White House candidate Trump calls Justice Ginsburg mentally unfit

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Gryphon66

Here in Kansas in a couple of weeks or so, we are having local congressional elections.

On Aug 2, we will go to the polls and vote. Virtually every congressional seat is up for ....

review?
challenge?

Brownback has ruined this state. God willing, we will prevail in early August and run them off.

I've seen some of what is happening out there Buzzy. I hope this obscene "political experiment" that you guys have had forced on you ends soon.

It's easy to make it a right/left issue, but it isn't. It's a tragic economic experiment gone horribly wrong.

Let the ballot box speak! I believe it will also speak in November regarding the mutable issue of this discussion.

a reply to: Gryphon66

We're not going to snipe, LesMis.

Drop the personal commentary and address the point of discussion.

Please demonstrate how the Supreme Court of the United States has been unaffected with partisan politics.

I'll be glad to have an actual debate with you on the facts, rather than this silly personal back and forth.

You're a good man. Present your argument, and I'll provide a rebuttal, as per actual debates.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I hope this obscene "political experiment" that you guys have had forced on you ends soon.

It's easy to make it a right/left issue, but it isn't. It's a tragic economic experiment gone horribly wrong.

Let the ballot box speak! I believe it will also speak in November regarding the mutable issue of this discussion.

Right?

Ugh...
it's all just so distasteful and "is this real?"?????

Let me see here, how many voted for Obama over Clinton?

Now you like Clinton?

Naw

ATTENTION!

Remain on topic and drop the sniping.

Don't reply to this post.

Does anyone on this site have an opinion that wasn't spoon fed to them by Fox News? There's nothing in a Supreme Court Justice's job description that says they have to be impartial in every part of their lives until they die. They have to be impartial in a court case, and only then.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UnBreakable

Nope. You never believe me either so we're going with I said so.
Sooner or later you'll catch the same thing I saw on the news all on your own.
Till then. Oh well...

In other words, you're just making things up.............again.

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Does anyone on this site have an opinion that wasn't spoon fed to them by Fox News? There's nothing in a Supreme Court Justice's job description that says they have to be impartial in every part of their lives until they die. They have to be impartial in a court case, and only then.

No one has stated nor implied they have to be impartial in every part of their lives until they die.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The Supreme Court of the United States has been politically affiliated and has addressed political concerns from the very beginning of the Republic.

One of the earliest examples would be the decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803) in which the SCOTUS established the implied right of Judicial Review. This placed the Court in direct ideological conflict, at times, with the Legislative Branch based upon the interpretation of the US Constitution (and interpretation has always been a function of political belief.)

Although the names of the "parties" have changed, the basic underlying nature of this country's political life has been as a compromise of two diverse and often opposite political positions (ideology - partisanship). President Washington aptly warned us about the dangers of party politics:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.

The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

President Washington's Farewell Address

(Yes, I know the quote is too long, but it's too good to cut short. Mea culpa.)

Yet, of course, the next two Presidents and every one since them has been the representative of a major political party divergent from the other.

How does this "spirit of party" apply to our current concerns?

The President and the Congress ever since that point have been consumed in partisan politics. There is little argument, and if there is, that is outside the scope of the current question.

The Constitution is clear that a SCOTUS Justice is established (appointed) a joint effort of the President and the Congress, both admittedly consumed by party politics. They are given life appointments with the idea that they would be apolitical, but this ideal has never been met. Every Court has a recognized "flavour" as regards the political issues of the time (partisanship), and this fact is true to the current day, in which every Court decision is described in terms of the way that the "the liberal and conservative (and moderate)" Justices ruled, sometimes together, sometimes in opposition to expectations.

However, the claim that the Supreme Court is or ever has been free of "partisan political concerns" is nonsensical on its face.

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Does anyone on this site have an opinion that wasn't spoon fed to them by Fox News?

That meme is getting old. Just because someone quotes a Fox News source does not mean that is the only source of information used. Fox leans right, I agree, but so what. There are ways to check information, and most of the good researchers here on ATS don't automatically shoot the messenger, especially when other sources have also been examined.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh, the supreme court has always been biased politically. Since day one. It really couldn't be any other way given how they're selected for the position.

Ideally, they'd be able to lose the bias while on the bench, and I'd say, historically, they've been pretty good about it. Not always, but certainly better then any other branch of govt.

If we can't be real about something this blatantly obvious, at least to ourselves, ... well, let's say I'm not content with that answer.

Nor should you be content with it. I'm certainly not. Hence the number of posts by me in this thread...

The only way political bias can be combatted, if it can be at all, is by people being aware of what's going on, aware and willing to work at making it work. Only in that way will it work.

OK, that doesn't sound right... I know what I meant to say... Hmmm...

When a President has the opportunity to select someone for a position of such influence as a Supreme Court Justice, it would behoove him/her to select one with the advice of not only his political hacks/advisors, but that of the entire Judiciary committee. Advice and consent. That is the duty of the Senate where this is concerned. I don't see a whole lot of advice in these matters...

That's our job. (Here I go again...soapbox time.)

When we elect the President, and our Congressional representatives we don't abrogate our responsibilities as citizens of oversight. We, too, have a duty to advise and consent, and ours is the voice that should ultimately matter, and would if we could be bothered to use it.

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Does anyone on this site have an opinion that wasn't spoon fed to them by Fox News?

Excellently pertinent question!

I'm beginning to wonder that myself. At least you and I??

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Yes, as a matter of fact many of us do. Try reading some of 'em.

Personally, I get a little, no make that a lot, tired of FoxNews, and CNN being portrayed as the evil fonts of misinformation...

It really is time for some of you to grow the Hell up. Seriously. I watch both, rather regularly. ...and both disagree, and agree from time to time.

Nothing is "spoon fed" to me. I make up my own damned mind, thank you. So, too, do most of us here. You disagree? Fine, feel free, but stop accusing people of being "spoon fed" when they happen to disagree with you. Few, if any of us, are 10 years old any more. We have our opinions and our biases...

...Just Like You.

a reply to: seagull

Ash has a valid point though.

The only impartiality necessary of an SC Judge is when proceeding a SC Court Case.


& yet the first 5 or 6 pages of this vacuous thread are nothing more than calls for her to be removed for being impartial.


Tough tits I say.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Absolutely that's all the matters in the end. It's an impossible standard, but as long as they try, I've no issue.

If they can speak on matters in public that don't involve a case that they may hear at a later date, then they should be able to if they so choose. No problem with it. Actually I do, sort of, have a problem...I think that some topics mightn't be the wisest idea for them to comment upon. This particular item, I've no problem.

Did that make sense? Hope so...blood sugar dropping, almost dinner time.

a reply to: seagull

I agree with you on every single point.

I would go further and say that the political process is and should be DYNAMIC ... in that all sides of very issue should be tested on the field of logic, reason, prevailing opinions and morality, and that most elusive of all concepts "what does the most good for the most people."

But there has to be an end ... there has to be a decision. There has to be a conclusion and an achievement and then we move on to the next challenge and do the same thing all over again.

Of course we don't give up as citizens. I am a great believer that we should be even more invested in the governmental processes by a Constitutional mandate of the powers of repeal, recall and initiative made available to the People.

It's time. We have the technology (and other thing that should be/must be straightened out is the damned voting processes. Enough of the stupid crap already; let's FIX it!

We the People are the fourth branch of government. I absolutely agree we need to stand up for our responsibilities.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You got all that from FoxNews, didn't you? C'mon, admit it. I'll still love ya, man.

thank you. It just seems obvious to me, and has for a very long time.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

No one has stated nor implied they have to be impartial in every part of their lives until they die.

Erm...yes, some one has.