Senile Libtard Dinosaur Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Shows True Bias & Corruption By Attacking Trump
Here we go.. Mentally challenged dinosaur Supreme Court skank alcoholic Ruth Bader Ginsburg is attacking Trump, saying HE is dangerous..
If anyone is dangerous it is Obama and the other anti-American libtards in our government, including the corrupt and senile drunkard dinosaur Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Why the fuck do we leave it up to these mentally challenged idiots on the Supreme Court to decide when it is time that they step down, when almost none of them ever step down before becoming completely mentally unstable and dying?
The American People need to have more of a say in who becomes a Supreme Court justice, and who is allowed to stay as they age and lose their minds.
Supreme Court justices should not be appointed by the president – Americans should vote for them – and kicking the bucket shouldn’t be the only way to get rid of these overpowered jackasses.
Donald Trump responded to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s brainless attack against him.
“I think it’s highly inappropriate that a United States Supreme Court judge gets involved in a political campaign, frankly 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.” – 2016 RNC Presidential Candidate Donald Trump
“That she should be saying that? 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.”- 2016 RNC Presidential Candidate Donald Trump
Ruth Bader Ginsburg should also apologize to the American People for that hair. Dinosaur Ginsburg is not fooling anyone by continuing to dye her hair dark brown, when we all know her hair is probably completely gray at her age.
DIE ALREADY, YOU ANCIENT HAGGARD CUNT!
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?
Louis Virelli is a Stetson University law professor who just wrote a book on Supreme Court recusals, titled “Disqualifying the High Court.” He said that “public 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. 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.”
Hellman said Ginsburg’s comments could muddy the waters when it comes to decisions not just involving Trump but also his policies — something that could come up regularly should he win the presidency.
“It would cast doubt on her impartiality in those decisions,” Hellman said. “If she has expressed herself as opposing the election of Donald Trump, her vote to strike down a Trump policy would be under a cloud.”
Ed Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and who once clerked for conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, has criticized Ginsburg before for her public comments. But he said this one is more indefensible than any of its predecessors.
“I think this exceeds the others in terms of her indiscretions,” Whelan said. “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. I am not a fan of Donald Trump’s at all. But the soundness or unsoundness of her concerns about Donald Trump has no bearing on whether it was proper for her to say what she said.”
Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine, said it’s valid to question how Ginsburg might have to handle a potential Trump case — up to and including a Clinton v. Trump case.
“I think this is ultimately a question for judicial ethicists, but I do think following these comments it is a legitimate question to raise, should Donald Trump’s campaign come to the Court with any legal questions before the election,” Hasen wrote on his blog.
It’s not clear that there is any real precedent for what Ginsburg just did.
Stand Up To Government Corruption and Hypocrisy – usbacklash.org