Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

What should Trump say to Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 2:23:13 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Well this of course...

http://youtu.be...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 2:43:46 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/13/2016 2:02:38 AM, xus00HAY wrote:
My guess, " come inauguration day January, you're fired"

You can't fire a supreme court justice, they can only be impeached for breaking the law.

What Trump SHOULD say is very simple..."Justice Ginsburg. Is your sworn duty as a justice of the nations highest court not supposed to be ruling on cases based on non-partisan, fact based readings of how laws are written? Are you admitting to the nation that the Supreme Court illegally votes based on political lines? You do realize that your comments require immediate impeachment hearings on ALL justices of the court and mistrials to be ruled on every single case you and any of your fellow justices found guilty of partisan rulings have sat upon?"

Simple, easy, straight to the point.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 2:54:12 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/13/2016 2:02:38 AM, xus00HAY wrote:
My guess, " come inauguration day January, you're fired"

Your not this naive for real, are you?
Semiya
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 12:20:46 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2016 2:43:46 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 7/13/2016 2:02:38 AM, xus00HAY wrote:
My guess, " come inauguration day January, you're fired"

You can't fire a supreme court justice, they can only be impeached for breaking the law.

What Trump SHOULD say is very simple..."Justice Ginsburg. Is your sworn duty as a justice of the nations highest court not supposed to be ruling on cases based on non-partisan, fact based readings of how laws are written? Are you admitting to the nation that the Supreme Court illegally votes based on political lines? You do realize that your comments require immediate impeachment hearings on ALL justices of the court and mistrials to be ruled on every single case you and any of your fellow justices found guilty of partisan rulings have sat upon?"

Simple, easy, straight to the point.

Lol. The Supreme Court has been obviously partisan for a long time now.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 1:40:46 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2016 12:20:46 PM, Semiya wrote:
At 7/13/2016 2:43:46 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 7/13/2016 2:02:38 AM, xus00HAY wrote:
My guess, " come inauguration day January, you're fired"

You can't fire a supreme court justice, they can only be impeached for breaking the law.

What Trump SHOULD say is very simple..."Justice Ginsburg. Is your sworn duty as a justice of the nations highest court not supposed to be ruling on cases based on non-partisan, fact based readings of how laws are written? Are you admitting to the nation that the Supreme Court illegally votes based on political lines? You do realize that your comments require immediate impeachment hearings on ALL justices of the court and mistrials to be ruled on every single case you and any of your fellow justices found guilty of partisan rulings have sat upon?"

Simple, easy, straight to the point.

Lol. The Supreme Court has been obviously partisan for a long time now.

Obviously partisan? Yes.
Partisan proven by circumstantial Evidence? Yes.
Admittedly partisan? No.
Partisan proven by inarguable evidence? No.

With the above facts, one can see, there is no evidence of partisanship that will withstand scrutiny in a court of law; it is all circumstantial and theory. However, with Ginsburg's recent statements made publicly and to no less than three major news outlets, there is now hard factual evidence that is indisputable; a person's own words are generally their own noose, which is why lawyers don't like placing clients on the stand, even when innocent. Ruth should know better...although she is getting up there in age.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 2:08:31 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2016 1:40:46 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 7/13/2016 12:20:46 PM, Semiya wrote:
At 7/13/2016 2:43:46 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 7/13/2016 2:02:38 AM, xus00HAY wrote:
My guess, " come inauguration day January, you're fired"

You can't fire a supreme court justice, they can only be impeached for breaking the law.

What Trump SHOULD say is very simple..."Justice Ginsburg. Is your sworn duty as a justice of the nations highest court not supposed to be ruling on cases based on non-partisan, fact based readings of how laws are written? Are you admitting to the nation that the Supreme Court illegally votes based on political lines? You do realize that your comments require immediate impeachment hearings on ALL justices of the court and mistrials to be ruled on every single case you and any of your fellow justices found guilty of partisan rulings have sat upon?"

Simple, easy, straight to the point.

Lol. The Supreme Court has been obviously partisan for a long time now.

Obviously partisan? Yes.
Partisan proven by circumstantial Evidence? Yes.
Admittedly partisan? No.
Partisan proven by inarguable evidence? No.

With the above facts, one can see, there is no evidence of partisanship that will withstand scrutiny in a court of law; it is all circumstantial and theory. However, with Ginsburg's recent statements made publicly and to no less than three major news outlets, there is now hard factual evidence that is indisputable; a person's own words are generally their own noose, which is why lawyers don't like placing clients on the stand, even when innocent. Ruth should know better...although she is getting up there in age.

We have had a conservative leaning SCOTUS for some time now.

https://upload.wikimedia.org...

now, truth is, we generally get middle of the road all around at this point. Not long ago, we had people that swung more wildly.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 2:34:57 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2016 2:08:31 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/13/2016 1:40:46 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 7/13/2016 12:20:46 PM, Semiya wrote:
At 7/13/2016 2:43:46 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 7/13/2016 2:02:38 AM, xus00HAY wrote:
My guess, " come inauguration day January, you're fired"

You can't fire a supreme court justice, they can only be impeached for breaking the law.

What Trump SHOULD say is very simple..."Justice Ginsburg. Is your sworn duty as a justice of the nations highest court not supposed to be ruling on cases based on non-partisan, fact based readings of how laws are written? Are you admitting to the nation that the Supreme Court illegally votes based on political lines? You do realize that your comments require immediate impeachment hearings on ALL justices of the court and mistrials to be ruled on every single case you and any of your fellow justices found guilty of partisan rulings have sat upon?"

Simple, easy, straight to the point.

Lol. The Supreme Court has been obviously partisan for a long time now.

Obviously partisan? Yes.
Partisan proven by circumstantial Evidence? Yes.
Admittedly partisan? No.
Partisan proven by inarguable evidence? No.

With the above facts, one can see, there is no evidence of partisanship that will withstand scrutiny in a court of law; it is all circumstantial and theory. However, with Ginsburg's recent statements made publicly and to no less than three major news outlets, there is now hard factual evidence that is indisputable; a person's own words are generally their own noose, which is why lawyers don't like placing clients on the stand, even when innocent. Ruth should know better...although she is getting up there in age.

We have had a conservative leaning SCOTUS for some time now.

https://upload.wikimedia.org...

now, truth is, we generally get middle of the road all around at this point. Not long ago, we had people that swung more wildly.

So, what you're telling me is that the SCOTUS which struck down all state gay marriage bans, recently denied a group religious exemptions in regards to contraceptive coverage, and struck down several state restrictions on abortion in the past two months is supposed to be conservative?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 2:34:57 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2016 2:08:31 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/13/2016 1:40:46 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 7/13/2016 12:20:46 PM, Semiya wrote:
At 7/13/2016 2:43:46 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 7/13/2016 2:02:38 AM, xus00HAY wrote:
My guess, " come inauguration day January, you're fired"

You can't fire a supreme court justice, they can only be impeached for breaking the law.

What Trump SHOULD say is very simple..."Justice Ginsburg. Is your sworn duty as a justice of the nations highest court not supposed to be ruling on cases based on non-partisan, fact based readings of how laws are written? Are you admitting to the nation that the Supreme Court illegally votes based on political lines? You do realize that your comments require immediate impeachment hearings on ALL justices of the court and mistrials to be ruled on every single case you and any of your fellow justices found guilty of partisan rulings have sat upon?"

Simple, easy, straight to the point.

Lol. The Supreme Court has been obviously partisan for a long time now.

Obviously partisan? Yes.
Partisan proven by circumstantial Evidence? Yes.
Admittedly partisan? No.
Partisan proven by inarguable evidence? No.

With the above facts, one can see, there is no evidence of partisanship that will withstand scrutiny in a court of law; it is all circumstantial and theory. However, with Ginsburg's recent statements made publicly and to no less than three major news outlets, there is now hard factual evidence that is indisputable; a person's own words are generally their own noose, which is why lawyers don't like placing clients on the stand, even when innocent. Ruth should know better...although she is getting up there in age.

We have had a conservative leaning SCOTUS for some time now.

https://upload.wikimedia.org...

now, truth is, we generally get middle of the road all around at this point. Not long ago, we had people that swung more wildly.

Nobody has stated anything to the contrary of your arguments. My argument to this post is simply that the Supreme Court of the United States is supposed to be 100% non-partisan; not BI-partisan, but NON-partisan. Simply read the written law, make your ruling on what the law states as written, move on to the next case. Instead, politics has become a staple point of the Supreme Court, and Ruth just admitted it on camera.

While doing so, she violated Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct for the United States Justices:

Section A, Item 2. which states:

Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity

(A) General Prohibitions. A judge should not:

(2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office;


http://www.uscourts.gov...

Double whammy.