Posted on 02/07/2017 10:35:35 AM PST by SeekAndFind
RB Ginsburg has never been anything but a rabid leftist, and as such has nothing but contempt for the US Constitution. Frankly I think each state should have it’s own electoral college, with electors assigned to counties. My state of Washington like many others is politically dominated by the Puget Sound corridor, and the leftists elected there run roughshod over the remainder of the state. Serpents like Ginsburg want to replicate that situation at the national level.
The electoral college can be changed by each state legislature of the forty-three largest states. In seven states, with one member of the House each, there is no change possible. DE can’t do squat, but VA can do a lot.
She’s as relevant as disco and twice as old.
A blot on US history.
She’s still alive?
CC
Getting rid of the two-track rule for filibusters would help to get the Senate working again. Filibusters would become rare.
Reagan’s Kennedy doesn’t look too alert there either.
Who woke her up?
You only want to change it because you lost, you dried up old prune.
I thought she was living in New Zealand?
Traitor Bitch !
Keep talking, Ruthie.
You may have to recuse yourself from upcoming cases if you keep it up.
>>She means like how respectful the dhimmis were to Judge Thomas.
>>Like that, right?
Perhaps she was referring to how respectful the dhimmis were to Judge Bork?
I watched her on C Span several years ago. She actually admitted the eugenics motivations of Roe v Wade. Stating that it was thought at the time certain groups in society should not procreate. It was a live segment, so they probably deleted that part from the replay.
“There should be some limit on Supreme Court justice’s terms.”
They should have to stand for a national reconfirmation vote every six years, and they should be forced to retire at 75. as it stands, most of them stick around for their “state funeral!”
The fact that she would support the idea of changing the EC (as opposed to eliminating it) makes me wonder what she had in mind.
I don't mind a U.S. Supreme Court justice making a public statement like this. Her insistence that such a change would require a constitutional amendment at least indicates that she understands the plain language of the U.S. Constitution.
Sorry, you shriveled up ugly-a$$ old hag, but you don’t get to change it. It’s done by constitutional amendment.
Was she awake when she said that?
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.