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

I see in Ginsburg a brilliant jurist who, as an American Jew born in 1933, saw what happens when good people don’t question the rise of a bigoted, authoritarian mindset.


Enough with the Trump is Hitler already.

1 posted on 07/14/2016 6:13:36 AM PDT by artichokegrower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 next last
To: artichokegrower

The MSM demonstrates that there is no lower limit to their stupidity..

When the ignorant idiotess retires, she can spout her silliness.


25 posted on 07/14/2016 6:25:33 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: artichokegrower

She wants to go to bed with the handsome Trump bit she knows she is too ugly so she is sexially harassing Trump by abusing her position of power under the color of authority and to try and get his attention because she is an obsessed dithering of egyptian mummy wrapped in black robes wearing those stupid ovrrsize drink cuasters as ties that she wanted to market in competition with Trump ties but she wastes a lot of time with vibrators that do nothing for her and what is really setting her off is that old lady smell she has that the other justices have been secretly complaing about.

She also needs to stay away from Thomas, he isn’t her little black toy baby who needs her mama sympathy and “love”.


26 posted on 07/14/2016 6:25:59 AM PDT by ShivaFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: artichokegrower

Wrong question.

The question should be “When is Ginsburg going to speak out against the lawbreaker Hillary Clinton?”


28 posted on 07/14/2016 6:26:20 AM PDT by exit82 (Road Runner sez:" Let's Make America Beeping Great Again! Beep! Beep!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: artichokegrower

She blatantly violated cannon 5 of the judicial cannons. She is not a judge — she is a political HACK!!


29 posted on 07/14/2016 6:27:01 AM PDT by WENDLE (We must have LAW AND ORDER!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: artichokegrower

She is displaying exactly the kind of jurist that can be expected from Hitlery.


30 posted on 07/14/2016 6:28:01 AM PDT by CMailBag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: artichokegrower
The author is filth.

AND she just nullified herself, which this buffoon author does not understand.

31 posted on 07/14/2016 6:28:51 AM PDT by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: artichokegrower
When is the First Amendment not the First Amendment?

When a normal citizen questions the possible biases or motivations of a judge. In that case he's shouted down and called all sorts of terrible things.

32 posted on 07/14/2016 6:30:03 AM PDT by pepsi_junkie (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: artichokegrower

Until she retires, never. She may have all the opinions she wants. As a justice, she is supposed to remain politically aloof in her decisions and pronouncements.


34 posted on 07/14/2016 6:30:14 AM PDT by cyclotic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: artichokegrower
I believe the Founders made a mistake.

Back in the 1700's, people's life expectancies were much lower than today.

They thought that a SC justice, appointed in his/her late 50's or 60's would probably serve no more than about 10 years.

Now, turds like RBG live well into their 80's. Medical technology can keep people alive well beyond age 70.

I would propose an amendment - SC justices must be "re-approved" by the Senate every 10 years.

35 posted on 07/14/2016 6:30:50 AM PDT by FroggyTheGremlim (Make America Great Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: artichokegrower

She has shown a complete lack of judicial prudence in her comments and in her “threat” to move to another country. And, the Sac Bee’s attempt to insert Hitlerian imagery into the minds of it’s readers is idiotic. Especially given that it is Trump’s opposition that more closely resembles the Brown Shirts (Matter) of the 1930’s.


36 posted on 07/14/2016 6:30:54 AM PDT by TruthBeforeAll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: artichokegrower

This guy is too much of a dumbass to waste time arguing with him.


37 posted on 07/14/2016 6:31:20 AM PDT by Sans-Culotte ('''Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small''~ Theodore Dallrymple)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: artichokegrower

How can she be a “brilliant jurist” when how she is going to vote is known before any arguments are heard?


38 posted on 07/14/2016 6:32:32 AM PDT by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: artichokegrower

She was never a good judge. She was Bill Clinton’s pay back to Planned Parenthood.


40 posted on 07/14/2016 6:40:01 AM PDT by poinq
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: artichokegrower

Judges voluntarily give up a measure of their first amendment rights when the take the bench. It is a requirement of office. All judges and justices are bound by the canons. Ginsburg violated Canon 5 of the federal rules.
Hubler knows this, but he hates Trump, thus the rules don’t matter.
Simple for the left—the end always justifies the means. They see themselves as above the law.


41 posted on 07/14/2016 6:41:05 AM PDT by The Continental Op
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: artichokegrower
An extremely biased article from one of the most liberal outlets in the West.

They don't even try to hide it.

42 posted on 07/14/2016 6:43:59 AM PDT by capt. norm (If you can't make them see the light, let them feel the heat!<)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: artichokegrower

It’s one thing to criticize a president by name in a Supreme Court decision for his policies involved in a case before the court. Or to criticize a politician in private. It’s another to publicly criticize a presidential candidate in the media.


43 posted on 07/14/2016 6:52:38 AM PDT by Lower Deck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: artichokegrower

When is the First Amendment not the First Amendment? Apparently, when a liberal U.S. Supreme Court justice exercises it to voice alarm at the possibility that Donald Trump might become the next president.


I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV but even I can see this is wrong. However, I am pleased she did speak out. It now exposes her bias (as if anyone that has been paying attention did not already know her bias).

Hopefully she will resign after the election and move to a country that is more in tune with her beliefs.

One point that puzzles me however, is why she has not resigned before now to let Obama pick her replacement.


45 posted on 07/14/2016 7:07:17 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN (The government is the problem, not the solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: artichokegrower
Good stuff from the Comments section:

Dje Dje

Ginsburg has gone beyond stating a personal opinion. She is interfering with a public election for POTUS. She can be impeached if members of the US House of Representatives find that her comments violate the "good behavior" required of all federal judges by the US Constitution. I think that they do. Her remarks are biased, unprecedented, and reveal an inability to render impartial judgements. For the sake of the nation, she should apologize for undermining public trust in the nation's courts and resign immediately.

46 posted on 07/14/2016 7:08:43 AM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: artichokegrower

Anybody live near the “Bee” can yell a #### you when they pass it for me?

Where did this rag come from. It’s CA’s version of the NY Times.


48 posted on 07/14/2016 7:13:15 AM PDT by dp0622 (The only thing an upper crust conservative hates more than a liberal is a middle class conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: artichokegrower
She and the writer are both wrong on the appropriateness of Justice Ginsburg's ex cathedra pronouncements. It is not only about her proclaiming her bias towards one who may likely be involved in various future issues coming to the Court. Her whole tone was absurdly unjudicious; just as the writer's characterization of Trump as "bigoted" is absurd.

Trump, to the contrary, is the one who has gone after--aggressively gone after the "politically correct" bullies, who have been stifling free discussion of vital social & political & legal issues, for the past quarter century. The bigots are the ones who insist that all of the rest of us simply accept their insulting views on social, political & ethnic questions.

The bigot in this case is the Justice, who throws over the normal restraints that go with her position, to vilify one who chooses to dissent from her very biased position. The writer is even more pathetic. She is so imbued with an insulting narrative against dissenters, that she seems to actually think it necessary for a sitting Supreme Court Justice to slander a Presidential candidate--because the Ginsburg tirade was indeed slanderous. (Now I know that the Court has held that public figures can be slandered with impunity--but one expects something a little better from the Justices themselves.)

49 posted on 07/14/2016 7:13:37 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 next last

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