Ginsburg because they believe (at least the Republicans that voted for her at the time do) that avoiding controversy is more important than property rights, second amendment rights, the right to life, and marriage. That is the hard truth.


53 posted on 09/26/2005 7:31:05 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
It is deeply partisan. The Democrats have made it so, and its time Republicans countered.

But the Conservatives are Constitutionalists. The Liberals are the "living document" types.

Therefore it is partisan in a way already. The Libs spit on the document they are sworn to defend. Odd really.

54 posted on 09/26/2005 7:34:07 PM PDT by Mensius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has announced that while she does not like being the only female on the Court, just "any woman will not do" to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

The easiest solution, if Ginsburg is uncomfortable, is to retire.

55 posted on 09/26/2005 7:51:13 PM PDT by Ruth A.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Justice Ginsburg fumed, "I have a list of highly qualified women, but the president has not consulted me."

Ummmm.....Let me guess, Ruth.

Every single one of those "highly qualified women" is a liberal.

Am I right or am I right?

When a liberal President is in the White House again, I am sure that he will be very interested in your list.

In the meantime, as the author of the article points out, the Constitution gives Supreme Court Justices ZERO, NADA, ZIP, ZILCH role in deciding who will be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

56 posted on 09/26/2005 7:59:53 PM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monti Cello

She likes her women tall and blonde.


57 posted on 09/26/2005 8:12:50 PM PDT by SQUID
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Zuben Elgenubi

Nah, just anti-male.


58 posted on 09/26/2005 8:16:46 PM PDT by SQUID
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

She is out of the mainstream, a total left winger and in this case she was voicing a political opinion on who the president should nominate, something she has zero role in and is imappropriate for a Supreme Court justice to do. So when she decides to take political potshots I can call her out the way I might call Hillary out. Nonetheless, I was impolite and your point is well taken.


59 posted on 09/26/2005 9:12:55 PM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg should just go away.
60 posted on 09/26/2005 10:27:39 PM PDT by buzzyboop (no tags, no fuss)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson