Donald Trump

How Ruth Bader Ginsburg Is Helping Donald Trump

The liberal justice attacks the presumptive GOP nominee.

|

WhiteHouse.gov

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg does not like the idea of Donald Trump becoming president and she wants the world to know it. Speaking recently to The New York Times, Ginsburg said she "can't imagine" the horrors that would be unleashed by a Trump presidency and joked about moving "to New Zealand" if Trump wins. In response, Trump told the Times that Ginsburg's comments were "a disgrace to the court and I think she should apologize to the court."

Ginsburg took a different approach. In yet another interview, this time with CNN, the liberal justice blasted Trump as "a faker" who "has no consistency about him…. How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns?" Unsurprisingly, Trump also responded to that, this time via Twitter: "Justice Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. Her mind is shot—resign!"

If Justice Ginsburg really wants to see Donald Trump lose the 2016 presidential election then she should keep her political opinions to herself. After all, there is practically no chance that Ginsburg—the Supreme Court's most predictably liberal justice—is going to persuade any wavering conservatives that they ought to ditch Trump. However, there is every chance that Ginsburg's anti-Trump outbursts will backfire by reminding all conservatives—including plenty of wavering #NeverTrump-ers—that the election of Hillary Clinton will guarantee the nomination of more Ginsburg-style liberals to SCOTUS.

Unfortunately for Ginsburg, Trump is apparently wise enough to understand what Ginsburg does not. As Trump told the Times, Ginsburg "only energizes my base even more."

NEXT: Paul Ryan Says Presidential Election a 'Binary Choice,' Gary Johnson Gets on Maine Ballot, U.S. Stocks See Historic Rise After Brexit: A.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ruth Bader Ginsburg revealed herself as a leftist hack a long time ago and seems not to have ever gained a bit of prudence with age – but who does, right?

    1. Wait until Hillary appoints Obama and Lynch.

      1. Wait until Hillary appoints Obama

        I’m still hoping that’s a sick joke.

        1. If only somebody who would not appoint those two was running against Hillary.

        2. Joke’s on us.

    2. What about the partisan hackery of Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Alito and Scalia? Scalia famously refused to recuse himself from cases involving Vice President Cheney .,.. who Scalia had gone on a fishing trip with. All this reported today by those crazy liberals at the Wall Street Journal. Thereby showing, once again, that the charge of “partisan hack” comes mostly for partisan hacks in the opposing tribe.

      One rule for me. Another rule for thee.

  2. Yet Alito shaking his head about a blatant mischaracterization of a SCOTUS decision is a travesty of democracy.

    1. Today’s Wall Street Journal agrees. (also sarc)

  3. I agree but her goal is to get Trump elected. Commies and fascists need each other to play off of and thereby create their police state / Secular Caliphate which they can then use to abuse and exploit vulnerable people. This is nothing new – they’ve been doing it for over a century. Fortunately it will fail. Some of us actually learned from history for once.

    1. If you think Ginsberg is trying to get Trump elected, you’ve really jumped the shark, shreek. Do you know who appointed her?

      1. Yes and you are her sockpuppet. OK now deny it:

        1. Don’t do drugs so early in the day, shreek.

      2. He’s either joking or he’s gone insane.

        1. The socialists stoked resentments with too-generous social services and the Nazis exploit that to scapegoat a vulnerable minority. Then the communists call you ‘crazy’ for pointing it out. It’s an old strategy. But hey, feel free to continue demonstrating how it works, and why it can’t work any more:

          1. The Nazis were socialists, you loon.

            1. Of course they were socialists. Nazi = “National Socialist”. It was them vs the Social Democrats. This is well known. You think you can win an argument by calling people “loon”? How delightfully communist of you. How are those Gulag plans coming along?

              1. Dreams are a great thing, but you know something? They take a lot of energy. But that’s OK. There’s a job waiting for you down the block from your house that doesn’t require a thought in your head or a hope in your heart. So come on down and work for the artificial flower factory. Why fight it? OK? Thank you.

                1. There’s a job waiting for you down the block from your house that doesn’t require a thought in your head or a hope in your heart.

                  The authoritarian mind, incapable of dealing with issues, always resorts to some sort of aggression. Often in the language of a 12-year-old child. Some even sneer as they type.

              2. Some folks get downright nasty when called out.
                What do you say about the partisan involvement of Justices O’Connor, Alito and Scalia?
                Should Alito have accused Obama of an untruth? Should Scalia have recused himself from cases involving Vice President Cheney … because the two had gone on a fishing trip together?

                Do you frequently use “gulags” while attacking the right of Free Speech? But hey, feel free to continue showing how to deny Constitutional rights to anyone you disagree with, and why it can’t work under our Constitution.

          2. It’s a conspiracy I tells ya!

          3. DONT FOGET TEH JOOS!!!!!

    2. Ok, I just fired up my shreek translator. I keep it right beside the derp meter.

      “her goal is to get Trump elected”

      translation:

      “Shut up you old bat, before you cause my new master, Hillary, to lose!”

      1. You power that with horse shit, I suppose?

        1. Failed stock picks and gold price predictions.

    3. Shouldn’t you be on the front of a Cocoa Puff box someplace?

    4. You’re probably right about that. I forgot which radio commenter lately’s been saying the BLM protests will stop once they realize they’re driving Trump’s polls up, but he’s wrong. These people don’t want to win, they just want to keep the game going.

      The democratic world’s divided between the people who want to get shit done?of course half of them want to undo whatever the other half wants, the division being particular to the issue?& the professionals who play to them, who’ll lose power, $, & att’n if the shit ever gets done. I left LP partly because I saw they’d gotten that way, which I guess is inevitable in political parties; they were offended by Howard Stern because they resented someone’s being able to make something of the work they’d done & recognition they thought they deserved. In recent yrs. I’ve started to conclude that Reason, run by a not-for-profit but paying salaries, is also in the “professional” category that stands to lose by winning, even if the stakes be perceived just as cocktail party invit’ns.

      1. Any other dark conspiracies to share with us? I have a pretty good idea why a Trumpster would be uncomfortable in the LP.

  4. I dreamed last night that Shillary had a big drop in the polls. Woke up this morning and it was true.

    RCP Avg.

    Hillary + 4.3 vs the Donald

    Hillary + 4.0 4 way

    Trump + 0.2 FL
    Hillary + 1.4 PA
    Hillary + 1.7 OH

    1. Hitlary will kill him in the debates. He knows it and will try every strategy to get out of them. He thought that by now his goons would have intimidated everyone into compliance. Huge miscalculation. He is losing steam fast, despite your poll claims. He will choose Gingrich and they will together grow increasingly desperate and delusional. They will be a complete joke. Will be great fun to watch.

      1. Well, shreek, nice to see you’ve finally started to admit that you support Cankles. Sad that you’re so ashamed of it you need a sock to do it. You’re pathetic.

        1. I support Johnson/Weld. But Cankles is better than Der Drumpf.

          1. Welcome to Retardation: A Celebration. Now, hopefully, I’m gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the retarded don’t rule the night. They don’t rule it. Nobody does. And they don’t run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

            1. What’s the rest of that movie about? I don’t even know its name. Maybe the rest is completely unremarkable.

            2. Welcome to Retardation

              Are you also a greeter at Wal-Mart?

            3. First off, the retarded don’t rule the night.

              Correct, The thoughtful right is ashamed of you.

              And they don’t run in packs.

              SEE! Who said they did?

              You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

              Yep, a failure to communicate is ALWAYS the fault of the listener, even if the speaker is intellectually bankrupt with nothing to say.

          2. Now tell us how you scored 94% on the libertarian test, which is more than anyone, even Ron Paul. You boring, shut up, go away.

            1. Honestly, it’s best to just ignore me. Responding will only rile up your self-abusive demons.

              1. Worst.sock.ever.

              2. Hey….did you ever pay up?

              3. You really have gone off the rails. I do remember you admitting you are a serious cokehead.

                Even if addiction were a myth it doesnt follow that heavy and extended drug use does not damage your brain.

                1. Exhibit A: Shreek.

                2. Depends on the drug. Also consider that heavy & extended use may be preceded by brain damage. Like that cartoon Jacob dug up with T. Edison probing a tobacco-smoking child for voltage, & observing, “Not a live wire.” I don’t think the point was what Jacob thought it was, i.e. that smoking causes dementia, but rather that you gotta be somewhat dim to smoke.

            2. What is a “libertarian test” and do you suffer any other delusions?

            3. Now tell us how you scored 94% on the libertarian test, which is more than anyone, even Ron Paul.

              There is no libertarian test.
              If there was Ron would score below 50, as an extreme social conservative and anti-constitutionalist (to those who can the constitution and/or think)

              You boring, shut up, go away.

              The Paulista Cult,being authoritarian on matters of government are bullies on personal matters. Same mentality.

          3. ZOMG, you called him Drumpf just like that guy on teh televisions!! You are sooo funny and clever!!!!!

          4. You racist.

      2. Hitlary will kill him in the debates.

        LOL, that’s probably the best laugh I’ll have all day.

        1. According the “normal rules” of debates, I think she absolutely will. She’ll seem more statesman like, more even keeled, more knowledgeable. The real question is, how many people will be judging each candidate according to the typical rules of debate?

          1. She’ll seem more statesman like, more even keeled, more knowledgeable.

            I would not be so sure. “What difference, at this point, does it make?!” was pretty unstatesmanlike. If Trump can get under her skin as well as that Congressman did, then she won’t have the advantage of appearing even keeled except to her die-hard supporters.

          2. How did appearing more statesman like, more even keeled, etc. work out for JEB!, Rubio, et al?

          3. Yeah… these aren’t going to be “normal” debates. Trump is the only candidate already proven willing to call her out on all her bullshit.

            1. Not only that. Trump will do the same thing to Hillary that he did to all of his GOP rivals. He’ll somehow make her look stupid. It’s impossible to debate this guy using the typical rules and he’s totally untouchable by the media. It’s like trying to debate Joe Biden and win. It can’t be done. It has nothing to do with the intelligence of either, it’s all about the rope a dope mocking of your opponent.

              1. It’s like trying to debate Joe Biden and win.

                LOL good comparison. I can totally visualize valid, withering arguments just slide right off him.

              2. Not only that. Trump will do the same thing to Hillary that he did to all of his GOP rivals

                He got less than 40% of the GOP voters when it was still contested … the same percentage of Republicans who believe Obama is a Muslim from Kenya. Against a non-felon that means less than 20% in the general election.

          4. “There you go again.”

    2. Funny. I also had a political dream last night. I dreamed that I voted for Johnson. It was weird. The options on the ballot were: Trump, Johnson, Deez Nuts, and a write-in option. And when I handed in my vote, the lady started screaming at me for not voting for Hillary.

    3. Hyperion’s Post Brexit Moment
      I dreamed last night that Shillary had a big drop in the polls. Woke up this morning and it was true.

      Meanwhile, outside your bipolar world, disgust with both Hilary and Trump have driven Obama’s approval ratings to positive … for the first time since his re-election. Thanks for nothing.

      And in the known universe, “Shillary’s” drop is caused by her emails. Trump’s negatives are still higher, still by a majority of Americans., It’s like two submarines fighting to crash first on the ocean floor. As the shrinking minority of partisan Ds and Rs think that crashing last is a victory.

  5. Don’t worry Ruthie, Trump won’t have you murdered and leave a pillow on top of your head. Only you guys do that.

    1. I certainly won’t tell you that Scalia’s manner of death didn’t raise my eyebrow, but do you really believe that’s how he died?

      1. While it’s likely a conspiracy theory, perhaps overwhelmingly likely, given the behavior of the left over the past few years, it wouldn’t be surprising at all if it turned out to be true.

        1. I find it far fetched, but yes, it’s right in the leftist wheelhouse.

          1. Just as insanity is ingrained in the rightist wheelhouse.
            But to be fair, only for the partisan puppets in each tribe.

      2. I have no fear whatsoever of telling you that I don’t believe he died of natural causes and ended up with the pillow on top of his head by accident.

        And there’s absolutely nothing that I would put past this administration. Nothing at all.

        1. Assassin was so incompetent as to leave the murder weapon on his face??

        2. I don’t subscribe to that theory but I won’t call you crazy either.

        3. And there’s absolutely nothing that I would put past this administration. Nothing at all.

          Be careful not to drool on your keyboard.

  6. It seems like my morning news has a regular segment at 8:01 every day listing the previous day’s celebrity and political noisemakers trying to outdo each other with the signalling. This morning I learned that Hillary is our only hope to stop cops from killing black people.

    1. Because cops love Hillary…

    2. I just wish people would talk about how cops just kill people. Making it a black vs white thing is only going to serve to put people into opposing camps regardless of reason and evidence. Not to mention the simple fact that it’s not a black vs white thing in the first place.

      1. Making it a black v. white thing is what stokes racial divisiveness and keeps the race hustlers and Democrats in power.

        1. ^This. There is plenty of common ground on this, but it’s more politically advantageous to keep us fighting each other.

        2. See: every word out of Obama’s mouth on this issue.

        3. I don’t disagree that it does anything but to energize the leftist base. But even right here at Reason, more than a couple writers are committed to the black v white narrative.

          1. You would think libertarians, who presumably would look at the actual statistics, might know better.

          2. Because the ones you’re talking about are professional fake libertarians; they’re left liberals.

      2. The ruling class and the media are making it about race to make sure that nothing changes.

      3. The whole racial angle is just demented. As though somehow there’s a secret Confederate Revanchist cabal that somehow managed to take over the police departments in cities that are majority black and have mostly black leaders. And not, you know, politicians politicking and taking the path of least resistance and maximal corruption to delivering what the voters claim to want.

        1. I blame Confederate telepaths controlling them?

      4. I posted the Tiffanie Hupp story somewhere else the other day, and a cop-sucker responded that trailer trash raise dogs to new vicious to cops.

        1. Cop apologists: “We’re never the ones responsible for any animosity, even though we advocate for the laws that people hold us in contempt for enforcing against them”

  7. There seem to be two types of old people – those who wear the glasses that were popular when they were young, which look ridiculous now, and those that wear modern hipster-inspired glasses, which look ridiculous on anyone over 35. Can’t we find some happy middle ground?

    1. Define old.

    2. I wear the plainest but still stylish glasses I can get. They can’t be tracked to any decade.

      1. I always imagined you in 70s Elton John glasses.

        1. I just got new old-people glasses – still not used to how big they are.

    3. I plan to wear Harold Lloyd glasses, not Spencer Tracy glasses.

      1. *thunderous applause*

        Man, I love Harold Lloyd….always ends up hanging off the hands of that damned clock! Ha!

    4. I wear the glasses that Mrs. Animal picks out for me. I long ago accepted that I no longer have any say in my own personal style choices. That’s apparently what I have a wife for.

      1. Ha. I purchased a new pair a few months ago and the first thing my wife said when I returned home was “You didn’t let me see them before you ordered?”

    5. Boots Collins takes great offense at your words.

    6. Get LASIK.

  8. However, there is every chance that Ginsburg’s anti-Trump outbursts will backfire by reminding all conservatives?including plenty of wavering #NeverTrump-ers?that the election of Hillary Clinton will guarantee the nomination of more Ginsburg-style liberals to SCOTUS.

    So you’re saying that scores of seemingly Hispanics violently protesting Trump events is not the best way to get their point across to voters?

    1. I can’t imagine a rally of Mexican flag waving Hispanics attacking Trump supporters and pelting them with eggs is going to do much to disprove the claims Trump has made regarding that particular subset of immigrants.

    2. I originally had seeming there and changed it for some reason. Anyway, I am going to start to suspect soon that all these hyper-partisan and un-self-aware antics of people like the protesters and the Ginsburglar are all some kind of subversive campaign push of secret Trumpeters.

    3. I think they should violently attack more Trump supporters to show how violent and hateful Trump is. The last victims apparently didn’t get the message.

      1. That strategy worked well for the anti-fascists that attacked the Nazis peaceful demonstration with knives and clubs.

  9. Ginsburg should know by now that the best thing to do with populists is to let them hang themselves with their own rope.

    1. You assume she is still capable of rational thought.

    2. Because she has exhibited such wisdom in the past? Does it feel strange defending this cunt? I realize that a zombie Stalin would be better than Trump but, damn.

      1. I realize that a zombie Stalin would be better than Trump but, damn.

        So you think Trump would execute more than 14,000 people per day?

      2. I made a defense of her?

        1. No – but you did insinuate that she has the ability to learn .

          1. For all her faults, she at least isn’t a cop-sucker like Thomas.

            But I will admit I have a hard time working up much outrage given she’s going after Trump. He says things that piss people off and they [gasp] they get pissed off. That’s the pathetic aspect of running a troll for President, the thin-skinnedness.

            It’s no different than Hihn coming here, insulting us regularly and then crying that we are bullies when we strike back at him.

            1. Don’t forget childishly laughing at us after insinuating he’s the only adult in the room.

              1. He’s certainly old enough.

                1. You know, maybe his hatred for us “anti-government extremists” stems from him witnessing the assassination of William McKinley at the hands of a self-professed anarchist? We’re just unpleasant reminders of his youth.

                  1. You know who else is a 2nd-generation Polish-American with communist leanings?

                  2. You know, maybe his hatred for us “anti-government extremists” stems from him witnessing the assassination of William McKinley at the hands of a self-professed anarchist? We’re just unpleasant reminders of his youth

                    (yawn) more aggression.

                    It’s not hatred. It’s a calm statement that the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians. Per Cato, not me, but line up to shoot the messenger.

                    Birthers also suffer severe denial,
                    And the authoritarian mind ALWAYS deals in aggression. And always justifies it, The True Believers.

                    Mass movements do not need a god, but they do need a devil. Hatred unifies the True Believers.”
                    -Eric Hoffer, “The True Believers” (1951)

                    Throughout human history, the worst abuses have been committed by those who believe they are defending some “greater good” — the Collective, the State, the Master Race, the Party or a God. Zealots and fanatics. The militant self-righteous.

                    Technically, the Ron Paul cult is not a “mass movement.” Just anti-constitutional authoritarians who think they are.

                2. SugarFree
                  He’s certainly old enough.

                  More aggression.
                  (See! They DO travel in packs like wild dogs!!)

              2. Don’t forget childishly laughing at us after insinuating he’s the only adult in the room.

                More aggression.

            2. It’s no different than Hihn coming here, insulting us regularly and then crying that we are bullies when we strike back at him

              That was aggression, dumbfuck.
              (smirk)

  10. It seems that Natalie Portman is going to star in a movie
    about a young Ruth Bader Ginsberg. The movie is to be called “on the basis of sex,” and it’s about the legal fight against sex discrimination.

    Oh, and you’ll never guess on what basis the director was chosen!

    1. Oh, it gets better – the movie is about how Ginsburg took on male client in a case of the government discriminating against men.

      Ah, but the private sector is different, *there,* at least, you can practice sex discrimination, according to libertarian jurists like Ginsburg!

      I mean, that’s the explanation for why she approves choosing a movie director based on sex, right? Because it’s in the private sector and she’s cool with that as a libertarian, so long as government discrimination isn’t involved.

      /sarc

      1. Good lord. Someone feed that feminist hero a cheeseburger.

    2. Anyone who doesn’t like that movie is a misogynist.

    3. Cup size?

      After Closer and Black Swan, that title might mislead a few peeps.

  11. Now I really really want Trump to win. Imagine a court were Ruth Ginsburg has to recuse herself from every case dealing with the administration. That kind of slap down of blatant politicking on the court would leave scars that would last generations of democrats. It would do ten times the good as sending Hillary to jail would.

    1. She will never recuse herself regardless of the impropriety. She is just that vile.

      1. And that will give the republican congress and excuse to impeach her on ethical grounds. Trump would have no problem leading the charge and giving the congress critters cover to hide behind his outsized media presence. No danger to them because no one is going to remember them while Trump is speaking.

        1. The House may impeach, but the Democrats in the Senate will never vote to convict. So she stays.

      2. WTF
        She will never recuse herself regardless of the impropriety. She is just that vile

        How about when Scalia refused to recuse himself from several cases involving Vice President Cheney …. despite the two of them taking a fishing trip together, As reported by those fucking liberals at the Wall Street Journal? Care to comment? Or shall we assume you’re just another mind-controlled puppet of the political class?

    2. Imagine a world where Nukular Newt is VP and has decided that his personal mission as VP is to ramp up the drug war 1000x and start executing pot heads. Not that Hillary wouldn’t do the same, it’s just difficult for me to wish Trump wins since we’re still going to get a shitload of new statist bullshit anyway.

      1. I’m more worried about the country of laws aspect of government right now. Dems don’t believe the things apply to them at the moment and they are desperately in need of a slap down.

        1. The Dems are correct in their belief, as they blatantly ignore the law and pay no consequences for doing so.

    3. re Ruth Ginsburg has to recuse herself from every case dealing with the administration

      How about when Scalia refused to recuse himself from several cases involving Vice President Cheney …. despite the two of them taking a fishing trip together, As reported by those fucking liberals at the Wall Street Journal? Care to comment?

  12. The last time a Supreme Court justice meddled in Presidential politics was, I think, William O. Douglas, who never got to the White House so instead made policy from the bench.

    Before that, there was Charles Evans Hughes, an associate justice who actually ran for President in 1916 – Wilson portrayed him as a warmonger and he lost. He later became Chief Justice.

    Then there was Salmon P. Chase, who I suppose never got nominated because they didn’t want a President named after a fish.

    1. ALTERNATE JOKE: In seeking the Presidency, Salmon was really swimming against the current.

    2. Wilson portrayed him as a warmonger and he lost.

      Wilson portrayed his opponent as a warmonger. That is rich considering that Wilson’s warmongering led to the rise of Nazism and firmly entrenched central banking to finance total war.

      1. LBJ did the same thing to Goldwater.

        But their opponents’ “warmongering” is mean-spirited and will inevitably lead to bad things, while their warmongering is noble in intent and always improves the world. You know it’s true, cause they tell you!

        1. LBJ is a dick.

    3. Fusionist,
      Umm, Justices O-Connor, Alito and if we include blatant action for a Vice President, Justice Scalia.
      Wall Street Journal

      But you’re not a partisan shill masquerading as a fusionist, right?

  13. How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns?

    Which amendment to the Constitution added that requirement?

    1. Has Ginsburg “turned over” her returns?

    2. As if Ginsburg either a) knows or b) cares, what the Constitution has to say.

    3. Have the Clintons turned over their tax returns?

      Do the Clintons file jointly?

      How much income did the Clintons get from foreign governments for overseeing the Clinton Foundation?

      Inquiring minds want to know.

      1. What difference, at this point, does it make?

    4. Which amendment to the Constitution added that requirement?

      Why would it have to? Cowardice is not unconstitutional.

  14. “There is every chance that Ginsburg’s anti-Trump outbursts will backfire by reminding all conservatives?including plenty of wavering #NeverTrump-ers?that the election of Hillary Clinton will guarantee the nomination of more Ginsburg-style liberals to SCOTUS.”

    Trump didn’t win the nomination despite being called a racist by the Democrat establishment for opposing Muslim immigration and promising to do something about immigration from Mexico.

    Trump won the nomination because he was called a racist by the Democrat establishment for opposing Muslim immigration and promising to do something about immigration from Mexico.

    The only thing I’d add to Damon Root’s observation there is that it isn’t just conservatives that rally behind Trump in the face of elitism. White, middle class, blue collar workers used to be the bread and butter of the Democratic Party. Those people are hypersensitive to elitism, and polls suggest that Trump did better in states with open primaries–where registered Democrats could vote for him, too.

    If progressives like Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the Democratic Party establishment, and their cronies in the media manage to turn this election into a referendum on elitism, Trump may win the swing states.

  15. “You go, girl! Feisty old feminist speaks her mind, doesn’t care whose toes she steps on”

    /fawning profile in numerous media outlets

    1. And, you know, Scalia and her were friends! The stupid conservatives don’t realize that!

      /whatever website Jack & Ace checks first thing in the morning.

      1. trollingorders.cum

        1. *chokes on lunch, staggers away from desk to clear airway and begin applauding*

      2. I *thought* they were friends, until she made that remark about how grateful she was she wasn’t there to make a majority against Obama’s immigration policy.

      3. And, you know, Scalia and her were friends! The stupid conservatives don’t realize that!

        Scalia was too busy protecting Vice President Cheney, by refusing to recuse himself from cases involving Cheney, even though they were known fishing buddies.
        Wall Street Journal.

        On a brighter note, he was not a mindless partisan hack, in the strictly partisan manner. But I understand why you’d be confused on that.

  16. My friend just told me about this easiest method of freelancing. I’ve just tried it and now I am getting paid 18000usd monthly without spending too much time. you can also do this.

    See Here——–> http://www.CareerPlus90.com

  17. “How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns?”

    I wasn’t aware that there was a law that anyone running for president has to release their tax returns. /sarc

    1. It’s right there in the commerce clause.

    2. I wonder if SCOTUS nominees have to reveal their tax returns? Would be interesting to see the sources of income (dividends from major corporations, etc.) that might lead to recusal on many cases coming before them.

  18. I remember how big a fit the left threw when one of the judges shook his head at a state of the union address while Obama attacked the court. I thought that was clearly overkill, but in this kind of situation I think that Ginsburg should have stayed silent, unlike her alt-text.

  19. Politically stupid, but totally within her rights, The Wall Street Journal reports political involvement by Justice O’Connor, Justice Alito’s takedown of Obama, and Justice Scalia’s refusal to recuse himself from multiple cases involving Vice President Cheney who Scalia had gone on a fishing trip with.

    In the late 90s, Washington State Justice Richard Sanders was seen as America’s highest-ranking elected libertarian. My favorite opinion was his rejection of state term limits. His opinion traced all the reasons term limits would be good, but he could find nothing in the state constitution to allow term limits. KAPOW for strict interpretation! He was endorsed for re-election by the Seattle Times acknowledging him as the conscience of the court. Every Supreme Court should have a Justice Sanders, they said. But only one.

    As State Director of the LP, I invited him to address our convention. Attendance was so high that most of the audience had to stand. He addressed all three conventions that year.

    When he was formally censured for addressing a pro-life group in Seattle, and never one for tribal bullshit, he sought the help from those best able to defend his right of free speech. The ACLU. So the ACLU defended the Free Speech rights of pro-life supporters. And won.

    Tribal loyalties can be SO confusing when Justices are involved.

    1. Well hello there, Threadfucker.

      1. Why do you say the Wall Street Journal is a Threadfucker???

      2. And why do you progs attack the Free Speech rights of pro-life activists?
        You probably run an abortion mill.

  20. Showbox Download, Showbox Apk Download, Showbox App Download: Nowadays technology has brought a lot of changes in our lives, especially in education and communication.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.