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.
Since it seems to me that Trumpers don't generally read, I'll make a point of mentioning that the article reminds us that RBG is not necessarily the liberal firebrand that many people imagine her to be.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Unlikely Path to the Supreme Court
The New Yorker
By Jill Lepore
...She became known as a consensus builder who adhered closely to precedent, wrote narrowly tailored decisions, and refused to join intemperately written opinions. A 1987 study showed that she voted more often with Republican appointees than with Democratic appointees.
Also interesting how Bill Clinton debated for so long, considering a wide range of names, while Trump simply listened to people telling him who to nominate and then pushed it through as fast as possible.
It's odd that article doesn't mention her low opinion of the United States Constitution. At Cairo University in Egypt she said:
Quote:
I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary.
Quote:
She said of the document, “It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the U.S. Constitution — Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?”
None of these have anything close to our first amendment, and all have laws banning so called "hate speech." And South Africa is a shining example of what NOT to do. Another thing not mentioned is Bader-Ginsburg's support for consulting foreign law decisions when interpreting American law, a position Antonin Scalia strongly disagreed with. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/p...reign-law.html
I think she’s an impressive woman who filled a quota that Clinton had to have. There were a thousand men more qualified.
I get it, there should be a woman on the court but I just think men are better suited.
Ya got any basis for that thought? Do you have a list of even a hundred better qualified men? There certainly were no men or women better suited than Kavanaugh!
I guess you also believe your boss and your boss' boss also ONLY hire the #1 "best qualified" candidate for any position? It's subjective and since when does your opinion of who is best qualified mean no one else IS qualified? Have you studied the law?
Since it seems to me that Trumpers don't generally read, I'll make a point of mentioning that the article reminds us that RBG is not necessarily the liberal firebrand that many people imagine her to be.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Unlikely Path to the Supreme Court
The New Yorker
By Jill Lepore
...She became known as a consensus builder who adhered closely to precedent, wrote narrowly tailored decisions, and refused to join intemperately written opinions. A 1987 study showed that she voted more often with Republican appointees than with Democratic appointees.
Also interesting how Bill Clinton debated for so long, considering a wide range of names, while Trump simply listened to people telling him who to nominate and then pushed it through as fast as possible.
No one tells trump what to do.
You are confusing him with Obama and his handler Valerie Jarrett.
Ya got any basis for that thought? Do you have a list of even a hundred better qualified men? There certainly were no men or women better suited than Kavanaugh!
Kavanaugh is a very well respected jurist. Even the Democrats admit that. What about his judicial experience is lacking?
"Since it seems to me that Trumpers don't generally read...'
well, read your post, anyway.
Sure - but did you read the article? My impression is that they don't click through the links to read lengthy articles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowne
If you expect to be taken seriously, it would behoove you to dispense with the name calling and insults.
Are you serious? Name-calling? Do you say that to the posters who continue to speak of Hillary in such vicious terms? All I said here is that Trump listens to what people tell him to do in terms of nominations - and that is a basic truth, since we already know that Trump has no broad knowledge, nor does he read.
As a matter of fact, I'll bet that if you cornered Trump right now, he couldn't name all the SCOTUS justices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dozerbear
It's odd that article doesn't mention her low opinion of the United States Constitution.
It makes me sad when people lyingly employ false hyperbole. She didn't "trash" the Constitution. She simply said that, as others have started with ours as a model, some countries have incorporated improvements. It's an excellent idea to benefit from good ideas wherever they may be - including international law.
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.
