Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 11 Jul '16 16:32
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/ruth-bader-ginsburg-donald-trump-000000695.html

    It used to be that those on SCOTUS did not campaign for political candidates, but now that has all changed. Gindsburg says she will move to New Zealand if Trump is elected.
  2. 11 Jul '16 21:42
    What do you expect from someone who should have recused herself on a case in SCOTUS

    http://barbwire.com/2015/01/20/0900-ginsburg-kagan-must-recuse-gay-marriage-case/#
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    11 Jul '16 22:08 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    What do you expect from someone who should have recused herself on a case in SCOTUS

    http://barbwire.com/2015/01/20/0900-ginsburg-kagan-must-recuse-gay-marriage-case/#


    There is no rule that a SCOTUS justice has to recuse themselves just because it's reasonably obvious how they are going to rule. Just about every decision would be 1-0 if there was such a guiding principle. Moreover, the weddings performed were legal in the States and DC where the Judges officiated and the issue of whether there is a right to marriage equality for gays is surely different from whether a Judge decides to perform a legal wedding ceremony so the argument presented is spurious.

    Some "legal expert" you found there:

    Fischer has said that welfare has "destroyed the African-American family"[10] by "offering financial rewards to women who have more children out of wedlock" thereby incentivizing "fornication rather than marriage" creating "disastrous social consequences of people who rut like rabbits."[11] The AFA has repudiated the characterisation of minorities as "people who rut like rabbits,"[7] as well as the view that immigration should be restricted because Hispanics are "socialist by nature" and vote Democratic because it allows them to "benefit from the plunder of the wealth of the United States."[8]
    Fischer has argued that "Many of the tribal reservations today remain mired in poverty and alcoholism because many Native Americans continue to cling to the darkness of indigenous superstition instead of coming into the light of Christianity and assimilating into Christian culture."[12] The AFA has repudiated his view that "Superstition, savagery and sexual immorality" morally disqualified Native Americans from "sovereign control of American soil."[13]
    Religious exercise[edit]
    Fischer has described Muslims as "Parasites Who Must Convert or Die,"[14] and stated that Muslims are worshipping a demon[15] and "every time we allow a mosque to go up in one of our communities, it’s like planting an improvised explosive device right in the heart of your city and we have no idea when one of these devices is going to go off.”[16] He stated that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects only the religious practice of Christianity, writing in a blog post “The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance [Islam], or Judaism, or infidelity... So the purpose of the First Amendment was most decidedly NOT to “approve, support, (or) accept” any “religion” other than Christianity."[17] Fischer has suggested Jews and Muslims are not included in religious freedom protections in the US, saying: “I have contended for years that the First Amendment, as given by the Founders, provides religious liberty protections for Christianity only.” He later wrote: “We are a Christian nation and not a Jewish or Muslim one.”[18]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Fischer

    It goes on in rather nauseating detail.
  4. 11 Jul '16 22:57
    Originally posted by whodey
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/ruth-bader-ginsburg-donald-trump-000000695.html

    It used to be that those on SCOTUS did not campaign for political candidates, but now that has all changed. Gindsburg says she will move to New Zealand if Drumpf is elected.
    she is a citizen of your country, she has the right to joke she will move to another country if trump is elected.

    you obviously have no idea what campaigning is.
  5. 11 Jul '16 23:05
    Originally posted by whodey
    What do you expect from someone who should have recused herself on a case in SCOTUS

    http://barbwire.com/2015/01/20/0900-ginsburg-kagan-must-recuse-gay-marriage-case/#
    bwahaha, that guy is a moron and you along with him. they should recuse themselves because they have made it clear they support gay marriage. should the others recuse themselves because they are against it?


    "Both Kagan and Ginsburg have performed same-sex wedding ceremonies."
    and? should the justices against gay marriage recuse themselves if they performed opposite sex wedding ceremonies?

    " Rather than being impartial on the matter"
    this isn't a matter of being impartial. this is a matter of opinion. thankfully, more justices are of the opinion that marriage should also allow for gay couples.
  6. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    12 Jul '16 14:53
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    bwahaha, that guy is a moron and you along with him. they should recuse themselves because they have made it clear they support gay marriage. should the others recuse themselves because they are against it?


    "Both Kagan and Ginsburg have performed same-sex wedding ceremonies."
    and? should the justices against gay marriage recuse themselves if they perf ...[text shortened]... n. thankfully, more justices are of the opinion that marriage should also allow for gay couples.
    No lie.

    Clarence Thomas never should have made it onto the Court in the first place.
  7. 14 Jul '16 08:43
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZIl_scIei8
  8. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    14 Jul '16 12:44
    Aside from being unbecoming and unseemly, incredibly dumb move by the Notorious RBG.

    Now, if the election does end up in the Supreme Court (And I need not remind you that's it's ended there once before), she'll probably have to recuse herself.
  9. 14 Jul '16 12:52
    Originally posted by sh76
    Aside from being unbecoming and unseemly, incredibly dumb move by the Notorious RBG.

    Now, if the election does end up in the Supreme Court (And I need not remind you that's it's ended there once before), she'll probably have to recuse herself.
    like all the conservatives recused themselves in the stolen 2000 election?
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    14 Jul '16 13:12 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    like all the conservatives recused themselves in the stolen 2000 election?
    None of the 5 Justices in the majority were on record supporting Bush before the election in any way comparable to what RBG said here (an offhand remark at a cocktail party doesn't count).

    In 2003, in the "under God" Pledge of Allegiance case, Scalia recused himself because he had made a statement criticizing the decision in public in a much less bombastic way than this statement of RBG.

    http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2003/oct/15/scalia_recuses_himself/

    Obviously, judges often base their decisions, at least partially, on their political viewpoints. They're humans too, you know. But what you do if you're smart is you keep your mouth shut until after the case reaches you. As it stands, if the case does end up in SCOTUS, there will be enormous pressure for RBG to recuse herself.

    RBG is certainly a historically great American with great accomplishments in her life, but she's getting old and wooly-headed.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/13/supreme-court-ginsburg-state-of-the-union/23360117/
  11. 14 Jul '16 13:23
    Originally posted by sh76
    None of the 5 Justices in the majority were on record supporting Bush before the election in any way comparable to what RBG said here (an offhand remark at a cocktail party doesn't count).

    In 2003, in the "under God" Pledge of Allegiance case, Scalia recused himself because he had made a statement criticizing the decision in public in a much less bombastic w ...[text shortened]... .usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/13/supreme-court-ginsburg-state-of-the-union/23360117/
    "None of the 5 Justices in the majority were on record supporting Bush before the election in any way comparable to what RBG said here (an offhand remark at a cocktail party doesn't count)."
    heh. it doesn't count.


    you seem to be under the impression that the supreme court has ever been comprised of impartial people and not judges specifically placed there to advance a party's agenda.

    that is absolutely adorable if you honestly believe it.
  12. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    14 Jul '16 13:28
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "None of the 5 Justices in the majority were on record supporting Bush before the election in any way comparable to what RBG said here (an offhand remark at a cocktail party doesn't count)."
    heh. it doesn't count.


    you seem to be under the impression that the supreme court has ever been comprised of impartial people and not judges specifically placed there to advance a party's agenda.

    that is absolutely adorable if you honestly believe it.
    === you seem to be under the impression that the supreme court has ever been comprised of impartial people and not judges specifically placed there to advance a party's agenda.

    that is absolutely adorable if you honestly believe it. ===

    If Duchess were here, I'm sure she'd comment on your poor reading comprehension as, actually, I said precisely the opposite.

    Obviously, judges often base their decisions, at least partially, on their political viewpoints. They're humans too, you know.
  13. 14 Jul '16 13:44
    Originally posted by sh76
    === you seem to be under the impression that the supreme court has ever been comprised of impartial people and not judges specifically placed there to advance a party's agenda.

    that is absolutely adorable if you honestly believe it. ===

    If Duchess were here, I'm sure she'd comment on your poor reading comprehension as, actually, I said precisely the oppo ...[text shortened]... sions, at least partially, on their political viewpoints. They're humans too, you know. [/quote]
    "Obviously, judges often base their decisions, at least partially, on their political viewpoints"
    so you are just complaining that she voiced her political viewpoint.
  14. 14 Jul '16 14:20
    Originally posted by no1marauder


    There is no rule that a SCOTUS justice has to recuse themselves just because it's reasonably obvious how they are going to rule. Just about every decision would be 1-0 if there was such a guiding principle. Moreover, the weddings performed were legal in the States and DC where the Judges officiated and the issue of whether there is a right to m ...[text shortened]... .”[18]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Fischer

    It goes on in rather nauseating detail.
    Why is it that when a point is made by a person the left does not like, they then take an hour to assassinate the character while ignoring the point they made that may be valid?

    Sigh.

    The point made was the Gindsburg is a political shill. She has no view other than the party line.
  15. 14 Jul '16 14:22 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    No lie.

    Clarence Thomas never should have made it onto the Court in the first place.
    We understand completely

    Conservative judge, bad, Left winged judge, good.

    What a joke SCOTUS has become.