Ruth Bader Ginsburg Rails Against Trump.....

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...not-bad-thing/

What she has really shown in this ill advised rant is that her Socialist/Progressive/Democrat agenda comes before anything.

She is willing to support a Lying, MoneyGrubbing, Sexual Predator Enabling, (and now proven inept and stupid), cunt as her candidate??

THIS IS WHY Supreme Court Nominees are such a big issue in this election cycle. We do not need more Justices such as RBG who make decisions based solely on their political idealology and not on the merits of each individule case.

The SCOUS is politically divided, and will probably remain so regardless of who appoints a new member. The trick is to swing the balance so your side wins. They should be entirely neutral and just stick to law.

give me one reason why Ruth "roughing it" Ginsburg shouldn't be impeached?

give me one reason why Ruth "roughing it" Ginsburg shouldn't be impeached? Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Because the Republicans do not have a large enough majority to vote for conviction.

Best reason I can think of. Otherwise, she has proven, by her very own statements, that she is unfit to serve.

Not exactly a rant, was it? Or a rail...

Reason Number One: Fuck you.

That makes about as much sense as your question, shitstorm.

Can you imagine if Justices Alito or Thomas had said something similar about Shrilley? There would be no end to the calls for them to step down.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...not-bad-thing/

What she has really shown in this ill advised rant is that her Socialist/Progressive/Democrat agenda comes before anything.

She is willing to support a Lying, MoneyGrubbing, Sexual Predator Enabling, (and now proven inept and stupid), cunt as her candidate??

THIS IS WHY Supreme Court Nominees are such a big issue in this election cycle. We do not need more Justices such as RBG who make decisions based solely on their political idealology and not on the merits of each individule case. Originally Posted by Jackie S

You are so far off base regarding Ginsburg's fairness it's laughable.

Can you imagine if Justices Alito or Thomas had said something similar about Shrilley? There would be no end to the calls for them to step down. Originally Posted by gfejunkie

The toad Scalia constantly violated the canon of ethics, offering his personal political opinions.

You boys are fucking nuts. Typical Trumpites.

And the calls for him to step down never stopped. So, what's your point?

Besides the one on your dunce cap, typical Shrilleryite.

Because the Republicans do not have a large enough majority to vote for conviction.

Best reason I can think of. Otherwise, she has proven, by her very own statements, that she is unfit to serve. Originally Posted by Jackie S

you're prolly right, but I can live with a censure.

Not exactly a rant, was it? Or a rail...

Reason Number One: Fuck you.

That makes about as much sense as your question, shitstorm. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

yer asking to get reamed dude. want that?

According to the Washington Post, they can't find a single instance where a sitting member of The SCOTUS made such disparaging remarks about a Presidential Candidate.

First time for having a Jewish grandmother as a member?

The SCOUS is politically divided, and will probably remain so regardless of who appoints a new member. The trick is to swing the balance so your side wins. They should be entirely neutral and just stick to law. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

In the long run this has nothing to do with right or left, this has to do with the tradition of justices staying out of politics, the legality of Ginsberg now expected to recuse herself if a case involving either Hillary or Trump comes before the court (remember 2000), and the ethics of three SEPARATE branches of government.

On a side note; today I heard Allen Colmes make the claim that the SCOTUS is Conservative.

Because the Republicans do not have a large enough majority to vote for conviction.

Best reason I can think of. Otherwise, she has proven, by her very own statements, that she is unfit to serve. Originally Posted by Jackie S

She did that two years ago when she gave another interview; she said that the law was less important than how she felt about an issue.