Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
This is how bad this election has gotten
Topic Started: Jul 11 2016, 03:01 PM (487 Views)
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Ruth Bader Ginburg bashes Trump

This is bad, bad, bad.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Here's the part of the interview the WaPo didn't report: where she said that "things would be worse had (her "friend") Scalia lived:

Quote:
 
One of the 4-4 ties, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, averted what would have been a severe blow to public unions had Justice Scalia participated. “This court couldn’t have done better than it did,” Justice Ginsburg said of the deadlock. When the case was argued in January, the majority seemed prepared to overrule a 1977 precedent that allowed public unions to charge nonmembers fees to pay for collective bargaining.

A second deadlock, in United States v. Texas, left in place a nationwide injunction blocking Mr. Obama’s plan to spare more than four million unauthorized immigrants from deportation and allow them to work. That was unfortunate, Justice Ginsburg said, but it could have been worse.

“Think what would have happened had Justice Scalia remained with us,” she said. Instead of a single sentence announcing the tie, she suggested, a five-justice majority would have issued a precedent-setting decision dealing a lasting setback to Mr. Obama and the immigrants he had tried to protect.

IOW, things would be worse had my friend not died.

Wanna go to New Zealand, "Justice" Ginsburg? Let me buy your ticket.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
George K
Jul 11 2016, 03:07 PM
Wanna go to New Zealand, "Justice" Ginsburg? Let me buy your ticket.
Oh, wait!

You can't do that. You're too old, unless you choose to be illegal undocumented.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
I like my friends dead, too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Yep. At this point I have to question her judgement, and hence her fitness to serve.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Catseye
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
\ :no:

Has the woman no sense?
"How awful a knowledge of the truth can be." -- Sophocles, Oedipus Rex
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Mikhailoh
Jul 11 2016, 03:09 PM
Yep. At this point I have to question her judgement, and hence her fitness impartiality to serve.
FIFY
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
George K
Jul 11 2016, 03:07 PM
Here's the part of the interview the WaPo didn't report: where she said that "things would be worse had (her "friend") Scalia lived:

The post went over the edge a long time ago.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rainman
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
I wonder if there has ever been a time when a Supreme Court Justice was clearly nuts?
And if so, is there any way to remove someone clearly not fit, but refuses to step down.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Imagine, just for a second, if Justice Alito had said that his spouse wanted to move to, say Austria (where they speak Austrian) if the presidential candidate she preferred lost.

If he said, "I just can't imagine what this country would be, with Hillary Clinton as our president. I can't begin to thing about that."

Rachel Maddow would have (another) on-air orgasm.

A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Catseye
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Rainman
Jul 11 2016, 03:27 PM
I wonder if there has ever been a time when a Supreme Court Justice was clearly nuts?
And if so, is there any way to remove someone clearly not fit, but refuses to step down.


Good question! From here and there:


A Supreme Court Justice may be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office if convicted in a Senate trial, but only for the same types of offenses that would trigger impeachment proceedings for any other government official under Articles I and II of the Constitution.

Only one Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Chase (one of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence), has ever been impeached. The House of Representatives accused Chase of letting his Federalist political leanings affect his rulings, and served him with eight articles of impeachment in late 1804.

And elsewhere:

Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 2, 1803, on charges of mental instability and intoxication on the bench; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office on March 12, 1804. Samuel Chase, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States.
"How awful a knowledge of the truth can be." -- Sophocles, Oedipus Rex
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
"High crimes and misdemeanors?"

She's committed neither.

She's just lost all credibility of objectivity.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Rainman
Jul 11 2016, 03:27 PM
I wonder if there has ever been a time when a Supreme Court Justice was clearly nuts?
And if so, is there any way to remove someone clearly not fit, but refuses to step down.
They can be impeached. It would take a lot more than a political comment though.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Catseye
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
AFAIK, the Chief Justice can issue a letter of reprimand or some other sanction (?) to a SCOTUS Justice, but Congress may not do anything other than impeachment.

You'd have to confirm that, though.
"How awful a knowledge of the truth can be." -- Sophocles, Oedipus Rex
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
A brain fart made more severe by her position on the Supreme Court.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Rice
HOLY CARP!!!
Axtremus
Jul 11 2016, 04:39 PM
A brain fart made more severe by her position on the Supreme Court.
+1
Civilisation, I vaguely realized then - and subsequent observation has confirmed the view - could not progress that way. It must have a greater guiding principle to survive. To treat it as a carcase off which each man tears as much as he can for himself, is to stand convicted a brute, fit for nothing better than a jungle existence, which is a death-struggle, leading nowhither. I did not believe that was the human destiny, for Man individually was sane and reasonable, only collectively a fool.

I hope the gunner of that Hun two-seater shot him clean, bullet to heart, and that his plane, on fire, fell like a meteor through the sky he loved. Since he had to end, I hope he ended so. But, oh, the waste! The loss!

- Cecil Lewis
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Axtremus
Jul 11 2016, 04:39 PM
A brain fart made more severe by her position on the Supreme Court.
And her advanced age. Someone described her as that "crazy old aunt that visits at Christmas" who says whatever pops into her head. Loss of filtration.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John Galt
Fulla-Carp
George K
Jul 12 2016, 05:21 AM
Someone described her as that "crazy old aunt that visits at Christmas" who says whatever pops into her head. Loss of filtration.
Maybe she and Trump are related. Can you imagine a family gathering with the two of them there? :silly:

Seriously though, I think her thoughts should have been kept to herself. Not appropriate for a SC justice.
Let us begin anew, remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
George K
Jul 12 2016, 05:21 AM
Axtremus
Jul 11 2016, 04:39 PM
A brain fart made more severe by her position on the Supreme Court.
And her advanced age. Someone described her as that "crazy old aunt that visits at Christmas" who says whatever pops into her head. Loss of filtration.
Another way to think about it:

(Not that I think this is the truth—none of us have any way of knowing—but I think people actually do this so I figured I'd bring it up.)

“Think what would have happened had Justice Scalia remained with us,” she said. Instead of a single sentence announcing the tie, she suggested, a five-justice majority would have issued a precedent-setting decision dealing a lasting setback to Mr. Obama and the immigrants he had tried to protect.

I think if you're familiar enough with someone, even a professional colleague, you can say something like this out of familiarity, not callousness. (Sounds like very similar talk that I've heard from family members: "Well if Ed had lived we never would have moved out of Jersey.") I mean, they worked together a lot, did they not? Maybe that's where this is coming from.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Heh.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/07/12/justice-ginsburg-takes-selfless-actions-to-prevent-election-litigation-deadlock/
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Taranto in today's WSJ: http://www.wsj.com/articles/travesty-of-a-justice-1468348145

Supreme Court justices have gotten involved in partisan politics before. Charles Evans Hughes even ran for president. But he resigned from the court before accepting the 1916 Republican presidential nomination. (He returned to the court in 1930, when President Hoover appointed him to succeed Chief Justice William Howard Taft, himself a former president.)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg should have resigned before giving her latest interview, to the New York Times’s Adam Liptak. “Unless they have a book to sell, Supreme Court justices rarely give interviews,” Liptak boasts. “Even then, they diligently avoid political topics.” Ginsburg, he gently observes, “takes a different approach”:

Quote:
 
These days, she is making no secret of what she thinks of a certain presidential candidate.

“I can’t imagine what this place would be—I can’t imagine what the country would be—with Donald Trump as our president,” she said. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be—I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

It reminded her of something her husband, Martin D. Ginsburg, a prominent tax lawyer who died in 2010, would have said.

“‘Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand,’ ” Justice Ginsburg said, smiling ruefully.

“She’d feel right at home there,” quips the New York Sun’s Seth Lipsky. “It turns out that New Zealand doesn’t even have a constitution.” Instead it has a series of statutes called the Constitution Act of 1986. Also New Zealanders drive on the left.

While we’re on the subject, Statistics New Zealand, a government agency, has “busted” the “myth” that the country has 20 sheep for every human inhabitant, a factoid that “adds weight to myriad sheep jokes,” as the Stats NZ website complains. In reality, “the sheep-to-person ratio has fallen and contrary to popular belief there are actually about six sheep per person, not 20.” The site is silent as to how Ginsburg’s immigration would affect the ratio.

Actually, her choice of country is the best thing about Ginsburg’s latest emanations. At least she departed from the tired trope of celebrities’ threatening emptily to move to Canada if a Republican is elected president. But a Supreme Court justice should not be expressing an opinion about an election, unless—as in the case of Bush v. Gore (2000), it becomes necessary for the court to resolve a legal dispute arising from it.

And Ginsburg’s comments about Trump, which were somewhat vague if you read them closely, were less objectionable than many of the other things she said in the same interview. She also damned the Senate for declining to take up the high-court nomination of Judge Merrick Garland: “ ‘That’s their job,’ she said. ‘There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.’ ”

That’s literally true, but there’s also nothing in the Constitution that says the Senate stops being the Senate under any circumstances. Ginsburg is making a one-sided political argument and framing it as a constitutional mandate. Which, come to think of it, isn’t that different from her approach to jurisprudence. National Review’s Ed Whelan offers a backhanded compliment: “Let’s give her credit . . . for exposing, once again, how nakedly political she is.” We should note that by contrast, we were totally sincere in crediting her for going with New Zealand rather than Canada.

It gets worse still. Liptak asked Ginsburg if there are “cases she would like to see the court overturn before she leaves it.” Her answer: “I’d love to see Citizens United overturned.” In that 2010 First Amendment case, the Federal Election Commission unsuccessfully claimed it had the authority to criminalize the distribution of a film critical of Hillary Clinton, whom Ginsburg has now implicitly endorsed for the presidency.

She also told Liptak that District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which established that the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, was “a very bad decision,” adding (in Liptak’s words) “that a chance to reconsider it could arise whenever the court considers a challenge to a gun control law.” Lipsky reports that “the Times . . . seemed to want to protect Ginsburg from the fallout from this error of judgment, deleting it from the article until sharp-eyed readers called out the paper and the lines were restored.”

There’s no indication that Liptak asked Ginsburg if she also has designs on the Third Amendment. But if you wake up one morning and find a strange soldier on your couch, don’t say we didn’t warn you.

And that’s not all, folks. Ginsburg went on to reveal confidential information about the court’s deliberations during the term just ended. She disclosed how the late Justice Antonin Scalia voted in two cases on which the court deadlocked, and she asserted that Justice Elena Kagan would have joined the 4-3 majority to uphold racial discrimination in Fisher v. University of Texas , from which Kagan recused herself. “If Justice Kagan had been there, it would have been 5 to 3,” Ginsburg asserted.

So, to sum up: Ginsburg, in an on-the-record interview, took political positions on the presidential election and a Senate confirmation, indicated that she intends in future cases to vote to curtail constitutional rights, and violated the secrecy of the Supreme Court conference room.

Trump responded to Ginsburg in a phone interview with Liptak’s colleague Maggie Haberman:
Quote:
 
“I think it’s highly inappropriate that a United States Supreme Court judge gets involved in a political campaign, frankly,” Mr. Trump said. “I think it’s a disgrace to the court and I think she should apologize to the court. I couldn’t believe it when I saw it.”
He continued: “That she should be saying that? It’s so beneath the court for her to be making statements like that. It only energizes my base even more. And I would hope that she would get off the court as soon as possible.”

As far as we know, Hillary Clinton hasn’t been asked to respond to Ginsburg’s remarks. Perhaps she will be equally critical, but for now Trump looks like the candidate for voters who are concerned about restoring norms of propriety to the government.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Glenn Reynolds comments:
Quote:
 
Trump is terrible because he shoots his mouth off and has no respect for the sanctity of our institutions, so watch me as I shoot my mouth off and demonstrate no respect for the sanctity of our institutions.

Trump critics call him a dishonest clown. One reason Trump has done as well as he has is because a lot of people think our institutions are already run by dishonest clowns.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
RBG "apologizes:"
Quote:
 
On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them. Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.
Just to put it in context, here's the Code of Conduct for United States Judges:
Quote:
 
A judge should not:

(2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office. . .
Source: http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#f

Of course, the lawyerly comment would be that the Canon says "should not" and not "shall not."

So, I guess she's fine.
Edited by George K, Jul 14 2016, 03:10 PM.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Quote:
 
Trump critics call him a dishonest clown. One reason Trump has done as well as he has is because a lot of people think our institutions are already run by dishonest clowns.

:uparrow:
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Jolly
Jul 14 2016, 03:27 PM
Quote:
 
Trump critics call him a dishonest clown. One reason Trump has done as well as he has is because a lot of people think our institutions are already run by dishonest clowns.

:uparrow:
How many times do we have to go through this? "Donald Trump would be a good president because I don't like today's politicians" isn't even poor reasoning, it's no reasoning. Criticism of people who are not Donald Trump is not evidence that Donald Trump would be a good President. It's not an achievement when people who are not you do poorly at their job.

What's unacceptable about this particular election is just how fucking stupid the arguments are. They're beneath us. Absolutely they are.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1