to social justice and women's rights to be insulted by this fuck stain. Tear him a new one.

by many millions, and our nation is in trouble. She is not a person who would take this step lightly, and I strongly suspect the moral imperative for her to speak out is a factor.

RBG in her chambers.

career, health and relationship with President Barack Obama. One can note how she refrains from discussing anything pending a SC decision, yet expresses her personal feelings about individuals.

SCOTUS Justices have freedom of speech.

I find it very disturbing

Sanders agrees with Ginsburg: http://ow.ly/37Xw302cEMV

POLITICO ?@politico 2 hours ago
.@BernieSanders on @realDonaldTrump: 'I agree with what Justice Ginsburg said' http://politi.co/29R8AfQ


Paul Begala Verified account ?@PaulBegala 2 hours ago
Of course Justice Ginsburg wrong to state political views before election. Sup Crt is supposed to wait and then steal the election for GOP

ThinkProgress ?@thinkprogress 2 hours ago
Justice Ginsburg broke the rules in a big way. That might not be a bad thing. http://thkpr.gs/3797555

Glenn Greenwald ?@ggreenwald 2 hours ago
Hard to take seriously court impartiality/Ginsburg furor after 5 GOP-appointed judges stopped vote-counting & made George W. Bush president

Thanks for posting those!

Irrespective of party, if you are a woman and you criticize him, Trump tends to go nuclear whether it Susan Martinez or Elizabeth Warren.

And it seems the women are using this to THEIR advantage right now!!! Elizabeth Warren punches his buttons so well, and she does it so purposely, that it's masterful. Now Justice Ginsburg is getting to him!!!

He cannot hide his disdain for powerful women.


LOL LOL LOL

Ginsburg needs to reconnect with her common sense smarts.

When GOPers and right wingers spew their partisan bullshit its a badge of honor. Fuck them.

Where is this coming from? 'book larnin' smarts?' Good lord, Ginsburg is a world class master of what you would refer to as 'common sense smarts.'

While she delivers straight-up body blows based on simple facts, he hurls pathetic, immature crap from the gutter he lives in. Trump does not win this exchange, as there is nothing he can say that will bruise her in the slightest. Instead, he looks like even more of a petulant child among his supporters, some of whom are going to say - 'um... yeah, that's just pathetic.'

We had no 'exit strategy' when we invaded Iraq. And the consequences were disastrous. Does Trump has an exit strategy for this exchange? Ginsburg isn't going to yield nor will she play his game...

And he's running for Executive office. How come the "vow of silence" only applies to the Judicial branch?

Apparently he does believe in the Executive branch.

Didn't like it when Scalia did this sort of partisan stuff and don't when Ginsburg does it.

However with one vacancy that the GOP won't fill she will have to wait till Hillary gets in and we re take the senate.

That way since Obama is going to be in DC anyway after his term is up Hillary can nominate him to replace Ginsburg

you must be inflamed when the President becomes a partisan speaker.
We are all American's and it is our civil duty to speak our minds.

So what, we are all citizens first.

At least in conservative homes. Custom be damned. This is about hatred, and we cannot just be silent in the face of the next Hitler or Bush.

It's not about your opinion.

He sat on cases where he should have recused himself over a clear conflict of interest.

How come no one is making comparisons between the two?

...in the outcome. In the case of Thomas, it was his spouse; with Scalia, his sons. There was debate on whether Thomas and Scalia ought to have recused themselves, but I don't recall it ever being an obsession of the media the way other potential conflicts of interest were.

[url]http://www.jstor.org/stable/3505131?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents[/url]

eom

but because the republicans would filibuster the nomination.

And one of the great things about being a Supreme Court justice is that you are on the Court for life. This is that moment in history when, if the good people do not speak out, the world ends up with another insane demagogue like Bush, Hitler, or Mussulini.

While I agree that USSC justices should stay above the fray, this is just a little different.

Justice Ginsburg was there when the Conservatives got involved in the Bush coup d'etat, effectively ensuring its success when it was on the verge of failure. The Supreme Court overthrew the Executive branch, in effect, and now some pundits who were silent want to silence one justice for having a personal opinion. That's pure horseshit and they all know it.

The Atlantic ?@TheAtlantic 15 hours ago
Justice Ginsburg on Trump: "He is a faker" http://theatln.tc/29Pk2ZC

that have little bearing on reality. She has as much right as anyone to exercise her 1st amendment rights.

At the end of the day, this is where everyone will land on this issue:

Trump forfeited his right to be treated like a normal candidate when he decided to act like an unmitigated racist dickhead.

I do worry, however, that she would be forced to recuse herself if the election was so close that the Supreme Court needed to weigh in.

All people who live in a country with the freedom to speak their minds need to raise their voices.
It will be those who did not speak up that will be condemned.

Not.

Pope Francis: same-sex marriage is not ‘the family God wants’

Our forefathers (okay, "forepersons&quot came here to get away from {people} like that. Good decision then; good decision now.

Not such a good average.

Last edited Wed Jul 13, 2016, 12:44 PM - Edit history (1)

It's like this:

Let's say there are 1,440 airline flights scheduled every day. Touting the virtues of air travel, you say, "two flights are successfully completed every day."

Looking at the 1,438 airline flights that end in crashes, others may refrain from traveling by air.

So, yeah, those 1,438/1,440 times per day that a stopped clock is wrong are worthy of note.

Trump is an unarmed nitwit.

IMHO it makes the court look worse on top of Scalia and Thomas shooting their pie holes off in the past.

Moral highground is a position to be savoured.

What a repulsive little man.

Said it as a sitting judge.

by 5 conservative SCOTUS justices? Did they resign?
They handed the presidency to the loser in the presidential race. From that flowed 2 wars, massive debt, a huge recession and untold harm to minorities and poor in this country.

I don't see what Ginsburg did rises to that level. Not sure that anything ever will. They didn't resign or shut up. Neither should she.

Florida recount was being done within the Constitution, the second 5-4 vote upholding the constitutionality of the December 12th Safe Harbor deadline would never have occurred.

Max ?@fatalmocking 7 minutes ago
The Supremes are political. Ginsburg makes us stop pretending they're not.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/ruth-bader-ginsburg-walks-fine-line-trump-criticism …

I hope she whacks him good with an umbrella!

He's a thug!

Clarence Thomas: Obama Only President Because He’s What ‘Elites’ Expect ‘From A Black Person’

Why no outrage then?

There are at least a dozen people I need to send it to.

Here is one from Faux "News" ... so they'll believe it.

http://nation.foxnews.com/justice-clarence-thomas/2013/05/02/clarence-thomas-obama-approved-elites

That's the perfect link. Thank you so much.

That's the biggest load of shit I've ever seen posted on DU.

Por ejemplo:

The Pettus Bridge reference

Thanks for writing.

Best wishes.

You have the right to appeal a hide.

You chose instead to alert on a post for no good reason. That is alert abuse and a violation of the TOS you agreed to.

But, in truth, your statement was a personal attack. Not one I disagreed with, but nonetheless a definite one.

So, no, not alert abuse, nor a violation of the TOS. But I nonetheless apologized, and if you won't accept that I guess there's nothing more I can say.

I disagree.

MohRokTah said: "That's the biggest load ... I've ever seen posted on DU." I took the "that" in "that's" as a reference to my opinion. His comment was about my opinion and was thus not a personal attack.

Had MohRokTah said "You're the biggest load ... I've ever seen posting on DU," then it would have been a personal attack.

He might well feel that way, but he hasn't said so. At least not yet.

All this, and I get to be a grammar Nazi too.

I suppose someone will alert on that.

Agreements (there are any?), disagreements - keep 'em coming.

Thanks to all for writing.

Best wishes.

There are no Constitutional problems whatsoever with a Supreme Court Justice making political statements of any sort. Scalia did it all the time and Thomas's wife was a paid lobbyist working against the ACA while cases concerning it were before the Court.

'Legal experts' (I'm a lawyer) may have things to say about it, things that apply to current or likely cases that may come before a judge, and there are ethical standards that govern federal judicial conduct (promulgated, in the case of the federal judiciary, by the United States Supreme Court.)

However, for a Supreme Court Justice, the potential pool of future litigants consists of every single American citizen, legal resident, undocumented immigrant, and foreign person or business interest. Given that range of potential litigants, Supreme Court Justices would, in theory, have to be mute 99.9% of their periods of service. Which is absurd.

Your comment that '(T)his is way out of line for a Supreme Court justice' makes no sense. There is no rationale that demands that Supreme Court Justices remain aloof from politics. Everything they do is politics.

While Trump and Republicans complain about bias, lets look at the bias they have ignored.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32403-2004Feb11.html

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a combative conservative known for his tough talk on and off the bench, isn't backing down in the face of criticism that he should stay out of a case involving his friend and hunting partner, Vice President Dick Cheney.

The two men went on a duck hunting trip last month, three weeks after the court agreed to hear a White House appeal in a case involving private meetings of the vice president's energy task force. Critics said the trip raised questions about Scalia's impartiality in the case.

Scalia told a gathering at Amherst College on Tuesday night there was nothing improper about the trip and nothing about the case that made it a conflict for him.

"It did not involve a lawsuit against Dick Cheney as a private individual," Scalia said in response to a question from the audience of about 600 people. "This was a government issue. It's acceptable practice to socialize with executive branch officials when there are not personal claims against them. That's all I'm going to say for now. Quack, quack."
Cheney wants to keep private the details of closed-door White House strategy sessions that produced the administration's energy policy. The administration is fighting a lawsuit brought by watchdog and environmental groups that contend industry executives may have helped shape the administration's energy policy.

who opposes him.

Fairness in reporting or even opinions is a rare commodity.

Drew ?@drewpaine 3 minutes ago
No human or institution is neutral, impartial, or unbiased. End the charade @TheAtlantic — Justice Ginsburg on Trump

Lorraine Kirk ?@taichinow 8 minutes ago
Please! Ruth Bader Ginsburg Speaks the Truth About a Trump Presidency and DC's Purists Are Upset @alternet

Another example of a clear conflict that Republicans have ignored.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/clarence-thomas-wife-tea-party-lobbyist

Like former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and California political strategist Sal Russo, Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is cashing in on her tea party cred. Ginni Thomas, as she's known, has started an outfit called Liberty Consulting, Politico reports, devoted to political strategizing (which in Washington can mean just about anything) and also tea party-tinged lobbying that, according to her website, draws on Thomas' "experience and connections" on the Hill. "Ginni plans to leverage her 30 years of experience as a Washington 'insider,'" reads her website, "to assist non-establishment 'outsiders' who share her belief in our core founding principles and values."

In a recent email she sent to chiefs of staff on the Hill, Thomas branded herself a "self-appointed ambassador to the freshmen class and an ambassador to the tea party movement." Her new shop is just getting started, but already Thomas says she's met with almost half of the 99 freshman Republicans on Capitol Hill. That lobbying, combined with Thomas' previous role as a tea party activist dedicated to defeating Democrats in the 2010 midterms, has irked good government groups who claim she's politicizing the Supreme Court. "It raises additional questions about whether Justice Thomas can be unbiased and appear to be unbiased" in cases where his wife's political advocacy has had an impact, like the challenge to the health care reform law or limits on corporate campaign spending, a lawyer for the group Common Cause told Politico.

Here is Alito getting embroiled in defending the rights of corporations to spend unlimited amounts on campaigns.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0130/Obama-vs.-Alito-Political-dust-up-during-State-of-the-Union

“The behavior of Justice Alito – visibly shaking his head and mouthing the words ‘not true’ when Obama warned of the dangers of the Court’s Citizens United ruling – was a serious and substantive breach of protocol that reflects very poorly on Alito and only further undermines the credibility of the Court.”

In a way, Obama wasn’t speaking directly to the court (which would have been petty and non-productive – the justices aren’t going to reverse themselves just because he speaks harshly to them) but to Congress. The president and boosters of campaign finance law want lawmakers to pass something that can limit campaign contributions by corporations while also passing constitutional muster with the high court.

In the wake of the court’s recent decision, Democrats are hustling to craft legislation that would limit corporate political advertising – especially for corporations with foreign connections.

If such legislation is ever signed into law, it’ll be fun to watch as it goes to the Supreme Court (which it surely would) – especially to see what Justice Alito would have to say about it.

Anything goes!

Thank you Justice Ginsberg. A thousand times thank you.

arrrfff

This is a no win situation for Justice Ginsberg, unfortunately. She is just him giving massive ammo to aid him in selling his bullshit to suckas.

us against the elite schtick.

Nope, this is a no win.

Trump voters and potential Trump voters never heard of RBG and don't care what she thinks. They just see another elite Washington type attacking Trump. Those cheering RBG on aren't potential Trump voters anyway.

the editorials, and she knows what she's doing. Rampant, gutter-style personal attacks on a greatly respected Supreme Court Justice will not be a win for Trump.

Hillary Clinton is vulnerable to attack on many levels, but Trump is handing her a straight-up body blow to use at her leisure..

and usually only one outcome for that

you end up smelling like the hog

Well, to be honest, Trump is showing us he is a wretched pig, willing to beat up on a highly respected Supreme Court justice. It reveals his character for all to see, a complete jerk who will throw out insults like a six-year-old. He was baited by the best of them and fell for it lock, stock, and hairpiece.

As a sitting judge of the SC and a life-time appointment, she has no shits to give. Not for the M$M, you and especially tRump.

As an aside, her comments are hardly unprecedented or all that egregious. People like Thomas and Scalia and many that have sat in those seats before them, have/had got away with worse for years.
While I think she should have gone about it in a more tongue-and-cheek way, she gives no shits what I think.

His idea of a debate is to go for the juglar. He is like a four year old.

RBG has a right to her opinions .seems to me she just said out loud what everyone else was thinking.

I hope she flattens that asshole.

He is such a bully. Time for the bully to meet his match.

The man with incipient Alzheimer's attacks one of the great legal minds in history. What could possibly go right? His favorables will never recover after this display.

Sophie Zinn ?@SophieZinn 23 minutes ago
i really don't think it should be taken lightly that Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Hawking (AKA smartest people ever) say trump is bad

He is bad. He is a miserable excuse for a human being and he needs to be called out on it.

I don't think there is anyone that man wouldn't screw - literally and figuratively.

Don't whine that you cannot rebut ANYTHING said. Truth is a defense in America.

Should she call someone a name? NO! Can she call someone a name and support that name as called. YES! If she wants to stick her neck out.

Brave woman!

at RBG? I have a feeling they are coming...

Seriously though, Ginsburg has her first Amendment right to free speech, -- so as long as she doesn't say such while hearing a Trump case -- I am fine with this.

Good grief! Scalia was probably one of the mouthiest justices on record. Bless Ginsburg for not backing down and speaking her mind. She has a right to defend herself. She's just saying what the rest of us are thinking. Go, Ruth!

Think of all the multiple times Scalia shot his mouth off about political matters over the years. Think about Clarence Thomas' wife's freewheeling participation in Tea Party matters. I say Go, Justice Ginsburg---and Trump, you're way the hell out of your league.....

As completely self-absorbed as Trump is, he seems to often project his own failings upon others. Even when he's talking about others--especially when he's insulting them--he seems to be speaking just as much about himself.

So in light of that, what are we to make of, "her mind is shot"? Ginsberg's mind is sharper than Trumps ever was. So who is Trump really talking about, here?

Trump case

Yhat lijely will never reach the Supreme Court

and this is her parting shot. She probably has a good sense (from decades of life experience) that Trump is not going to be elected, and that she will allow Hillary to choose her replacement. IMHO, the fact that she has doubled down is not a sign of senility but a sign of someone who appears to feel "freed" from the required decorum. She probably expects that she can let her long record speak for itself without having this current brouhaha be considered burning a bridge on the way out. It's basically a sad commentary on a judiciary that had become more conservative and "activist" in recent years.

And why should she not. I rather think that if this were senility her staff would have kept her under wraps. I am a professional working in the public sector myself, although I am an ant compared to RBG. We are not allowed to speak up. I know I think of the day when I have one foot out the door and can lob a few well aimed truths. And I've seen it happen with coworkers. Ginsburg just has a larger forum and is aiming at bigger targets. More power to her.

and yup. And it's interesting because scanning around some articles yesterday, I saw one I forgot about regarding comments that Scalia had made during a Fox News interview about Obama's remarks on the ACA case-

RBG also takes on the press for wallowing in his rhetoric.....RBG will have none of what trump is offering - in fact she is speaking for those of us who don't have a voice..we have a vote - but who can hear US!

Lady justice weeps for our country...and through the tears she must use her voice....RBG has had enough - and if we do our job - and elect a Democratic President she will be able to go off into the sunset knowing she made a difference.....

When Donald Trump said her mind is shot he's referring to her having Dementia or Alzheimer's, this is ageism. Just because someone is elderly doesn't mean their mind is "shot". Also this is a sexist comment because Donald Trump never misses an opportunity to disparage women.

If her words carry weight with the general public - and they do - she will hopefully never be in a position of dealing with him as President or deciding any cases involving him.

After years on the bench, she most assuredly weighs her words carefully. She has decided to risk over-speaking for the good of the American people - it is that important to her. These were not remarks made lightly.

So she dealt the Trump card.

Ruth is planning to resign just as soon as Hillary's first appointment to the SCOTUS is confirmed. hehehe!

Obviously that hasn't existed at all since Bush v. Gore.

It's good to get that further out in the open, so we can all quit "pretending" the Supreme Court is now anything other than other politicized, lobbied institution.

And she has spoken against the Lump, so obviously he's going to dog her. His crowd hates her anyway, so nothing new here.

Today's thread includes the Donald's early a.m. tweet.

Hat tip, DonViejo:

Trump Wants Ginsburg Off The Supreme Court ASAP For Criticizing Him

and she just called him out on his shit, as any citizen is entitled to do by the First Amendment. Point the microscope at the demented candidate, I say.

The issue of mental fitness has just been brought into the campaign by Trump himself. Glad that is now fair game, because that 2,00 pound gorilla has been lurking in the corner long enough.

Laura E ?@aserious49erfan 27 seconds ago
Trump is a big cry baby! IMO Ginsburg is sharp as a tack!

Mary Hess ?@MaryHes94795403 1 minute ago
You Leave Our Mom Ruth Bader Ginsburg Alone, You Monster

C'estMoi! ?@mostwiselatina 4 minutes ago
I SUPPORT HER 100%
Is Trump bullying SCOTUS Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg because she is a WOMAN and JEWISH?

Peter Cohen ?@pjcgarg77 4 minutes ago
And Trump's all like "women love me, except that old bat, Ginsburg"

(((TimothyMcBride))) ?@mcbridetd 7 minutes ago
Of course he does.
He'd want all the liberals on the Court to resign. Duh.

Lovleeannwise ?@LOVLEEANNWISE 8 minutes ago
@washingtonpost Justice Ginsburg doesn't have to make excuses for telling the truth, #Trump insults anybody but he can't take any critic!

Nebraskeptic ?@NebraskaAtheist 11 minutes ago
Trump wants Ginsburg to resign from the SCOTUS while the GOP still refuses to consider a nominee for the already-vacant seat. Sounds legit.

Trump steps in Chit daily.... ... and on a scale of 1 to 10 for outlandish he is an 11

there is enough Trump Garbage to sink a Garbage scowl.... and small minds .... never challenge or have a single critical thought about Trump's gobbledygook....

... but a single intelligent person is critical of Trump and this intelligent person is the person that is criticized.....?

... almost as funny as GOPhers attacking pornography as bad when 8 of the top 10 porn using states are RED states.....

how soon we forget....

The wording in the Constitution is simple and straightforward: the President “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union.” There’s nothing in there about the Supreme Court justices and, accordingly, there’s nothing simple and straightforward about their attendance.

This year, six justices were in attendance, while three of the most conservative members of the court, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, were noticeably absent. In the modern era, custom has held that the justices would show up in their official robes and sit impassively. But in recent years, they’ve become more resistant to the tradition.

Last edited Thu Jul 14, 2016, 09:31 AM - Edit history (1)

He will never be President.

She has a right to state her political views.

Everyone believes the justices are biased because they may come off as liberal or conservative, but they are not. They have to make holding with a legal rationale.

She probably will retire when Hillary is sworn in. Thanks for playing Donald.

The man has the mentality of a fucking kindergartener that was dropped on its head as a baby.

minuscule hands

stating that a Gore win would be a disaster for her.

Why should Ginsburg shut up about this asshat?

to express political opinions. As much as I admire Ginsburg, she crossed way over the line.

Of the many many inappropriate actions by Supreme Court justices, this is extremely low on my list of things to be concerned over.

That she will step down. And Hillary will replace her.

Every time somebody criticizes Trump, he goes into one of his juvenile name-calling tirades, demands that they get fired from their jobs, and whatever else he can think of in that tiny brain of his.

This idiot's head would have exploded a long time ago if he even took 1% of the attacks that Obama and Hillary have withstood. The difference is that there is merit to the attacks on Trump. The attacks on Obama and Hillary have usually been baseless and purely for partisan political reasons.

She is donating this one for free. Thank you RBG.

and many of their judgments are based on politics. I never understand why people were upset about the 2000 Bush-Gore decision. Do they really think the justices were going to study the Florida law and base their opinion on that? No way it would work like that. Sending it to the Supreme Court was like sending it to the House of Representatives - they vote and the ruling party wins.