White House candidate Trump calls Justice Ginsburg mentally unfit

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: butcherguy

So ... from this point on, we can expect you to accept the New York Times as completely trustworthy?

Good gravy.

I made my point here yesterday.

The NYT in not a conservative mouthpiece. If they agree with Trump.....

Decide for yourself.
I don't care.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: butcherguy

So ... from this point on, we can expect you to accept the New York Times as completely trustworthy?

Good gravy.

I made my point here yesterday.

The NYT in not a conservative mouthpiece. If they agree with Trump.....

Decide for yourself.
I don't care.

You brought it up.

I was just logically following through.

Sheesh.

a reply to: Gryphon66
I pointed you to a logical conclusion.
Drink or parch.... I don't care.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Gryphon66
I pointed you to a logical conclusion.
Drink or parch.... I don't care.

LOL ... we'll have to agree I think on this issue that "logical" is a personal matter.

And Butch ... it's not necessary to state over and over that "you don't care." I get it. Petulance doesn't' really suit you.

a reply to: seagull

It made perfect sense mate.

Always good to see you input, Seagull.
You're very level headed.

a reply to: kaylaluv

stating one's political opinion when one's job has a code of conduct specifically stating that it is not allowed is kind of a big thing, even if she regrets it. Her position requires her to be above these kind of instances to maintain her credibilty, now that she has shown and shared her political opinion publicly, she opens her self up to have to recuse herself from any case involving Trump or a possible Trump adminstration, as she can no longer be reasonably though of as impartial.

The fact that lots of people agree with her comments Do not matter. The facts are the facts. If any justice said what she did about any candidate I would have the same opinion. It's not about her. If thomas came out tomorrow and said something similar about Hillary, I would have the very same opinion as I do about Ginsburg

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Gryphon66
I pointed you to a logical conclusion.
Drink or parch.... I don't care.

Petulance doesn't' really suit you.

Guess what?
I don't care.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Yeah. I agree. I don't see why so many people, especially after watching these crooks in action for the last 20 years (or more in some cases), actually believe that Trump is any different from any of the other crooks.

As someone who grew up in NYC, I KNOW that you don't build skyscrapers in that city without serious MOB connections. At least it was this way in the 90s and early 00s. And the fact that Trump is cozy with that bloated neocon, the gov of NJ is disturbing. Add to this the fact that he has discussed Rudy Giuliani as head of Homeland Security, when there are SERIOUS questions about his role in 9/11, and the BS about 'dancing Arab's, when anyone who has spent 10 minutes researching 9/11 KNOWS it was 'dancing Mossad Israeli agents' who later went on Israeli TV and STATED they were there to 'document the event'. I mean, geez. And his going onto Israeli TV to promote that war criminal, Netanyahu??? No, Trump is NOT going to save anyone. No more than Carter was, or Clinton, or Bush 1 or Bush 2 or Obama. They ALL LIE TO GET INTO OFFICE, and then ignore everything they said in the election. Don't get me started....

Now, in a case of 'lesser evils', Trump wins out by a large margin. But that's not the same thing. Irregardless, any SJC that spouts opinions about politicians running for office, should be impeached and removed from office. She has COMPLETELY destroyed any integrity the court has left, and it ain't much.

I'm personally disgusted with the people on this court. They are ALL globalists, most of them have publicly stated they don't think the US Constitution is a good document, and the way they have been removing our rights, along with the crooks in Congress, is just disgusting. In a just world, these crooks would all be in prison, for at the very least, violating the Logan Act.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Yeah. I agree. I don't see why so many people, especially after watching these crooks in action for the last 20 years (or more in some cases), actually believe that Trump is any different from any of the other crooks.

As someone who grew up in NYC, I KNOW that you don't build skyscrapers in that city without serious MOB connections. At least it was this way in the 90s and early 00s. And the fact that Trump is cozy with that bloated neocon, the gov of NJ is disturbing. Add to this the fact that he has discussed Rudy Giuliani as head of Homeland Security, when there are SERIOUS questions about his role in 9/11, and the BS about 'dancing Arab's, when anyone who has spent 10 minutes researching 9/11 KNOWS it was 'dancing Mossad Israeli agents' who later went on Israeli TV and STATED they were there to 'document the event'. I mean, geez. And his going onto Israeli TV to promote that war criminal, Netanyahu??? No, Trump is NOT going to save anyone. No more than Carter was, or Clinton, or Bush 1 or Bush 2 or Obama. They ALL LIE TO GET INTO OFFICE, and then ignore everything they said in the election. Don't get me started....

Now, in a case of 'lesser evils', Trump wins out by a large margin. But that's not the same thing. Irregardless, any SJC that spouts opinions about politicians running for office, should be impeached and removed from office. She has COMPLETELY destroyed any integrity the court has left, and it ain't much.

I'm personally disgusted with the people on this court. They are ALL globalists, most of them have publicly stated they don't think the US Constitution is a good document, and the way they have been removing our rights, along with the crooks in Congress, is just disgusting. In a just world, these crooks would all be in prison, for at the very least, violating the Logan Act.

a reply to: nomoredemsorreps

Irregardless, any SJC that spouts opinions about politicians running for office, should be impeached and removed from office. She has COMPLETELY destroyed any integrity the court has left, and it ain't much.

No she hasn't, she spoke her opinion which she is entitled to. Now if it was about a on going case they were deliberating yall would have a point.

a reply to: SM2

can you please provide us with the Code of Conduct for SCJs?

The memo or manual or scripture or law or whatever?

a reply to: StoutBroux

Why is it different than a church leader doing the same thing?

Did you hear how in Egypt now the Imams have to deliver the exact verbatim same sermon as every other Imam?

Yeah.

And anyway - even if she didn't give her opinion in pulic, that wouldn't change her opinion. You would be able to discern her opinion in the way she conducts herself regarding anything to do with him.

We should just staff the Supreme Court with robots. Then you can't bash people for having opinions. And I bet she's a way lot more smarter than you.

a reply to: StoutBroux

She regrets it because of all the triggered people who felt was she said was not pc.

a reply to: xuenchen

Yet another "tempest in a tea pot" from the Donald.
Is he not smart enough to recognize the difference between a personal opinion and a Supreme Court ruling.
I thought a candidate for the office of the President of the United States would be mature enough to take all this stuff in stride by now.
And the LAST thing she should have done is let him "bully" her into saying any more about it.
A person should say what they mean and mean what they say. If you can't, or won't stand by your words, don't speak them.
What has happened to the freedom of expression in this country ?

a reply to: tinymind

But what about the first strike by Ginsburg?

She isn't "mature" either so it seems.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: tinymind

But what about the first strike by Ginsburg?

She isn't "mature" either so it seems.

And who issued an apology?

Not Trump.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: tinymind

But what about the first strike by Ginsburg?

She isn't "mature" either so it seems.

If she stated her true opinion, that should be the end of it.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Sremmos80

The Supreme Court is supposed to be unbiased and impartial.
Since she showed bias, she is not fit to serve.

hmmm

As recently as election night, 2000, when NBC declared for Democratic candidate Al Gore, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor told the guests at an election party that the Democrat’s election victory was “terrible.”

(Of course, her criticism was a little premature, as we now know.)

She then went on to participate in making sure nothing so terrible would happen, casting the crucial fifth vote in Bush v. Gore without blinking an eye.

And other Justice bias stories here...

www.politico.com...

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.

These are more reasons she is unfit, and yes, all different occasions, look at differences:






The woman can't stay awake.

a reply to: StoutBroux

Oh please.

Why don't you guys just tell the truth, call her a liberal, and be honest that you'd love to get her off the Court.