Read how this leftist lying bitch, arrogant piece of ****

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Read how this leftist lying bitch, arrogant piece of shit breaks her sworn oath and gets by with it.. --Tyr


http://theweek.com/speedreads/635108/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-reveals-case-shed-most-like-overturned



Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reveals the case she'd most like to see overturned
1:36 a.m. ET

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

In a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg prodded the Senate to act on President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, discussed moving to New Zealand if Donald Trump is elected, and revealed the case she'd most like to see overturned.

With the court deadlocked four times since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Ginsburg said the Senate needs to move forward with confirming a nominee and assess the qualifications of Obama's pick, Judge Merrick Garland. "There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year," she said. Ginsburg called Garland "super bright and very nice, very easy to deal with, and super prepared," and said she believes he's "about as well qualified as any nominee to this court." She also shared that while it "won't happen," she'd love to see Citizens United overruled, but that's an "impossible dream."

As long as she can "do it full steam," Ginsburg, 83, has no plans to retire, and said under the circumstances, Chief Justice John Roberts has had a "hard job" that she thinks he's done "quite well." If Trump becomes president, she "can't imagine" what the United States would be like. "For the country, it could be four years," she said. "For the court, it could be — I don't even want to contemplate that." Her late husband, Martin Ginsburg, wouldn't want to think about it either, she told the Times, adding that he would have said, "'Now it's time for us to move to New Zealand.'" Catherine Garcia

This is the type of leftist, treasonous vermin infesting the highest court in the land.
A person truly fit for dog-food only in my opinion.. a true maggot...
Openly breaks her sworn oath and gets praised for doing so.. yes we as a nation have sank this damn low....
What a sorry, piece of shit....
Her , Kagan and the Sotoscum, NOT A DAMN ONE OF THEM DESERVES THE POSITION THAT THEY HAVE--NOT A DAMN ONE OF THEM
ANYBODY THAT THINKS THEY DO IS EITHER BLIND, STUPID OR CRAZY IMHO..
ALL THREE ARE DEM/LEFTIST PARTISAN/ACTIVIST HACKS ,GIVEN POSITION TO ADVANCE A POLITICAL AGENDA NOT TO SERVE AS A TRUE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE. .....

NOT A ONE OF THEM HAS EVEN A SHRED OF HONOR....-Tyr

[Elessar]

She can move to New Zealand for all I care.

Why is it liberals constantly threaten to move if they don't get their way?

We did not see a mass exodus of Hollywood liberals when GWB was
sworn in. Yet they threatened to do so. None of them are important to me.
Who do they think they are impressing?

[Gunny]

She can move to New Zealand for all I care.

Why is it liberals constantly threaten to move if they don't get their way?

We did not see a mass exodus of Hollywood liberals when GWB was
sworn in. Yet they threatened to do so. None of them are important to me.
Who do they think they are impressing?

If she'd quit, there'd be no deadlock.

[Black Diamond]

If she'd quit, there'd be no deadlock.

True but there's still Roberts and Kennedy.

[jimnyc]

In bashing Donald Trump, some say Ruth Bader Ginsburg just crossed a very important line

It's a political cliche at this point to joke about moving to another country if a certain presidential candidate doesn't win. Gobs of Americans were headed to Canada if George W. Bush was reelected in 2004. A similar contingent threatened to flood across our northern border when Barack Obama was elected and reelected.

Generally, though, you don't hear a Supreme Court justice talking like this. In fact, you generally don't hear a Supreme Court justice talking at all — much less about the big political issues of the day.

Most justices aren't Ruth Bader Ginsburg, though. And in a new New York Times interview, Ginsburg doesn't hold a thing back when it comes to the 2016 election.

“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” Ginsburg told the Times' Adam Liptak. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

Ginsburg also recalled something her late husband said about such matters: "Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand."

This appears to be a joke, but Ginsburg's sentiment here is crystal clear: She thinks Donald Trump would be a dangerous president. And in saying it, she goes to a place justices almost never do — and perhaps never have — for some very good reasons.

Ginsburg is known for pushing the bounds of a justice's public comments and has earned something of a cult following on the left. But some say she just went too far.

"I find it baffling actually that she says these things," said Arthur Hellman, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh. "She must know that she shouldn’t be. However tempted she might be, she shouldn’t be doing it."

Similarly, Howard Wolfson, a former top aide to Hillary Clinton and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, said Ginsburg shouldn't have said it.

Others wondered what impact this might have on Ginsburg's decision to hear cases involving Trump.

And that's really a key reason justices don't talk like Ginsburg did. Sometimes they have to hear cases involving political issues and people. Having offered their unprompted opinions about such things can lead to questions about prejudice and potential recusal from future cases.

As Greenfield notes, Ginsburg was a part of the court that decided who the president was when the 2000 election was thrown to the Supreme Court, so this isn't uncharted territory. Had she said something similar about either Bush or Al Gore, would she have been able to hear the case?

Rest here - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/11/in-bashing-donald-trump-some-say-ruth-bader-ginsburg-just-crossed-a-very-important-line/

[Black Diamond]

Amazing Wolfson spoke out against her. How long before he ends up in the weeds?

Ginsburg is at the end of her life due to health reasons and had nothing to lose. But this was unethical nonetheless. She's an extension of the Clintons and clearly has no conscience.

[jimnyc]

Amazing Wolfson spoke out against her. How long before he ends up in the weeds?

Ginsburg is at the end of her life due to health reasons and had nothing to lose. But this was unethical nonetheless. She's an extension of the Clintons and clearly has no conscience.

I wonder what in fact would happen if something involving Trump did reach the SC. Would she recuse herself? And if not, what higher court would anyone have? She should resign after embarrassing the court.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I wonder what in fact would happen if something involving Trump did reach the SC. Would she recuse herself? And if not, what higher court would anyone have? She should resign after embarrassing the court.

Check this out--more proof that the leftist/socialist dem vermin think that they are above the law and any sworn oath they ever take..-Tyr



http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/%e2%80%98her-mind-is-shot-donald-trump-ruth-bader-ginsburg-feud-goes-nuclear/ar-BBugjcN?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=SK2ADHP


‘Her mind is shot': Donald Trump-Ruth Bader Ginsburg feud goes nuclear

The New York Times editorial board, meanwhile, is siding with Trump -- at least in his calls for Ginsburg to tone it down. The paper says Ginsburg "needs to drop the political punditry and name-calling."

Donald Trump's list of feuds is a long and distinguished one. He has sparred with the Republican Party establishment. He has suggested George W. Bush was partially to blame for 9/11. He has tussled with the pope, for crying out loud.

As of this week, he can add a Supreme Court associate justice to the list.

As I noted Monday, legal minds have been questioning whether Ginsburg should have said what she said about Trump over the weekend, and what it means for her ability to decide future cases involving the presumptive GOP presidential nominee.

Two days in, the feud is growing, with Ginsburg doubling down — and Trump suggesting she vacate her seat.

After The Fix and others noted the unusual nature of Ginsburg's comments Monday, she didn't back off. Trump, she told CNN late Monday, is a "faker."



"He has no consistency about him," she said. "He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. ... How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that."

Trump, unsurprisingly, wasn't going to let it all go.

"I think it’s highly inappropriate that a United States Supreme Court judge gets involved in a political campaign, frankly,” he told the New York Times's Maggie Haberman. “I think it’s a disgrace to the court and I think she should apologize to the court. I couldn’t believe it when I saw it.”

Trump added: "It’s so beneath the court for her to be making statements like that. It only energizes my base even more. And I would hope that she would get off the court as soon as possible."

As I noted Monday, in the legal sense this is breaking new and significant ground; justices generally don't weigh in on political issues — and especially presidential politics. There really is no direct precedent that we could find. The questions it raises about a justice's public comments have led to plenty of debate, with passionate opinions on both sides.

As for the 2016 election, though? It's hard to see what impact it might have. Trump is already broadly disliked — by as many as 7 in 10 Americans. Despite his feuds with everyone from Pope Francis to Republican heavyweights, he still won the GOP primary, though he did tarnish his image among the broader electorate in the process.

So it's somewhat hard to believe that a liberal Supreme Court justice going after him — at her own behest, it bears noting — would help or hurt his already-poor numbers. Per the polls, if you're reading this you may well have a pretty strong opinion about Trump by now. You may love him. You may hate him. But at this point, you are unlikely to be swayed by anyone else's take.

Ginsburg has indeed amassed a reputation as a hero of the left. She has earned plaudits for her willingness to speak out to the media on various issues progressives care about and for weighing in on things other justices won't.

Among the broader electorate, though, she's become a polarizing figure.

A poll from Democratic-leaning automated pollster Public Policy Polling last year showed 36 percent of Americans approved of her, while 29 percent disapproved. While many Supreme Court justices are unknown to Americans, 65 percent offered an opinion about Ginsburg, who appeared to be the second most well-known justice among survey respondents.

And even as Democrats love her, there are limits to her appeal. While 55 percent of Democrats had a favorable opinion of her and 8 percent had a negative one, Republicans were split the other way: 51 percent negative and 15 percent positive. Independents were split — 33 percent favorable versus 31 percent unfavorable.

Ginsburg was cited by 19 percent of people as their favorite justice — a testament to her cult following. But she was also rated the least-favorite justice of 12 percent — the second-most of any justice, behind Clarence Thomas.

What's clear is that Ginsburg is comfortable with her decision to break new ground for a justice by publicly feuding with a presidential candidate. And she looks like she'll keep doing it, even if it comes with some potential pitfalls.

Either Ginsburg is just so exasperated by Trump that she can't help but speak out, or she thinks what she's doing is helping. Perhaps she simply thinks an unprecedented campaign by a Supreme Court justice to criticize a presidential candidate will draw attention that other feuds might not.

But if that's the case, it's not clear what a liberal Supreme Court justice could do to hurt Trump that he hasn't already done to himself.




What's clear is that Ginsburg is comfortable with her decision to break new ground for a justice by publicly feuding with a presidential candidate. And she looks like she'll keep doing it, even if it comes with some potential pitfalls.

Either Ginsburg is just so exasperated by Trump that she can't help but speak out, or she thinks what she's doing is helping. Perhaps she simply thinks an unprecedented campaign by a Supreme Court justice to criticize a presidential candidate will draw attention that other feuds might not.

Yes, obvious that she thinks she can break any rule, law or sworn oath--after all she is leftist scum only fit for dog-food.
Sooner or later the monsters show their teeth after decades of wearing their false masks.
She should be removed and sentenced appropriately for abusing her position--I'd say ten years in prison or even more..
What a ffing maggot.....--Tyr

[Elessar]

The Judicial Branch should never legislate from the Bench. I believe it was John Jay that said that long ago.
Also: Even before this phrase was first used, the general concept already existed. For example, Thomas Jefferson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson) referred to the "despotic behaviour" of Federalist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist) federal judges, in particular, John Marshall (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall).

Again, from the 'Patriot Post':

"We suppose we can finally abandon any pretense that the judiciary is still a neutral body rendering opinions based on an impartial interpretation of the Constitution as written. Rather, the judiciary, and especially the Supreme Court, has become a supra-legislative oligarchy of nine (or eight, for the time being) that imposes its own version of morality and "social justice" upon the roughly 315 million Americans who are expected to abide by its diktats.


One particular recent example tells us all we need to know in this regard — the recent political-stump utterance of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. This isn't entirely new ground for Ginsburg, though. She is known affectionately to her legions of leftist lemmings as "the Notorious RBG" (a take-off on the moniker of slain rapper The Notorious BIG), for her unrestrained tendency to speak openly about her personal feelings regarding matters involving the Court.
But this time, she has exceeded all previous boundaries of decorum and propriety.


Speaking in an interview with the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-no-fan-of-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.html), the official daily newspaper of the Democrat Party, Ginsberg, asked about the possibility of a Trump presidency, said, "I can't imagine what this place would be — I can't imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don't even want to contemplate that." She then chuckled at the thought of what her late husband would have said: "Now it's time for us to move to New Zealand."
Questioned about this later, she went back to the well. "At first I thought it was funny," she said of Trump's candidacy. "To think that there's a possibility that he could be president..." she trailed off.


Such remarks are well beyond inappropriate for a sitting justice. Edward Whelan III, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, called her comments indefensible, stating, "I think this exceeds the others in terms of her indiscretions. ... I am not aware of any justice ever expressing views on the merits or demerits of a presidential candidate in the midst of the campaign. ... [T]he soundness or unsoundness of her concerns about Donald Trump has no bearing on whether it was proper for her to say what she said."
According to Stetson University law professor Louis J. Virelli, there could be serious consequences for such outbursts. "[P]ublic comments like the ones that Justice Ginsburg made could be seen as grounds for her to recuse herself from cases involving a future Trump administration," Virelli mused. "I don't necessarily think she would be required to do that, and I certainly don't believe that she would in every instance, but it could invite challenges to her impartiality based on her public comments."
Not that Ginsburg or the other members of the Court's leftist bloc would have the decency to recuse themselves in such cases. Both Justice Ginsburg (a former lawyer for the ACLU) and Justice Elena Kagan refused to recuse themselves in the same-sex "marriage" cases that came before the Court in the last few years, despite having already performed multiple same-sex wedding ceremonies when such were still a violation of federal law. In fact, Ginsburg was so arrogant and shameless that she performed one of these ceremonies in the chambers of the Supreme Court itself (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/justices-oconnor-ginsburg-perform-same-sex-marriage-ceremonies-inside-supre).


There is a major double-standard when it comes to such statements by members of the Court. During Obama's 2010 State of the Union Address, cameras caught Justice Samuel Alito mouthing the words "not true" in response to Obama's unseemly and unprecedented attacks on the Court's decision in the Citizens United case. Liberals called Alito "nasty" and "churlish" for this supposed breach of decorum, but these same liberals are positively giddy when leftist justices offer up far more blatant political commentary, as has Ginsburg.
These realities again underscore the urgency of denying another leftist Democrat the opportunity to shape the direction of the Court for the next 30 years or more. With the death of stalwart originalist Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the most brilliant, effective and honorable justices in the history of the Supreme Court, the next president will be able to name his successor (if the GOP Senate holds the line against Barack Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland). Add to that the fact that Justice Ginsburg (83), Justice Kennedy (79), Justice Breyer (77) and Justice Thomas (68) are closer to the end of their tenure than their beginning, and the next president may be able to appoint as many as five new justices to the Court.
Such an opportunity could strengthen the Court's conservative/originalist wing, or permanently cement the leftist vision of a malleable, "living" constitution, with constitutional protections of individual liberty, and the tempering effect of a separation of powers between the branches, forever lost.


No pressure ... right?"

[namvet]

we'll never get term limits to rid ourselves of these of these feeble minded weak links. she'll be there till death. which I hope comes soon

BTY she claims she is going to New Zealand if trump wins. if she can remember that


http://www.sitcomsonline.com/photopost/data/749/BevH_059.jpg

[Gunny]

we'll never get term limits to rid ourselves of these of these feeble minded weak links. she'll be there till death. which I hope comes soon

BTY she claims she is going to New Zealand if trump wins. if she can remember that


http://www.sitcomsonline.com/photopost/data/749/BevH_059.jpg

How dare you defile Granny like that. I'm surprised she ain't after you with her Walker Colt.

[namvet]

How dare you defile Granny like that. I'm surprised she ain't after you with her Walker Colt.

just shake a Hilary doll she'll calm down

[Gunny]

just shake a Hilary doll she'll calm down

Believe it or not I always thought she was funny as Hell. She could have been MY grandmother's twin. I can remember her coming at me with a bromm. "Boy, you track one speck of dust in this house and I'll whoop you." And trust me. We had two rows of salt cedars and she was REAL fond of picking out a switch. Kept one on the dashboard. :laugh: If I didn't get switched twice a day I felt like I was slacking or being neglected. :laugh:

[Elessar]

I read something a few months back that she was usually intoxicated or feeling the after effects of wine
when on the job. Don't know if that was just rumor or not, but it does give one pause to consider her stability.

This just in:

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/07/14/ruth-bader-ginsburg-says-she-regrets-attacking-donald-trump-my/21432142/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D14147545_ htmlws-main-bb

[Elessar]

Believe it or not I always thought she was funny as Hell. She could have been MY grandmother's twin. I can remember her coming at me with a bromm. "Boy, you track one speck of dust in this house and I'll whoop you." And trust me. We had two rows of salt cedars and she was REAL fond of picking out a switch. Kept one on the dashboard. :laugh: If I didn't get switched twice a day I felt like I was slacking or being neglected. :laugh:

Mine had a willow tree in the yard and she was fond of using those branches as switches! She was only 4'10 and always
had a plate of cookies for me when I walked back from football or track practice. But get her riled...Look Out!:laugh: