Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg hits back at Trump's calls to stop impeachment: 'The pres

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-hits-162953711.html?guccounter=1

Business Insider
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg hits back at Trump's calls to stop impeachment: 'The president is not a lawyer'
Business InsiderDecember 17, 2019, 10:29 AM CST
Jacquelyn Martin/AP

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg shut down President Donald Trump's attempts to discredit impeachment proceedings, saying on Monday that "the president is not a lawyer."

CNN reported that Ginsburg made the remark at an event in New York City where she was awarded the Berggruen Institute Prize for Philosophy and Culture.

On Wednesday, the House is expected to pass two articles of impeachment against Trump: abuse of his office, and obstruction of Congress.

In recent days, Trump has embarked on multiple Twitter tirades to defend himself against the charges and accuse House Democrats of subjecting him to a "witch hunt."

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg shut down President Donald Trump's attempts to discredit impeachment proceedings, saying on Monday that "the president is not a lawyer," CNN reported.

Ginsburg made the remark at an event in New York City where she was awarded the Berggruen Institute Prize for Philosophy and Culture.

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives is expected to pass two articles of impeachment against Trump: abuse of his office, and obstruction of Congress.

If the House votes by a simple majority to impeach Trump, the Senate will hold a trial, with Ginsberg's colleague Chief Justice John Roberts serving as the judge.

In recent days, Trump has embarked on multiple Twitter tirades to defend himself against the charges and accuse House Democrats of subjecting him to an unfair and illegitimate "witch hunt."

During an Oval Office meeting with the president of Paraguay on Friday, Trump described the impeachment process as a "witch hunt," a "sham," and a "hoax."

"It's a scam. It's something that shouldn't be allowed, and it's a very bad thing for our country," he said. "You're trivializing impeachment. And I tell you what, someday there will be a Democrat president and there will a Republican House, and I suspect they're going to remember it."

Trump also accused Democrats of cheapening the impeachment process at the NATO summit earlier this month in London. In a televised sit-down with French President Emmanuel Macron, Trump said a Republican Congress would impeach a Democratic president.

"Because somebody picked an orange out of a refrigerator and you don't like it, so let's go and impeach him," Trump said.


This partisan, stupid old hag needs to shut her liberal ignorant ass up.
The impeachment is a scam, a dem party political strategy and nothing more- yet this old ugly ffing witch seems to think it is a real case!!
This is why POS like her should never be on the highest court in the land.
A perfect example of how and why libreals are ffing insane.
I bet anybody here that my IQ is far, far higher than hers!!!!
There is not a single one of the female justices on that court that truly deserve to be that- a damn fact an a damn crying shame too..-Tyr

[Gunny]

This partisan, stupid old hag needs to shut her liberal ignorant ass up.
The impeachment is a scam, a dem party political strategy and nothing more- yet this old ugly ffing witch seems to think it is a real case!!
This is why POS like her should never be on the highest court in the land.
A perfect example of how and why libreals are ffing insane.
I bet anybody here that my IQ is far, far higher than hers!!!!
There is not a single one of the female justices on that court that truly deserve to be that- a damn fact an a damn crying shame too..-TyrThing is, regardless our individual and collective opinions of this farce is, she is correct and this IS a real case.

Despite everyone knowing it's a crock, it proceeds as a REAL legal case as long as the Dems keep it alive.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Let her spew her senile crap. The entire impeachment farce is about as popular as a festering pimple on someone's ass.

This whole impeachment charade has been about the dems knowing they can't beat Trump in 2020, and it would appear that the majority of Americans are now aware of it, and sick of it.

[Russ]

I agree with Ruth Bader Ginsburg on virtually nothing, but will give her the benefit of the doubt that she might possess integrity, something that is exceedingly rare among liberals. For one thing, she was able to be close friends with Antonin Scalia even though he was a strict conservative. Most liberals can't even talk to conservatives. For another thing, she personally put a temporary halt on some Dem subpeona for Trump's tax records last week, despite not wanting to. I don't like RBG, but I will give her credit for not being a hypocrite.

[Gunny]

I agree with Ruth Bader Ginsburg on virtually nothing, but will give her the benefit of the doubt that she might possess integrity, something that is exceedingly rare among liberals. For one thing, she was able to be close friends with Antonin Scalia even though he was a strict conservative. Most liberals can't even talk to conservatives. For another thing, she personally put a temporary halt on some Dem subpeona for Trump's tax records last week, despite not wanting to. I don't like RBG, but I will give her credit for not being a hypocrite.I happen to believe this whole damned thing is a farce. Problem is, the consequences are real and I don't trust a damned one of them on either side. Just one side moreso than the other :)

Same time, Trump needs to quit sounding like the one who "protesteth too much". My take-away from Bader-Ginsburg is Trump needs to start taking this for the legal proceeding it is rather than just some contrived BS he keeps claiming it is. Sounds like good legal advice to me.

I don't know that I agree with her about anything, but more than a few on her side of the aisle could do worse than conduct themselves professionally as she does.

[PostmodernProphet]

Ruth is worried she may have to cling to her seat on the bench for five more years.....

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Despite others here that I truly and deeply respect, giving her creds and support, I stand 100% behind my original post in this thread.
That she a liberal has recently made a few good calls does not change the stripes she has always worn and still wears.
No, I think not that she has integrity because I know that no damn liberal alive has any!!
In liberalism integrity is a curse word.
All that matters is power and dictating to we peasants how to live- or rather in truth
--how to be good little slaves to the almighty and supremely powerful state.
And I adamantly restate- not a damn one of those women truly deserve to serve on the highest court in the land.
She is left-side biased, political and has and does break her sworn oath, just like every damn one of those liberal scum do.
Truth is cold, hard and immensely savage biatcchhh sometimes.
But truth in the end is also totally invincible.. --Tyr

[STTAB]

Thing is, regardless our individual and collective opinions of this farce is, she is correct and this IS a real case.

Despite everyone knowing it's a crock, it proceeds as a REAL legal case as long as the Dems keep it alive.


But she is incorrect when she says Trump called for SCOTUS to intervene. He merely asked a question. A dumb question to be sure. But a question nonetheless.

[STTAB]

I happen to believe this whole damned thing is a farce. Problem is, the consequences are real and I don't trust a damned one of them on either side. Just one side moreso than the other :)

Same time, Trump needs to quit sounding like the one who "protesteth too much". My take-away from Bader-Ginsburg is Trump needs to start taking this for the legal proceeding it is rather than just some contrived BS he keeps claiming it is. Sounds like good legal advice to me.

I don't know that I agree with her about anything, but more than a few on her side of the aisle could do worse than conduct themselves professionally as she does.


Man Gunny you know you aren't supposed to say anything nice about anyone on the other side or negative about Trump. Are you turning into a liberal commie faggot or something? :2up:

[Gunny]

Man Gunny you know you aren't supposed to say anything nice about anyone on the other side or negative about Trump. Are you turning into a liberal commie faggot or something? :2up:I figure when I'm not embellishing, and everyone knows or should I am conservative, such an observation on her professional conduct would bet more notice than coming from the mouth of a leftwingnut.

I didn't say anything about her politics. I have an appreciation for proper conduct and an expectation of it from those that allegedly run our country.

"Liberal, commie, faggot". How does one become one of THOSE? Is their a vaccine? :laugh:

[Surf Fishing Guru]

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg shut down President Donald Trump's attempts to discredit impeachment proceedings, saying on Monday that "the president is not a lawyer."

That's a nonsensical statement because this process is a legal charade. The rules are whatever the House says they are, evidentiary / testimonial standards were suspended and foundational canons of justice were stood on their head.

When an article of impeachment is based upon the denial of the right of the President to seek redress in the courts -- that the action of challenging the validity of subpoenas against the separation of powers is considered contempt of Congress, the argument that one needs to be a lawyer to comment is preposterous. The Democrats are extinguishing "the law" as a guiding principle for impeachment.

What's next, will the Democrats seek to file judicial impeachment articles against SCOTUS Justices for granting certiorari, for deciding to hear the President's arguments?

The process is entirely political and thus it can be rebutted as such. The old bird needs to stay in her lane and abide by the rule that SCOTUS does not offer advisory opinions.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

That's a nonsensical statement because this process is a legal charade. The rules are whatever the House says they are, evidentiary / testimonial standards were suspended and foundational canons of justice were stood on their head.

When an article of impeachment is based upon the denial of the right of the President to seek redress in the courts -- that the action of challenging the validity of subpoenas against the separation of powers is considered contempt of Congress, the argument that one needs to be a lawyer to comment is preposterous. The Democrats are extinguishing "the law" as a guiding principle for impeachment.

What's next, will the Democrats seek to file judicial impeachment articles against SCOTUS Justices for granting certiorari, for deciding to hear the President's arguments?

The process is entirely political and thus it can be rebutted as such. The old bird needs to stay in her lane and abide by the rule that SCOTUS does not offer advisory opinions.

Whats next, you ask??
Well if the Dems get their way it will be sorta like a banana Republic but with the dem party serving a dictatorial junta, complete with a puppet President with strings only they get to pull.
Or even worse in IMHO...-Tyr