Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At least Ginsberg was up front about it. Scalia just went behind everyone's back. OH - and took bribes so . . .
What bribes?
Or are you just making stuff up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugah Ray
Did Obama ever ask Scalia to resign? hmm no
Why ask him to resign when you're going to have him murdered?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
Imagine if a Conservative Supreme Court Justice said in public that Hillary is a liar and corrupt and there is something that smells over the Clinton Foundation and that the Department of Justice should have indicted Hillary on criminal charges.....would the media and democrats be o.k with that?
Of course not.
The shrieking and screaming would go on for weeks, if not months!
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea
That is good that she at least apologized. However, if some election-based suit is appealed to the Supreme Court regarding Trump's election (as per Bush v. Gore) she would still, in my mind, need to recuse herself.
Good point.
By knocking Trump, she makes it more likely that he'll win the presidency in a disputed election.
How dumb is that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by texan2yankee
No, I don't think Supremes should express political opinions in the press. But, to deny these justices harbor biases is absurd. After all SCJ Sonia Sotomayor said:
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
....her comment was racist and sexist. If you swap the words Latina and white and woman and male, it is unequivocal.
I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
It's neither racist or sexist to me.
She was speaking about empathy and how it relates to the law.....
So what is it about ethnicity or gender that creates empathy?
I would say nothing.
They alone don't even make one a representative of one's gender or ethnicity.
It is completely unwarranted to claim that a particular woman represents women, or that a particular Latina represents Latinas.
The claim that race and gender confer a special attribute on oneself is nothing other than racist and sexist.
The law does not require different ethnic groups and genders to be represented in order to achieve justice.
It requires recognition of the rights and responsibilities of ALL individuals, regardless of race, ethnicity or gender.
Equal treatment before the law for EVERYONE, regardless of race and gender. Robbery by a white male being just as illegal as robbery by a black female. Etc.
And Sonia is VERY conceited, referring to herself as "wise."
So what is it about ethnicity or gender that creates empathy?
I would say nothing.
They alone don't even make one a representative of one's gender or ethnicity.
It is completely unwarranted to claim that a particular woman represents women, or that a particular Latina represents Latinas.
The claim that race and gender confer a special attribute on oneself is nothing other than racist and sexist.
The law does not require different ethnic groups and genders to be represented in order to achieve justice.
It requires recognition of the rights and responsibilities of ALL individuals, regardless of race, ethnicity or gender.
Equal treatment before the law for EVERYONE, regardless of race and gender. Robbery by a white male being just as illegal as robbery by a black female. Etc.
And Sonia is VERY conceited, referring to herself as "wise."
Neither ethnicity or gender create empathy.
The ability to relate to others is empathy. It is helpful to have shared experiences that can provide the foundation for relating to others. If one has no shared experiences, no pathway to identify with another, no commonality, then empathy may be incomplete or absent.
A woman will find it easier to empathize with another woman, a man will find it easier to empathize with another man, people of specific ethnicities find it easier to empathize with other people of those specific ethnicities.
It's not about people being representative. It's about judges being able fully to understand the positions of all parties in a lawsuit. When Judge Moore in Alabama makes rulings about gay marriage, do you think he fully appreciates the position of homosexuals? Does he empathize with homosexuals? Does he try to think of what it would be like to walk in their shoes?
Whether the law requires different ethnic groups and genders to be represented in order to achieve justice, we know that justice won't be achieved if the judges don't understand the issues. It wasn't 50 years ago when men in New Jersey could rape their wives with impunity, because the law didn't acknowledge that a wife could be raped by her husband. Empathy with abused wives changed the laws, and changed how judges ruled in spousal rape cases.
The law is imperfect, because human beings are imperfect. And the law, like human beings, evolves. How it evolves is the narrative of our nation.
Why ask him to resign when you're going to have him murdered?
Of course not.
The shrieking and screaming would go on for weeks, if not months!
Good point.
By knocking Trump, she makes it more likely that he'll win the presidency in a disputed election.
How dumb is that?
So what is it about ethnicity or gender that creates empathy?
I would say nothing.
They alone don't even make one a representative of one's gender or ethnicity.
It is completely unwarranted to claim that a particular woman represents women, or that a particular Latina represents Latinas.
The claim that race and gender confer a special attribute on oneself is nothing other than racist and sexist.
The law does not require different ethnic groups and genders to be represented in order to achieve justice.
It requires recognition of the rights and responsibilities of ALL individuals, regardless of race, ethnicity or gender.
Equal treatment before the law for EVERYONE, regardless of race and gender. Robbery by a white male being just as illegal as robbery by a black female. Etc.
And Sonia is VERY conceited, referring to herself as "wise."
You know, it's not even worth responding to someone that thinks Scalia was murdered and by President Obama.
Of course every SC Justice has the right to express their opinion but by doing so Justice Ginsburg public comment should recuse herself from issues affecting Trump in the future.
You know, it's not even worth responding to someone that thinks Scalia was murdered and by President Obama.
Just, no.
I think Justice Scalia is alive and well. It is all a 'false flag'.
There is no other logical reason for the Senate Republicans to not hold a hearing on President Obama's nominee. Since Scalia is not dead, they cannot consider someone to take his seat.
Yes, mark my words. Justice Scalia is alive and well, and imprisoned by the Senate Republicans for reasons I have yet to fathom. Perhaps some herein will have a theory.
Someday, when all is revealed, a TV movie will be made about it, with Danny DeVito as Justice Anthony Scalia.
I think Justice Scalia is alive and well. It is all a 'false flag'.
There is no other logical reason for the Senate Republicans to not hold a hearing on President Obama's nominee. Since Scalia is not dead, they cannot consider someone to take his seat.
Yes, mark my words. Justice Scalia is alive and well, and imprisoned by the Senate Republicans for reasons I have yet to fathom. Perhaps some herein will have a theory.
Someday, when all is revealed, a TV movie will be made about it, with Danny DeVito as Justice Anthony Scalia.
I think Chaz Palminteri would make a better Scalia.
The ability to relate to others is empathy. It is helpful to have shared experiences that can provide the foundation for relating to others. If one has no shared experiences, no pathway to identify with another, no commonality, then empathy may be incomplete or absent.
I'm sure that a lot of serial killers would agree with you.
We can't really have justice until serial killers, rapists and juvenile delinquents are on the High Court.
Quote:
It's not about people being representative. It's about judges being able fully to understand the positions of all parties in a lawsuit.
Well, there is certainly something to be said for grifters, con artists, lawyers and politicians being represented.
Quote:
When Judge Moore in Alabama makes rulings about gay marriage, do you think he fully appreciates the position of homosexuals? Does he empathize with homosexuals? Does he try to think of what it would be like to walk in their shoes?
Even if he tried, there is no way he could really "know".
That's why we have a Constitution that treats people as individuals, not as members of groups.
Quote:
Whether the law requires different ethnic groups and genders to be represented in order to achieve justice, we know that justice won't be achieved if the judges don't understand the issues. It wasn't 50 years ago when men in New Jersey could rape their wives with impunity, because the law didn't acknowledge that a wife could be raped by her husband. Empathy with abused wives changed the laws, and changed how judges ruled in spousal rape cases.
There are two ways to look at this. Rape is wrong, except when it's done to your wife. Or, rape is wrong period.
The Constitution demands equal protection under the law for all people. The fact that you're a married woman has nothing to do with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo1
You know, it's not even worth responding to someone that thinks Scalia was murdered and by President Obama.
Just, no.
But I bet it happened.
And even if it didn't, it's fun to speculate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea
I think Justice Scalia is alive and well. It is all a 'false flag'.
There is no other logical reason for the Senate Republicans to not hold a hearing on President Obama's nominee. Since Scalia is not dead, they cannot consider someone to take his seat.
Yes, mark my words. Justice Scalia is alive and well, and imprisoned by the Senate Republicans for reasons I have yet to fathom. Perhaps some herein will have a theory.
Someday, when all is revealed, a TV movie will be made about it, with Danny DeVito as Justice Anthony Scalia.
LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea
Here is Justice Scalia:
Compare his face to that of RBG.
He's a human being with vitality, intellect and a sense of humor and fun.
She's a hateful, shriveled up prune who should be in the ICU.
Last edited by dechatelet; 07-16-2016 at 04:44 AM..
I don't know. Aren't SCOTUS Justices there to provide their opinions...?
The SC Code of Conduct precludes it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
