It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

White House candidate Trump calls Justice Ginsburg mentally unfit

page: 10
28
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So, I guess all of you who are wailing that the Supreme Court should be free of politics are also pressuring your Senators to confirm President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the bench ...

... right?

Nominations are political, as well as the process of confirming them.


So ... politics is okay ... when the Right approves of it ... wrong if not?

Did someone mention double standards before?
I feel that you are being disingenuous again.
You think that Judges and Justices should actively support/voice disapproval of political candidates?




posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

You have never struck me as being partisan in your politics, Seagull.

Did you see her actual comments above? If there is any expressed bias it's very light.

Certainly (and the comparisons are valid) not as extremely politically oriented as many of Scalia's public statements.

I'd just like to see the same standards of righteous indignation universally applied by my friends on the Right.
edit on 13-7-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So, I guess all of you who are wailing that the Supreme Court should be free of politics are also pressuring your Senators to confirm President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the bench ...

... right?

Nominations are political, as well as the process of confirming them.


So ... politics is okay ... when the Right approves of it ... wrong if not?

Did someone mention double standards before?
I feel that you are being disingenuous again.
You think that Judges and Justices should actively support/voice disapproval of political candidates?


Your opinions of me are not relevant. Let's stick to the facts of the matter, shall we?

Justice Bader-Ginsburg stated an opinion to the press, arguably political, arguably factual. Former Justices have done the same thing. They are human beings, and for anyone to pretend that the Supreme Court is or has been free of partisan politics is laughable.

That said, since you ask for my personal opinion, Justices have ideas, perceptions, points-of-view. They are not robots, they are not required to be unemotional, or somehow disconnected from reality. I just think some of you are reaching maximum hypocrisy in this ... and you don't even know it.

Since you asked.



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Depending upon the issue. Sometimes I'm left of Jane Fonda, on others, let's just say I could give Rush lessons.

But generally, no I try not to be too partisan. But I have my moments unfortunately. On this one though...I'm kinda wishy-washy.

She has the right to say what's on her mind--however, I don't necessarily think it was wise of her to voice it. Her position in life demands nothing less then lily-white cleanliness as regards accusations of bias, or it should.

If there was any bias it was very light, and the comparison with Scalia's is very appropriate. On that we agree. If he's allowed, was allowed, then so too is she. Scalia was widely panned for many of his opinions, so it's unsurprising that so too will Ginsberg be.

Politics of destruction are the weapon of choice on both sides. I, personally, would rather both sides STFU, and make up their own minds on topics.



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: BlueAjah

Article 12.



People have slips of the tongue.

Just like how your (presumed) messiah has been to all "57 states"



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Someone show me in Article III the part that says Justices can't have opinions?

Thanks.



Right after you show me that wanting to build a wall makes Trump "unqualified" to be President as SelloutSanders has so eloquently put it.



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Stormdancer777

Thats a drunk activity... when laying on the floor. Many assume its plebian but... if youre an intellectual youll even read the toilet manufacturer and on many public toilets? Youll read clearly: Pleb... I may have spelled it wrong cause I havent looked down at anyone in awhile much less gave concideration the bias of opinion left to pickle.

note bias requires a number called 2, isnt that some sh-t?


edit and note: American Standard Plebe. If youve only heard it then how would you know how to spell it?
edit on 13-7-2016 by BigBrotherDarkness because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
this thread is very amusing

seeing the way trump deals with criticism is not



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
A judge, let alone a supreme court judge is supposed to set their views and opinions aside and rule solely based upon the law. If anyone were to be in court and before the trial, the judge looked at you and said "I hate your guts"...it would be an immediate mistrial. Considering Trump will be in office for at least four years, her mistrial would last at least that long. She is therefore useless to the court and should be replaced with someone who can actually do the job. She can not.

It is really a simple thing.



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Oh, I don't think it was "wise" of her to say it at all. I was shocked when I saw it. I'm of the mind that she knows exactly what she's doing, she knows that she probably stepped outside the boundary of tradition by doing this, because, evidently she feels strongly enough about the negative characteristics of Mr. Trump that it's worth it to her to cast a bit of pall on her "legacy."

As well, she and Scalia were good friends. Perhaps she finally spoke her mind on a political subject (as he did so many times) out of respect for him.

Who knows?

Here's the gut-level truth from me ... we are never going to start healing the divide in this country unless we get real and come down off of the ideological perches we've been provided with.

That, and, I know that our friends here that are more aligned with the right-wing are hoping and praying that their pick for President gets to name 3 or 4 conservative (arch-conservative) Justices ... so all this rings not just a bit hollow with me.

Decent article for those who aren't married to a politically ideological position on this: newrepublic.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">New Republic
edit on 13-7-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Did you see Justice Bader-Ginsburg's actual comments listed above?

Which do you find makes her "unfit" to be on the Court in your opinion?

Try to be precise.



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Personally, I'd rather they didn't. But there's nothing intrinsically wrong with doing so.

It does seem to me, though, that doing so does lend itself to future possible accusations of bias. I seem to recall Justice Sotomayer running into exactly that issue almost straight out of the box...

Oh, my cat says hello...



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
I wonder how some in this thread would feel if one of the Supreme Court Justices came out publicly condemning Hillary, saying that she is incompetent or should have been indicted.

What would you be saying then?



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: chuck258

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Someone show me in Article III the part that says Justices can't have opinions?

Thanks.



Right after you show me that wanting to build a wall makes Trump "unqualified" to be President as SelloutSanders has so eloquently put it.


I'll take a stab. It won't ever be built, if it ever were it won't do what is is supposed to do, and it's just a ploy to bait racist bigots to pledge allegiance to him ?



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
I wonder how some in this thread would feel if one of the Supreme Court Justices came out publicly condemning Hillary, saying that she is incompetent or should have been indicted.

What would you be saying then?


she is extremely qualified, but should have been indicted, so I would say the judges were 1 for 2



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66





Your opinions of me are not relevant


Well now if opinions are irrelevant.

That means Ginsburg opinions are irrelevant.



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: syrinx high priest

You might want to look up the "Secure Fence Act of 2006".
Our borders were supposed be secured a long time ago.
It's about time someone actually follows that law and gets it done.



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: nwtrucker

She was doing an interview and was speaking for herself not the supreme court. She's allowed to have an opinion of her own. There is nothing illegal about voicing her opinion about something.

Amazing how you expect such high standards of diplomacy from every other person out there but you allow Trump to say any god damn slanderous and hateful thing that comes to his feeble little mind regardless of it even being true or not.



Whether you, or me, or her like it or not, her name is tied to the U.S. Supreme Court. What she did was ethically wrong, and possibly dilutes her ability to judge cases dealing at all with Trump in a fair light. You are so stuck on "she's allowed to have an opinion of her own" that you fail to recognize the scope of what you are saying. What if a hypothetical President, in an interview with some organization went on live to say "I probably wouldn't marry outside my race". Would you be so stuck on "Hypothetical President is allowed to have an opinion of their own" then? I think you would have an aneurysm 30 seconds after hearing it, as would a good chunk of the country. From then on out, he would be labelled a racist, and any thing he does, big or small dealing with say, interracial relationships would be scorned.

This is no different. The problem here is, Badger may very well deal with Trump in a hypothetical future court case, whether it has to be with an executive order he may potentially pass, Trump university, etc. - she has shown that she has contempt for Donald Trump, and it heavily pollutes the judicial waters.



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
I wonder how some in this thread would feel if one of the Supreme Court Justices came out publicly condemning Hillary, saying that she is incompetent or should have been indicted.

What would you be saying then?


That would have been Justice Scalia.

It would depend on what he said. If it were as factual as what Bader Ginsburg said, I probably wouldn't mind.

Are you REALLY contesting that you see no political motivations on the SCOTUS? Are you REALLY trying to stake out the claim that you don't hope your President Trump nominates 3 or 4 radically conservative Justices?

I'd like to see you say that.



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Thats quite the assumption that he will be president before the election has even occured thats called wishful thinking at the moment on your part.

She has only stated she has a bias towards him and his opinions. Why should she step down if she doesnt have to judge him in the united states supreme court? If he were to go before it... then her opinion could be questioned.

As of now shes basically saying she does not endorse him as a candidate, and has said why.




top topics



 
28
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join