Ruth B. Ginsburg - Moron

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 7:28 pm

Bingo! The ruling elite doesn't give a rat's ass about ethics let alone the law. All the more reason to vote Republican one last time this November to see if things can really change. Looks like "anybody but the screeching woman whose name shall not be mentioned" is the only chance.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 7:41 pm

Law professor Erwin Chemerinsky disagrees with you two weeping ninnies.

Surely no one was surprised by any of the views expressed by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in an interview with The New York Times reporter Adam Liptak, though it is surprising for a Supreme Court justice to be so candid. This, however, is part of a trend in the past several years where many of the justices have spoken publicly and I think this is a very good development. More speech, especially by thoughtful people, is almost always desirable in a democratic society.

I would always rather know what justices and judges think rather than have enforced silence and pretend they have no views.

There was nothing surprising in Justice Ginsburg expressing pleasure at the abortion and affirmative action decisions from the last few weeks; she was in the majority in both cases. Nor was anyone shocked to learn that she thought that the court was wrong in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in holding that corporations could spend unlimited money in election campaigns, or in District of Columbia v. Heller, in striking down a city’s ban on handguns. She dissented in both cases. Quite important, she did not comment on any case now pending before the court or say anything that could not already be inferred from her past votes.

Nor was it surprising that she praised President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland, and expressed her view that the court’s work is hindered by the Senate’s failure to consider him. I wish that more of the justices would explain that the Senate’s refusal to consider this nomination, as well as nominations for lower federal court judgeships, is seriously interfering with the functioning of the courts.

Perhaps most surprising was her sharp criticism of Donald Trump and her worrying about what the country would be like with him as president. But she simply voiced what countless people, liberal and conservative, think about the possibility of a Trump presidency and no one should be surprised that Ginsburg thinks this too. The judicial code of ethics says that judges are not to endorse or oppose candidates for elected office. But these provisions do not apply to Supreme Court justices.

Nor do I believe that such restrictions are constitutional or desirable. The First Amendment is based on the strong presumption that more speech is beneficial because it means we are all better informed. I think it is valuable for people to hear what the justices have to say on important issues. As a lawyer and as a citizen, I’d always rather know what justices and judges think rather than have enforced silence and pretend they have no views. We are in a relatively new era of public statements by justices, and I applaud it.

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 9:17 pm

OK--I can probably troy out 100 legal scholars who agree with me. WTF does that prove? Ruth Buzzi should keep her fucking trap shut.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 9:38 pm

88 wrote: It is beyond stupid for a sitting Supreme Court justice to express views on candidates running for president.

Why?

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 10:53 pm

There is a long standing precedent that Justices keep their fukking traps shut on this. If Ruth Buzzie Ginsburg wants to run her dick sucker, resign and do so.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 12:17 am

What is it with women being unable to keep their fucking mouths shut?

Jay in Phoenix · Post by **Jay in Phoenix** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:27 am

Screw_Michigan wrote:What is it with women being unable to keep their fucking mouths shut?

Or Goober.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:44 am

Jsc810 wrote:I'll join the voices who think it is wrong for Justices to opine on political matters, like she did.

Why?

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 2:54 am

Moving Sale wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:I'll join the voices who think it is wrong for Justices to opine on political matters, like she did.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 3:36 am

Short-timer disease?

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 4:40 am

smackaholic wrote:There is a long standing precedent that Justices keep their fukking traps shut on this.

No there isn't. John Jay (our first CJ) ran for governor, twice, while he was in office.
John Rutledge (our second CJ) gave a speech on the Jay treaty two weeks after he became Chief Justice.
Oliver Ellsworth (our third CJ) got eleven electoral votes for president while CJ.

Should I go on dumbass?

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 4:42 am

88 wrote:
Moving Sale wrote:
88 wrote: It is beyond stupid for a sitting Supreme Court justice to express views on candidates running for president.
Why?
Uh, maybe because it is unethical and reflects poorly on the "independent" judiciary?

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeshi ... s-judges#f

She isn't a judge, counselor, so your first argument is garbage. How does it reflect poorly (whatever that is)?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 10:57 am

She called a crazy person, crazy. But when Scalia was interjecting his politics into court opinions, nary a peep.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 11:42 am

They all interject their "politics" into opinions. And we all know they have definite political bents and are willing enough to espouse them, but until now, they have stopped short of making comments on people running for office. Apparently a few dudes did it in the early 19th century, but, to the best of my knowledge it hasn't been done in our lifetimes.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 12:48 pm

Oh I see so it's a new "long standing precedent."
You really are retarded.
And those guys were on the court in the 18th century you paste eating cum target.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:00 pm

You mentioned 3, so I assumed that it might have extended into the early 19th century. Anyhoo, it further proves my point that for apparently 200+ years there has been a policy for SCOTUS members to STFU when it comes to open support/criticism of pols, particularly pols in the middle of a campaign.

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:39 pm

So it's a unwritten rule.....like bat flips and not stealing signs? Does Donald now get to toss a heater into her ribcage now?

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 2:51 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote:What is it with women being unable to keep their fucking mouths shut?

It does make it easier to insert your manhood.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 2:53 pm

R-Jack wrote:So it's a unwritten rule.....like bat flips and not stealing signs? Does Donald now get to toss a heater into her ribcage now?

A fastball to the ribs would likely kill her. Maybe just one a tad high and inside to get her attention. If Trump gets elected he should do a televised Ruth Ginsburg daily health report.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 3:24 pm

Moving Sale wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:I'll join the voices who think it is wrong for Justices to opine on political matters, like she did.
Why?

Because they might have to rule on them one day, you brainless lump of shit. That's why she's back pedaling today.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 3:32 pm

mvscal wrote:
Moving Sale wrote:
Because they might have to rule on them one day...

And that is relevent how you black cock sucking waterbaby?

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 3:36 pm

smackaholic wrote:You mentioned 3, so I assumed that it might have extended into the early 19th century. Anyhoo, it further proves my point that for apparently 200+ years there has been a policy for SCOTUS members to STFU when it comes to open support/criticism of pols, particularly pols in the middle of a campaign.

Abe Fortas wrote Johnson's 1966 SOTU address. Anything else cum stain?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 4:16 pm

Moving Sale wrote:Abe Fortas wrote Johnson's 1966 SOTU address.

He was also shot down by the Senate when Johnson nominated him for Chief Justice for his inappropriate relationship with LBJ and was forced to resign under threat of impeachment from the SC altogether the following year.

You remain a pitifully stupid fuck and an even worse lawyer.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 4:19 pm

mvscal wrote: Because they might have to rule on them one day, you brainless lump of shit.

Oh, puhleez. Like that would ever happen.

Sin,
Albert Gore

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 4:28 pm

mvscal wrote:
Moving Sale wrote:Abe Fortas wrote Johnson's 1966 SOTU address.
He was also shot down by the Senate when Johnson nominated him for Chief Justice for his inappropriate relationship with LBJ and was forced to resign under threat of impeachment from the SC altogether the following year.

You remain a pitifully stupid fuck and an even worse lawyer.

So it's not a long standing tradition. Anything else shortbus?

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 4:29 pm

Jsc810 wrote:I worked within the judiciary for almost a decade. Most of them don't talk about anything, much less things political.

Even personal relationships change. For example, just going out to lunch with a long time friend can raise issues, if that friend is a lawyer whose firm has cases pending before the judge.

Judges must be neutral, fair, and impartial. Anything that even gives the appearance of being otherwise is not good.

It was wrong when Scalia did it, and it is wrong when Ginsburg did it.

She is not a judge counselor.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 8:26 pm

Embrace your ignorance pigskin.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 9:27 pm

Nice IKYABWAI cum worshiper.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 10:58 pm

Papa Willie wrote:
Moving Sale wrote:Nice IKYABWAI cum worshiper.
How's that?

Yeah I know your head is full of the dna that black boys skull fuck in there, but there has to be some gray matter in there.
Now go shove the stars and bars up your ass, preferably while it's flying.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Fri Jul 15, 2016 2:53 am

And where does the USC say RBJ can't give an opinion like the one she gave? Take your time you inbred fraud.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:05 am

A)The cnn article----so you got nothing. Good show.
B) Is she a judge----you might to read your own link.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Fri Jul 15, 2016 4:07 am

So you can't read your own link, hack.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Fri Jul 15, 2016 2:31 pm

Fat fat fat fat fat
Blah blah blah blah blah

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Jul 15, 2016 5:44 pm

Moving Sale wrote:And where does the USC say RBJ can't give an opinion like the one she gave? Take your time you inbred fraud.

She can but she shouldn't.

Here ya go, corky. Roll this up, paint it black and shove it up your ass.

Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity

(A) General Prohibitions. A judge should not:

(1) act as a leader or hold any office in a political organization;

(2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office; or

(3) solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution to a political organization or candidate, or attend or purchase a ticket for a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization or candidate.

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeshi ... tes-judges

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Fri Jul 15, 2016 7:18 pm

You are a hot mess. She is not a judge so that canon doesn't apply.
And I don't care if YOU think she shouldn't you fucking mudshark.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Fri Jul 15, 2016 11:39 pm

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sat Jul 16, 2016 1:14 am

I have a bad feeling about the Trump picking Pence. Would rather have seen Newt.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Sat Jul 16, 2016 7:22 am

smackaholic wrote:I have a bad feeling about the Trump picking Pence. Would rather have seen Newt.

Yes, community Muslim tests would have gone over so well.

Fucking idiot.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sun Jul 17, 2016 1:50 pm

smackaholic wrote:I have a bad feeling about the Trump picking Pence. Would rather have seen Newt.

He should have picked Carson. It would have gone a long way towards getting at least some balck votes for the GOP. Since right now they have about .1%.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Sun Jul 17, 2016 2:26 pm

Nice white flag.
So to summarize, the USC calls her a judge but doesn't not provide canons so it doesn't bar her from saying what she wants and 88s link provides canons but those canons don't apply to her because the link specifically leaves out the USSC when naming who it applies to.
Once again you have absolutely no idea WTF you are talking about. Idiot.