Darth Bader
 

She is certainly entitled to her own opinion but in her position she should keep it to herself. This next election is beyond critical in regards to the make up of the Supreme Court.

Attachment 32598

Look at the bright side. If the election is so close that the SC has to decide it she has just recused herself.

From the Code of Conduct for United States Judges:

Full text: http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judge...tates-judges#f

Pat

HAHAHAHA - code of conduct, that's hillaryous
You should know by now that something as petty as a code of conduct doesn't apply to liberals. Besides..........

Did Anakin Skywalker spring into action when emperor palpatine was in trouble?
...you're damn right he did.


Why wouldn't Darth Bader speak out for the Evil Empress when the chips are down?
...the Dark Sithette Lords need to stick together.

Teaching
 

Now that's funny.

I've used the Stah Wahs story to teach my kids how our government has strayed away from the intent of our Founders.

My boys all understand how the political elite and those that influence our politicians have threatened the future of the nation.

The problem with her opinion is it's based on the lies of the political left, which she knowingly and willingly accepts via a deliberate politically oriented self-dishonesty. The result being the mentality she demonstrates via these comments and the perversion of her judgement via that mentality, including a literal rejoicing at the death of Scalia given his stances on issues and his impact on the court.

People are entitled to an opinion, they are not entitled to thier own version of the truth when they know it's a lie. Especially someone in her position as that is a very dangerous situation.

LOL, you're encompassing the entire American political system.......

I'd trust a garbage man before a politician.

With a few exceptions, a credible case could be made for what you're saying.
However there are some critical differences between the politicians and/or the political system vrs the supreme court.
The difference between the politicians & the SCOTUS justices being accountability to the public. Politicians still have to win elections which makes them measurably accountable to the public via the public vote.
Supreme court justices? No such accountability, they are there for life. Whatever mechanism the Founders put in place for the removal of a justice, it's a simple fact that mechanism is beyond the practical reach of the voter.
Politicians are still measurably accountable to the checks & balances put into our founding laws in terms of what they can do to the law.
Supreme court justices? They offer thier opinions with what restrictions and they are the last word on whatever the case is.
When supreme court justices stated opinions are what Ginsberg has indicated, it is a far greater danger to the public than a politician with the same views.

Saw the below meme on FB yesterday and was wondering if one of legal beagles could chime in on the validity of this.

If true, she needs to be removed ASAP.

She started to back peddle on Friday and apologized for her statements. Guess she felt the heat. But she crossed the line. They are supposed to sit up there and keep their opinions to their selfs and rule on the cases IAW the constitution.

Post #3 above, with a link.

Another link to the full CoC: http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judge...-states-judges

Pat

Understand completely, but as we have witnessed in the last 7 years, the left-wing socialist progressives are above the law. And if you think this left-wing dingbat will be impeached for an impeachable offense, well, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you in NYC.

There's a reason folks have been purchasing weapons and ammo at a historic rate and its not because of the BLM movement or the muzzies, its because of the treasonous acts committed by our own government.

What do you expect from the former chief counsel of the ACLU?

The Senators who put her in office should be impeached as well, if they are still serving.

TR

i cant wait until she gets a few more of her friends on the bench so they can outlaw free speech...
...that way you evil bastards wont be able to pick on her any more

While inappropriate, what parts of her comments about Trump are inaccurate?

• He does vacillate greatly on matters of policy.
• His ego consistently comes to the forefront of his speeches.
• He's not released his tax returns.
• The media have given him a pass on not releasing his tax returns.
• Many of his supporters, including some on this BB, admit not knowing how things might go during a Trump administration and believe that such an uncertainty is preferable to what Mrs. Clinton might do as president.

IRT your linking Ginsberg to the celebration of Scalia's death, you are off the mark. She said of her good friend.

Same could be said of our current POTUS but I've never heard her say anything about him.

You know it's a double standard and yet you defend her, why? If Scalia had done this to the manchild, you probably would have run screaming to the hills of the injustice of the Justice and probably quoted the Code of Conduct someone else here posted.

Your argument is a straw man. You argue that what she said is true, but never admit the fact that by saying anything she was wrong (just inappropriate, meh). Go back to bed Sig.

holy fucking shit you've got to be shitting me in proportions beyond biblical...

The is media giving Trump a pass ???
...are you fucking kidding me? Every time a shit-stain-talking-head-democrat stands in front of a camera, someone in the media lets them foam at the mouth over something - anything, negative about Donald Trump.
...and somehow, "that" is a pass in the media?

So, Trump gets a pass on his income tax returns while the media is busy hammering the klintons over money from the klinton foundation?
...not


Trumps wife, ex-wife, and his daughter constantly get asked bullshit like "how does the Donald treat women" by some random shit-stick in the aMErican liberal news media...
...and Trump is getting a pass in the media

Where the fuck is that same socially conscious media presence when it comes time to ask Chelsea Klinton how SHE feels about her fathers treatment of women?
...but Trump is getting a pass in the media

For fuck sake, Milania Trump is even expected to talk about her husbands "equal" treatment of women during the RNC this week because if she don't, the fucking liberal media will squeal louder than Ned Beatty in the North Georgia wilderness.
...but Trump is getting a pass in the media.

Benghazi was "such a long time ago"
e-mails are just republican hogwash...
...but Trump is getting a pass

YGTBFSM
I need to find the fucking social kiosk where the rose colored glasses are being sold.

Agreed, the further up you go the political food chain, especially on the democrat (leftist/statist) side. The further removed from the law are individuals on average, hildabeast being exhibit A of this. At least nowadays that is the predominant situation, I do see lower level democrats get tossed under the bus for corruption but they're low-level and disposable. It is a damned frightening development as once upon a time, even a president had to step down because even he was not above the law........not anymore...
I don't doubt deep down it is why people are purchasing a means to defend themselves, historical precedent for these sorts of things are utterly terrifying to think possible here.
Let us hope, and at this point given the way things are going it appears to be the case. While the hildabeast is above the law, she is not above the vote.
It does appear Trump is going to defeat her and if he does this country has had a very narrow escape.

1. I am not off the mark, she openly stated a question,said in the negative sense in regards to 'what would have happened had scalia still been alive?' With the insinuation that whatever court judgement that would have been handed down would have been negatively impacted, according to her stated beliefs, by scalia's insistence on the proper and truthful application of the law.
Rather than using the law as a means of conducting a political advocacy such as her track record and stated views indicate. And a question stated such as that with the context associated with it makes it clear there is an element of relief, entirely innapropriate considering it was made in the context of Scalia's demise.

2. I havn't seen Trump change much of anything on his matters of policy, still wants to build a wall, still wants to do something intelligent about the deliberate importation of the ideology of hatred known as islam. Etc.
I havn't seen him change his views on those things.

3. his tax returns are nobodys business but his own. They have zero relevance to his ability to perform as president. Along with that he's had the courage to tell the media essentially that, with the result they stopped attempting to bully him into otherwise. They never gave him a pass, he told them to shut up as he well should have.

4. As for his ego, he's got reason to be proud of what he's done. Along with that I dont see the same narcissistic ego within him that I see non-stop in the current president. Trump comes off as your typical new-yorker, just the same as the one which lived across the street from me. Loud, brash, outspoken, etc.
Myself being from the south it does come off at first as ill-mannered but after time I understand that is how folks from those parts just are.

5. Nobody knows for certain what a given individual is going to do once they achieve public office. There are indications of what they believe and what they might generally do, but until they're there it is still a 'wait & see' situation.
Given Trumps track record of how he's stuck to his message despite the withering hammering he's taken for it. I tend to think he is far more a known quantity than people care to admit. The biggest tell-tale is the status-quo's reaction to him. Both from the leftists and on the republican side.
the panic from both speaks volumes about trump, none of it negative.

For chuckles I thought I'd kick up this necro-post... Which somehow seems fitting :rolleyes:



Darth is back in hospital..... here (Politico)

Personally I believe that she is a bitter clinger.

So I guess the "embalming process" didn't do the trick.......:D

...may she live for a thousand years under the power of the dark side of the force

At this point, she is a toothless annoyance.
Her replacement has become a post-election battle.

:munchin

My guess is that her form explodes into a thousand small bats the second the election results are declared.

or

We get another "4 Years at Bernie's"

1000 Years:
 

I think RBG was at the Battle of Hastings in 1066 ! she sure looks like it.

It’s amazing that she’s clung to life for as long as she has with all of her ongoing health issues. She’s a model of the “will to survive”, scared to the heavens that Trump will get another Conservative appointment to the SC. :D

I don't know if the USA can survive another "conservative" on the bench.

...maybe it's just my CYNIC-19 virus acting up again

Agreed...we're screwed if another Roberts gets on the court.

I'm so stealing the "CYNIC-19 virus".

You don't have to steal it - it is spread through community transmission.

The dark side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural.

Now coming out as a recurrence of cancer and Chemo....

A speedy recovery to the frail old woman - perhaps she should retire.
Then, imagine the Republican senate smashing a conservative replacement through the senate in the months prior to the election.

The country would burn for sure - even congress critters would be rioting !!!

BREAKING: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Has Cancer

RBG:
 

Prayers Out for her, looks like she approaching the EOL.

Suppose a member of the SCOTUS pass and because of the near-term election either POTUS or Congress doesn't allow a replacement.

There is a good chance that because of remote voting push that several players will instigate SCOTUS filings to block or un-block state ordered or POTUS executive order remote voting agendas.

I know SCOTUS only needs 6 to sit a quorum,, but would they? :confused:

I guess I'll lob out this softball now so as not to have to point out the hypocrisy of the arguments later. In February of the Bummer's last term a SC seat opened and the Republicans held it that way for the remainder of the year on the premise that the people should determine who picks the seat in the upcoming election. The Dims ( not the pres) were OK with that because they were confident HRC was going to win.

If a seat opens now with much less time available, having a R-Pres and a R majority, nothing would stop them from confirming a new Justice. Except integrity, morals and ethics. :D





LHC

We may see. The 'so-called' Biden (ironic ain't it?) rule isn't really a rule. Had the Democrats had the Senate do you think that Garland wouldn't have been pushed through? Then again, Garland is probably more of a conservative than Roberts. Comme ci, comme ça.

INTEGRITY-MORALS-ETHICS:
 

When did those characteristics come to congress ?

If The Donald gets the chance, he should absolutely stuff the court. I was just having some fun with the absurdity that public politics forces us to endure. Filling the courts is one of, if not the most, important things a president does.

However, I don't think the next pick will be as significant as the last two. Even if Sleepy Joe wins this fall, unless there is a landslide shift in the senate, he wont get a liberal confirmed. Even a moderate pick moves the court a little less left.




LHC