Ruth Ginsberg's greatest wrongs?

Just wanting to know her worst legislating from the bench and anti anything we care about issues. Needed badly for an upcoming argument! I know she voted for partial birth abortion in Nebraska.

the supreme court has been our biggest ally for suppressing the democratic vote for years.......and people complain.......bob

Maybe spawning that new movie about her would rank right up there. The wife dragged me off to watch that one last week and at least I had popcorn. Thankfully I get to pick our next one.

Originally Posted by Windfall

Maybe spawning that new movie about her would rank right up there. The wife dragged me off to watch that one last week and at least I had popcorn. Thankfully I get to pick our next one.

Seriously?,....you went to see a movie about Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

mostly she supports killing infants. She hates American and the Constitution.

My wife asked me to go see that Freddy Mercury movie with her.

I gave her my "You gotta be fuggin' kiddin'" look.

IIRC, she is quoted as saying that the South Africe constitution was much better than ours in every way possible.

Originally Posted by Bristoe

Originally Posted by Windfall

Maybe spawning that new movie about her would rank right up there. The wife dragged me off to watch that one last week and at least I had popcorn. Thankfully I get to pick our next one.

Seriously?,....you went to see a movie about Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

Said it a couple of weeks ago they had one coming out.
So give us a snapshot of it Windfall.

Was she fighting nazi,s and schitt as a youngster?
Making wild DP DVP DAP ATM home movies?

Or was it some Hollywood fantasy SJW chyt.

1) Advocating for changes to 18 USC S2032 that would lower the nationalized age of consent to 12 years of age. (Pedophilia anyone ?)

2) Advocating for the de-criminalization of prostitution, including repeal of the Mann Act to de-criminalize transporting women across state boundaries for the purpose of prostitution.

3) Advocating co-ed prisons because sexual segregation of the penal system does not allow women to take advantage of the training facilities available in male prisons.

Citation: "SEX BIAS IN THE U.S. CODE - A Report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights - April 1977" Authored by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Brenda Feigen-Fastau. Pages 102, 98-99, and 100, respectively...

Your tax dollars at work...

Originally Posted by Windfall

Maybe spawning that new movie about her would rank right up there. The wife dragged me off to watch that one last week and at least I had popcorn. Thankfully I get to pick our next one.

She must be drop dead gorgeous.

She publicly slurred our president. One thing a federal judge absolutely should not be is political.

Originally Posted by deltakid

IIRC, she is quoted as saying that the South Africe constitution was much better than ours in every way possible.

Watched her say that very thing in an interview...

Originally Posted by 280shooter

Originally Posted by Windfall

Maybe spawning that new movie about her would rank right up there. The wife dragged me off to watch that one last week and at least I had popcorn. Thankfully I get to pick our next one.

She must be drop dead gorgeous.

Doesn't matter.

I'd schedule a root canal to get out of watching a movie about Ginsburg.

But it's easier to just say, "You're outta your fuggin' mind. I ain't gonna spend money to go see some propaganda spew about some puckered up old Commie!"

Originally Posted by gregintenn

She publicly slurred our president. One thing a federal judge absolutely should not be is political.

+1

So advocating for lowering age of consent, advocating for allowing hookers to be bused out of state, publicly slurring Trump, liking another countries constitution, and voting for partial birth abortions? I can't go there with this.

Originally Posted by rickt300

So advocating for lowering age of consent, advocating for allowing hookers to be bused out of state, publicly slurring Trump, liking another countries constitution, and voting for partial birth abortions? I can't go there with this.

Why not?

There is a bright spot in the future.........

[Linked Image]

Can we hope?

The old cuhnt seems to think that South Africa's constitution is superior to ours. Of course when you consider what's happening in SA these days, it fits perfectly with her desire to destroy America's foundations.

Because all of this means little to leftist scum. In my opinion her greatest crime was in helping strike down Nebraska's partial birth abortion ban.

OK went with it. We shall see if the lefty trolls defend her.

Breathing

Originally Posted by jaguartx

Breathing

LMAO!

She's going to get something right here soon.

May have already been mentioned but don't forget her vote on Obama Care.

I'd say her Marxist tendencies are a big problem for a Justice in the free world.

Welp, if you have a D after your last name, her biggest mistake was not resigning when Obama was president. Her narcissistic self was sure she would cement her legacy by retiring when HRC was president. Now she's gonna have to be carried out of there ruby slippers first; something that will likely happen very soon. (As an aside, she's in my 2019 dead pool.) You don't have "broken ribs", lung cancer nodules removed, and survive pneumonia and then survive cancer treatment when you're an octogenarian. Gotta say though; she's a tough old bird.

So, she will soon gift us with (hopefully) another conservative justice! The libs will lose their minds when that happens.

sds

sdfg

Not retiring early to enjoy family more.

You guys crack me up. So far her greatest wrongs are she does not agree with you.

Originally Posted by nighthawk

You guys crack me up. So far her greatest wrongs are she does not agree with you.

Good news is "Not for long!!"

Dunno, that's one tough old bird. May hang around just to spite you guys if she ever reads the Campfire.

(For the record I'm not a fan though I do respect her intellect. Pretty much Scalia's point of view.)

Originally Posted by nighthawk

Dunno, that's one tough old bird. May hang around just to spite you guys if she ever reads the Campfire.

(For the record I'm not a fan though I do respect her intellect. Pretty much Scalia's point of view.)

An intellect used for evil purposes deserves no respect. WTF is wrong with you?

BS

Originally Posted by irfubar

An intellect used for evil purposes deserves no respect. WTF is wrong with you?

Now given her point of view she could say the same thing about Scalia. Which makes this and the other thread entertaining.

Originally Posted by 12344mag

There is a bright spot in the future.........

[Linked Image]

We do have that going for us...

Originally Posted by nighthawk

You guys crack me up. So far her greatest wrongs are she does not agree with you.

So, citing the South African Constitution as superior to the one she is sworn to uphold... despite the minor issues like taking all of the land from whites, or requiring businesses be largely black-owned even if it means taking property completely built by whites... does not show a serious race-based contradiction?

And you can reduce that to just disagreeing with her? That fundamental lapse is okay with you?

From a pro left rag but your talking points are easy to see.

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/ruth-bader-ginsburg-supreme-court-rulings-to-know-about/amp

Originally Posted by Sitka deer

So, citing the South African Constitution as superior...

Superior in what sense? The Soviet constitution guaranteed more personal rights than ours and superior in that sense but we don't ignore our constitution. Also ours is poorly written in the sense it is ambiguous as hell with all the compromising in getting it to pass. Why Ruth has her job. Superior maybe but preferable to live under? No.

Her greatest wrong: Applying her views, opinions, and SJW beliefs to the COTUS and legislating from the bench.

Look, I can see why Ruth has trouble with our constitution. I see her gripes. There are a few rough edges in it, and there are things that got put in the South African constitution that build and improve on the verbiage of ours.

If memory serves me, the biggest problems from a contemporary view are

1) A lot of things that ended up being amendments should have been in the main body of the document
2) Everything about slavery and voting rights, and who constitutes a citizen need to be reworked.
3) The 2A is far too open to interpretation

I'm sure there is a much bigger, more inclusive list out there. I don't disagree with those faults. HOWEVER. . .

The problem with tinkering with our constitution is that once you get in there and start debating it, the debaters themselves become the problem. The Founding Fathers were uniquely blessed individuals. They had their faults, but they did a bang-up job. The trailer trash that would desire to rewrite the document are petty political hacks.

Compromise? What would you give up to keep the 2nd Amendment? What happens if the 1A gets rewritten to define Hate Speech? How are you going to defend the Electoral College?

Right now, we've got our political version of King James Bible. There are scholars on all sides that want to do this and that to it-- spruce it up, do some quick editing and produce a Revised Standard Edition. Waiting in the wings are a bunch of editorial jackals that want to write in verses that has Jesus mary Mary, make bestiality okay, and turn the Trinity into the Holy Trio. What possible reason would we have for licensing that charade?

Ruth? Inviting RBG to sit on the Supreme Court made about as much sense as asking Leon Trotsky to be the Chairman of the Better Business Bureau. I won't say she was the worst appointment ever made, but she's right up there. To be the absolute worst, she'd have to top being either a schizophrenic or a drug addict. Yes, kiddies, we have had worse.

Originally Posted by shaman

Look, I can see why Ruth has trouble with our constitution. I see her gripes. There are a few rough edges in it, and there are things that got put in the South African constitution that build and improve on the verbiage of ours.

If memory serves me, the biggest problems from a contemporary view are

1) A lot of things that ended up being amendments should have been in the main body of the document
2) Everything about slavery and voting rights, and who constitutes a citizen need to be reworked.
3) The 2A is far too open to interpretation

I'm sure there is a much bigger, more inclusive list out there. I don't disagree with those faults. HOWEVER. . .

The problem with tinkering with our constitution is that once you get in there and start debating it, the debaters themselves become the problem. The Founding Fathers were uniquely blessed individuals. They had their faults, but they did a bang-up job. The trailer trash that would desire to rewrite the document are petty political hacks.

Compromise? What would you give up to keep the 2nd Amendment? What happens if the 1A gets rewritten to define Hate Speech? How are you going to defend the Electoral College?

Right now, we've got our political version of King James Bible. There are scholars on all sides that want to do this and that to it-- spruce it up, do some quick editing and produce a Revised Standard Edition. Waiting in the wings are a bunch of editorial jackals that want to write in verses that has Jesus mary Mary, make bestiality okay, and turn the Trinity into the Holy Trio. What possible reason would we have for licensing that charade?

Ruth? Inviting RBG to sit on the Supreme Court made about as much sense as asking Leon Trotsky to be the Chairman of the Better Business Bureau. I won't say she was the worst appointment ever made, but she's right up there. To be the absolute worst, she'd have to top being either a schizophrenic or a drug addict. Yes, kiddies, we have had worse.

"Shall not be infringed" is fairly well written and not open to interpretation. It is, however, open to being ingnored.

Quote

"Shall not be infringed" is fairly well written and not open to interpretation. It is, however, open to being ingnored.

Remember, I'm with you in this. However, my conversion came as an adult. I was 23 before I really thought about the 2nd Amendment. In my one American Government class, the prof blew off the 2A by saying:" This just guarantees the states the right to have a state militia-- the National Guard."

The 2nd Amendment is only flawed in that the meanings of words have somewhat changed over time. Today, we think of "militia" as a state-run thing. Back then, it was different.

Virginia's BIll of Rights actually defines it better:

Quote

13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Sam Adams wrote this in the original Constitution of Massachusets

Quote

Article XVII.
The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

Back in the 1780's, it was basically understood that private ownership of arms was a basic right. The confusion came later.

Originally Posted by nighthawk

You guys crack me up. So far her greatest wrongs are she does not agree with you.

laughing, so that means you agree with her, and not us?

Apparently none of you dumb schits know why you oppose Ginsburg.

JFC.

Bill Clinton nominated her because of her radical beliefs. She refused to give the judiciary committee even a "peek" of her beliefs. She was a radical board member of the civil liberties union and has never been shy about her radical agenda. Apparently Scalia was friends with her but in my eyes it doesn't qualify her to be a justice. She, like all other liberals, doesn't believe in the constitution ad it was written. They believe they are duty bound to rewrite it to their own liking and therein lies the rub. They all should be removed.

The problem with both Bush's and Reagan nominating people that will 'keep the balance" is playing Russian Roulette with our constitution. The same reasoning applies to those that keep re-electing nefarious politicians to office from their home states that either work openly or behind the scenes to codify the radical liberal agenda. Sooner or later you're going to end up getting burnt.

We need to purge the court of the liberals including Chief Justice Roberts and replace them with people willing and able to unabashedly rule on the actual merits of the original document.

Originally Posted by nighthawk

You guys crack me up. So far her greatest wrongs are she does not agree with you.

No. Her greatest wrongs are not upholding the constitution she swore to uphold. Disagreeing with me is often fruitful. I'm wrong a lot. The constitution is not.

Okay, here's a (partial) list:

Abortion - She advocates liberal abortion laws in general, and has supported court rulings in favor of partial birth abortions

Sexual Discrimination - She supported the court ruling against VMI's male only enrollment policy

Affirmative Action - She has supported court rulings to maintain affirmative action admission policies in public universities

International Law - She has advocated the use of foreign law and norms to shape U.S. law

Originally Posted by 280shooter

Originally Posted by Windfall

Maybe spawning that new movie about her would rank right up there. The wife dragged me off to watch that one last week and at least I had popcorn. Thankfully I get to pick our next one.

She must be drop dead gorgeous.

When young I wouldn't call her movie star gorgeous but she wasn't homely.
[Linked Image]

Originally Posted by Beoceorl

International Law - She has advocated the use of foreign law and norms to shape U.S. law

This is her biggest transgression as far as I'm concerned. Basically, once you assume that foreign law and foreign jurists have a valid say in American consitutional law it opens up the door to anything. If you don't like what the Constitution says, just shop around for a law, an opinion, a decision you like and use that as justification.

Bestiality? Sure bring it on! The high court of Lower Slobivia finds this is a basic human right.

Confiscation of Property based on Party Affiliation: Great stuff! Idi Amin's Supreme Court upheld that right of the state in a landmark 1971 decision.

I believe in original intent. Figure out what the original intent and meaning of the law is and rule on the basis of that. Don't try to make the Constitution a "living document." This is a highway to hell.

Only one thing worse than a Communist on the SCOTUS,...a female Communist.

Originally Posted by nighthawk

Originally Posted by Sitka deer

So, citing the South African Constitution as superior...

Superior in what sense? The Soviet constitution guaranteed more personal rights than ours and superior in that sense but we don't ignore our constitution. Also ours is poorly written in the sense it is ambiguous as hell with all the compromising in getting it to pass. Why Ruth has her job. Superior maybe but preferable to live under? No.

How about superior in what it says versus one allowing total reallocation of personal and private property based only on race. Ours may be vague, but that is mostly due to bad intent on the part of would-be manipulators.

The concept suggesting livibility of the Constitution is not every bit as important as its mandate is laughable.

"She's a tough old bird"

She will probably have to be cremated twice as long as the average witch errr person

Bill

Originally Posted by nighthawk

Originally Posted by irfubar

An intellect used for evil purposes deserves no respect. WTF is wrong with you?

Now given her point of view she could say the same thing about Scalia.

If you are a nihilist.

She does not believe in the human right of freedom of association.

Oh, I can just hear your marxist "acquaintances" now shrieking "DATS RACISS!!!"

She is breathing and by extension contributes to global warming.

Just as I thought, tearing babies apart as they are being born didn't phase them. How can people be so cold?

Come on guys, I never said that I went off to that RBG movie willingly. Any one of us here would sit on a cold deer stand watching an empty woods for hours on end and you wouldn't appease the wife for an hour and a half from a soft seat with popcorn? I sure as heck wasn't about to let her go by herself. I'm not ever going to let this one get away and will avoid a Gail warning at all cost. Maybe I just put a higher priority of getting laid once in a while than some of you do.

The movie "On The Basis of Sex" was mostly about her being one of the first females admitted into Harvard Law School and her struggles in a man's world getting a decent paying job even though she was head of her class at Harvard and Columbia. Putting her cancer stricken husband through law school as well as herself while raising two kids. Then her break out case defending a bachelor taking care of his sick mother in Colorado because he was discriminated against in tax court because he was never married and a man. Nothing at all about being on the Supreme Court. A woman's rights movie for sure, but you might score some points with the wife. And about that scoring part...

This is perhaps her greatest sin, and it should matter to everyone on this forum.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Court/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg_Gun_Control.htm

Originally Posted by Windfall

The movie "On The Basis of Sex" was mostly about her being one of the first females admitted into Harvard Law School

I guess real life shows what a mistake that was!

Originally Posted by Mannlicher

Originally Posted by nighthawk

You guys crack me up. So far her greatest wrongs are she does not agree with you.

laughing, so that means you agree with her, and not us?

Actually whether I agree with her or not is irrelevant, it's the quality of her argument. Let the more persuasive side win. (Though her ideological view influences her method of interpretation and analytical premises which often makes her argument flawed IMHO.

Originally Posted by PaulBarnard

This is perhaps her greatest sin, and it should matter to everyone on this forum.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Court/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg_Gun_Control.htm

They pervert the Commerce Clause as badly as they screw the General Welfare Clause!