White House candidate Trump calls Justice Ginsburg mentally unfit

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: butcherguy

Ginsburg must have seen this poll.

White House Watch: Trump 44%, Clinton 37%

Rasmussen is the ONLY national poll that has shown Trump ahead at any point in the last year.

In fact, with a few minor exceptions, they show that in every poll. EVERY poll they're the ONLY one.

Real Clear Politics - Trump v. Clinton

RCP summarizes the majority of the national polls. Which still show Clinton in the lead, as she has been in the lead for the last year.

Apropos of nothing, as polling is not electing ... them's the facts.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Thursday she regrets the critical comments she made about presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, after facing a bipartisan backlash.

“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,” she said in a statement.

She only regrets making the statements because of the backlash, not because she realizes it was unethical.
Her statement changes nothing - she can not be trusted to make any decisions regarding election or Trump administration issues.

source

originally posted by: neo96

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she regrets her "ill-advised" public criticism of Donald Trump

Ginsburg says in a statement issued by the court on Thursday that judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. She promises to be more circumspect in the future.

hosted.ap.org...

Rich coming from her.

She used to old trick of doing the damage first, then cast the illusion of being "sorry".

Sounds familiar.

a reply to: xuenchen

Well, at least she apologized - unlike Scalia, who never apologized for any of the inappropriate statements he made.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Why bring Scalia into this? this thread is about Ginsburg and her unethical comments and behavior, just because some one else may or may not have done something similar doesnt factor in. If you want to discuss the behavior of Scalia, then make a thread on it. Scalia doing it (or not doing it) is irrelevant to this discussion.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: AboveBoard

She was within her rights to say whatever the heck she wanted about him, about Hillary, about social issues, politics, etc. No one expects SC judges to have no philosophy or political leaning - duh - that's why we call them "liberal" or "conservative" or whatever.

Exactly. You typed out what I was thinking and meant to do but forgot while I was typing it out....

Of course they have their own philosophy and political leaning. But the second she stepped in front of a microphone with undivided attention, campaigning for Hillary and against Trump, she was guilty of breaking ethical codes. SC judges campaigning in elections are a no-no.

And oh lookie here. She now 'regrets' saying what she said and now says this:

"Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office"

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: xuenchen

Well, at least she apologized - unlike Scalia, who never apologized for any of the inappropriate statements he made.

But her "apology" was planned in advance.

And I have serious doubts she really meant it.

She has been a lop-sided idealist all her life I suspect.

At least Scalia was a straight shooter and didn't try to cover up his own words.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: xuenchen

Well, at least she apologized - unlike Scalia, who never apologized for any of the inappropriate statements he made.

Where exactly did Ginsburg apoligize?

Saying you regret doing something is not the same as apologizing.
She just regrets the backlash.

a reply to: SM2

Of course it's appropriate. Scalia said many inappropriate things and got away with it - he was never officially reprimanded, he was never impeached, and he never publicly expressed regret. So, precedent tells us it should be the same with Ginsburg, or it's discrimination against her because she's a woman/Jew/liberal.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Preach.

Ginsburg didn't need to apologize. She stated facts.

The absurdity here is the trend on the right to think that a person can be declared "unfit" because of some arbitrary behavior or action.

Some folks are living in a bubble of their own grandiosity.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: xuenchen

Well, at least she apologized - unlike Scalia, who never apologized for any of the inappropriate statements he made.

But her "apology" was planned in advance.

And I have serious doubts she really meant it.

She has been a lop-sided idealist all her life I suspect.

At least Scalia was a straight shooter and didn't try to cover up his own words.

Thanks for stating that Scalia's comments made continuously over his career are of exactly the same politically incorrect nature as a few off-handed remarks made by Ginsburg in a few interviews (which are all factually correct.)

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: SM2

Of course it's appropriate. Scalia said many inappropriate things and got away with it - he was never officially reprimanded, he was never impeached, and he never publicly expressed regret. So, precedent tells us it should be the same with Ginsburg, or it's discrimination against her because she's a woman/Jew/liberal.

The fact that Scalia and other justices have said inappropriate things does not matter. If anything it is a failure on the left to not challenge him on it. I would have supported that. No justice should do what she did. Furthermore, inappropriate does not describe what she did. Inappropriate is sleeping during a state of the union, actively endorsing and essentially campaigning for a candidate goes beyond inappropriate and straight into unethical....can't you read? I have posted the Code of Conduct.

Are you attacking Scalia because of your racial bias against Italian male conservatives?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: xuenchen

Well, at least she apologized - unlike Scalia, who never apologized for any of the inappropriate statements he made.

But her "apology" was planned in advance.

And I have serious doubts she really meant it.

She has been a lop-sided idealist all her life I suspect.

At least Scalia was a straight shooter and didn't try to cover up his own words.

Thanks for stating that Scalia's comments made continuously over his career are of exactly the same politically incorrect nature as a few off-handed remarks made by Ginsburg in a few interviews (which are all factually correct.)

Show me where any other Justice has ever endorsed a Presidential candidate and opposed another during an election cycle.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Ginsburg didn't need to apologize. She stated facts.

The absurdity here is the trend on the right to think that a person can be declared "unfit" because of some arbitrary behavior or action.

Some folks are living in a bubble of their own grandiosity.

What "facts" did she state ?

originally posted by: SM2

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Ginsburg didn't need to apologize. She stated facts.

The absurdity here is the trend on the right to think that a person can be declared "unfit" because of some arbitrary behavior or action.

Some folks are living in a bubble of their own grandiosity.

What "facts" did she state ?

I've posted her comments above.

Seems self-evident.

originally posted by: SM2

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: xuenchen

Well, at least she apologized - unlike Scalia, who never apologized for any of the inappropriate statements he made.

But her "apology" was planned in advance.

And I have serious doubts she really meant it.

She has been a lop-sided idealist all her life I suspect.

At least Scalia was a straight shooter and didn't try to cover up his own words.

Thanks for stating that Scalia's comments made continuously over his career are of exactly the same politically incorrect nature as a few off-handed remarks made by Ginsburg in a few interviews (which are all factually correct.)

Show me where any other Justice has ever endorsed a Presidential candidate and opposed another during an election cycle.

Have I made that claim? Nope. We're talking about the political orientations of SC Justices and how that affects their "fitness." I feel no compunction to defend something I haven't said.

But, just as an aside ... are you claiming that Ginsburg endorsed someone for President?

a reply to: Gryphon66

well seeing as though she said " The next president, whoever SHE may be" well, there is only one woman running for president. So theres no mystery as to whom she was speaking. Then she went on to voice her opinion of Trump. Not facts, opinion

originally posted by: SM2
a reply to: Gryphon66

well seeing as though she said " The next president, whoever SHE may be" well, there is only one woman running for president. So theres no mystery as to whom she was speaking. Then she went on to voice her opinion of Trump. Not facts, opinion

Allow me to introduce you to Jill Stein, Green Party Candidate for President

a reply to: SM2

Oh boy, are you stretching it. Speaking one's personal opinion is not campaigning. She was asked her opinion and she told it. She now regrets that - not her opinion, just saying it in public.

Who's attacking Scalia? Not me. I never called for his resignation or impeachment, nor have I called him any names, nor have I made fun of him - his drinking or eating habits, nor his looks.