Ginsburg

Horn6721 said:
By
THAT is a great find.
Interesting that the issues JFK thought needed fixing are just as bad 60 years later
Click to expand...

I'd looked it up long ago. I was interested in separation of church and state and when I was doing my research I was actually driven by how it was the right wing white ministers who were concerned about a Catholic President oppressing them. The first amendment was very important to them in that regard, contrary to what I believe to be the case now.

But the speech is also very effective in high-lighting Liberal hypocrisy. But Liberals arrogance is epitomized by Feinstein. She will calmly lie all day long and NOT GIVE A F.
 
bystander said:
They should have known a white privileged Liberal with an obsessive sense of her victimhood would switch to ageism as the latest outrage being plundered upon her. Her egomania was off the charts.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure she was that rotten about it. In 2010, I think she genuinely felt like her was still mentally tough and felt like she could make it to 2017. And of course, she was right.

The big miscalculation was political. She probably believed the "demographics are destiny" mantra that John Judis and Ruy Teixeira had been spouting and that the Democrats had built a permanent or certainly very long term majority. Basically, Hillary couldn't lose. That's why they called it a "coronation," and of course, a guy like Trump was the last person they thought who could screw up their plans. So essentially, she had no expectation of having to stay on the Court through 2020.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I'm not sure she was that rotten about it. In 2010, I think she genuinely felt like her was still mentally tough and felt like she could make it to 2017. And of course, she was right.

The big miscalculation was political. She probably believed the "demographics are destiny" mantra that John Judis and Ruy Teixeira had been spouting and that the Democrats had built a permanent or certainly very long term majority. Basically, Hillary couldn't lose. That's why they called it a "coronation," and of course, a guy like Trump was the last person they thought who could screw up their plans. So essentially, she had no expectation of having to stay on the Court through 2020.
Click to expand...

I just think her political miscalculation was driven in part by her hang-ups. She should have given Obama a lot of room to replace her.
 
Spent some time reading some Barrett opinions and came away with the idea she may not be the best choice available to Trump.
Still, she is better than anyone Biden or Schumer would come up with.
 
Joe Fan said:
Spent some time reading some Barrett opinions and came away with the idea she may not be the best choice available to Trump.
Still, she is better than anyone Biden or Schumer would come up with.
Click to expand...

She's made left-wing opinions?
 
If I read it correctly when it happened a couple of months agso she sided with the Gov of Il that he could shut down the state almost unilaterally after Ill Gop sued saying the Gov was limiting religious groups but not protests.
Wil look that up
 
Last edited:
Garmel said:
She's made left-wing opinions?
Click to expand...
Mr. Deez said:
Can you give some examples? I'm curious.
Click to expand...

My sense is that she knee-jerks in favor of the Govt no matter the context.
Pro-lockdown (takes contrary position to Barr on this), pro-forced vaccines, relaxed 4A standards for entry. She has favored the Govt in nearly every single Civil Rights case she's paneled. Same for uncompensated takings. She also sided with the city of Chicago when it prohibited pro-life activists from exercising their free speech rights (1A). She also has a tendency to favor the large corporation.

While I readily concede she would be 100x better than whoever Biden pulled out of his rear, at the same time, I just dont think she is the deep-throated conservative we seek. I have begun to fear she might be another John Roberts, which would be the choke of the century if so. She is more Roberts than Bork. I want to Bork them.

1A Dameion Perkins v. Milwaukee County, No. 18-3710 (7th Cir. 2019)

takings Christel Van Dyke v. Village of Alsip, No. 20-1041 (7th Cir. 2020)

Pro-life march Price v. Chicago, No. 17-2196 (7th Cir. 2019)

Vaccines. Here she touted Jacobson, the decision that green-lit forced vaccines and carved out an emergency exception to Constitutional protection in "public health" or "emergency" cases used to justify forced sterilizations and detention camps https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000174-572b-d057-a37d-7fef3ec60000

Allowing Obama's boondoggle "Center" to go forward despite misuse of funds Protect Our Parks, Inc. v, Chicago Park District | Illinois State Bar Association

Lockdown \/
Eim9jpuU0AEn0VA
 
Last edited:
This one is an example of her siding with or excusing dubious police conduct. There are several cases like this one. These type of rulings will make her vulnerable in the age of George Floyd
http://41af3k34gprx4f6bg12df75i.wpe...nner-v.-Vacek_-2020-U.S.-App.-LEXIS-10714.pdf

Along the same lines, here she kept a case from reaching a jury trial despite the cops sudden memory loss in a "driving while black" case.
Torry v. City of Chicago, 932 F.3d 579 | Casetext Search + Citator

To me, this vein of her rulings reveal here as pro-authoritarian, like Roberts and often like the liberal Supremes, siding with Big Govt
 
Joe Fan said:
This one is an example of her siding with or excusing dubious police conduct. There are several cases like this one. These type of rulings will make her vulnerable in the age of George Floyd
http://41af3k34gprx4f6bg12df75i.wpe...nner-v.-Vacek_-2020-U.S.-App.-LEXIS-10714.pdf

Along the same lines, here she kept a case from reaching a jury trial despite the cops sudden memory loss in a "driving while black" case.
Torry v. City of Chicago, 932 F.3d 579 | Casetext Search + Citator

To me, this vein of her rulings reveal here as pro-authoritarian, like Roberts and often like the liberal Supremes, siding with Big Govt
Click to expand...
So, is there an agenda with the group that puts together these lists for Trump and other past presidents? I mean, I hope someone like you is telling Trump these things.
 
horninchicago said:
So, is there an agenda with the group that puts together these lists for Trump and other past presidents? I mean, I hope someone like you is telling Trump these things.
Click to expand...

Well, for one thing, if you oppose Barrett you are taking on the Federalist Society. Not something I seek out.
 
2003TexasGrad said:
... What legislation did RBG ever write or pass that helped women? ..
Click to expand...

That is more or less the primary complaint about "activist judges," that they "legislate from the bench." A well-known pre-RGB example is Roe v. Wade, with about 80% of the majority opinion being legislative in nature. When they do this, they knowingly violate Separation of Powers. An act that not only breaches the clear text of the Constitution but, as I have argued for years, their oath of office (grounds for impeachment?).

The problem is that they are the Supremes. And the Supremes define the meaning of the Constitution. Is that legal rule in the clear text of the Constitution? No, it is not. So who decided that the Supremes would have the final word on the meaning of the Constitution? It was the Supremes who decided that. See the problem?
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
 
I did hear a threat if the Dems win the president and both houses they would stack the Supreme Court. Probably in the future that may happen. However, if Trump wins and the Rs win both houses should they create a law that the Supreme Court will only have 9 justices? They could just overturn the law. I don’t know, any thoughts.
 
Interesting question HH
What we can hope for is people do like the benefits of a good economy and will be less likely to vote for the unknown
So there is not a one party monopoly
 
humahuma said:
I did hear a threat if the Dems win the president and both houses they would stack the Supreme Court. Probably in the future that may happen. However, if Trump wins and the Rs win both houses should they create a law that the Supreme Court will only have 9 justices? They could just overturn the law. I don’t know, any thoughts.
Click to expand...
They would still need 3/5 majority to do that, so it is not a slam dunk they would be able to do that.

Amazing, though, that they make that threat to strong arm and bully the Rs against a SCOTUS hearing now and they just get away with it.
 
I read the Vacek opinion and it is solid law and grounded in the facts as they are customarily construed (in the plaintiff's favor) and this case is no reason to find fault with her. Any appellate judge would rule the same way. The cop had a right to enter the house because he had permission from the occupant. No big deal at all.

Interpreting appellate cases should be left to lawyers and last of all to ideologues
 
I tell you, protestors booing the President while he and First Lady are paying respects is just another reason why I cannot imagine him wanting to do this another 4 years.
 
Senator Cruz is blocking a Senate resolution honoring RBG
Instead of a respectful memoriam the Dems added the line the grandaughter said about Ruth's supposed last wish.
Reminds me of that Dem Congressman's funeral. Dens politicize everything

So Ted wanted RBG's words on stacking the court added.
Schumer said that was distasteful and beneath the dignity blah blah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top