- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
RBG fought for what she believed in
Posted on 9/25/20 at 12:00 pm
Posted on 9/25/20 at 12:00 pm
That according to the commentator on Fox a moment ago. And yet justice is supposed to be blind.. someone tell me, how can justice be blind if you are “fighting for your beliefs and ideology” from the bench? Judges should never be fighting for their own ideological point of view. Am I wrong??
14
Posted on 9/25/20 at 12:01 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
I think they should fight for the ideology of interpreting the constitution as it was written.
Posted on 9/25/20 at 12:02 pm to Locke Wiggin
I agree
Posted on 9/25/20 at 12:03 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
So did Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc....
Posted on 9/25/20 at 12:04 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
RBG fought for what she believed in
That's pretty damned accurate, it's just not a good thing for a judge.
Posted on 9/25/20 at 12:04 pm to Locke Wiggin
So twisting the constitution to what they want it to be and legislating from the bench is fighting for what you believe in? Read the Constitution judge and the Federalist papers and it gives you a clear meaning of the framer's intent. So, no, you don't fight for your beliefs, you defend and protect the Constitution.
This post was edited on 9/25/20 at 12:16 pm
Posted on 9/25/20 at 12:10 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
RBG fought for what she believed in
So did Biden - must be a Dem thing.
Oh. Wait. You said she fought for what she believed in. I thought you said she forgot what she believed in.
Never mind.
Posted on 9/25/20 at 12:15 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
What’s funny is Amy Coney Barrett in her senate confirmation hearing had either Al Franken or another senator make a snide remark about thinking justice was supposed to be blind. While the entire time she refused to answer personal opinions because it was completely separate from her duties as a judge. I’ve watched hours of interviews with this woman and she’s never wavered on separating any personal feelings she has from her duty to interpret the law.
And yet she is openly accused of going against justice being blind.
And yet she is openly accused of going against justice being blind.
Posted on 9/25/20 at 12:41 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
I was channel surfing last week and came across a PMSNBC panel discussing the impact of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Brian Williams actually made the comment that in her role as a Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsberg "changed the law." The entire panel agreed. The entire panel was too stupid to f*cking realize what they were saying and agreeing to. Not one of them said, "Yeah, but it’s not the f*cking job of a Supreme Court justice to change the fricking law. It’s the job of a Supreme court justice to interpret the law. “
This post was edited on 9/25/20 at 12:53 pm
Posted on 9/25/20 at 1:19 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
So did Hitler. Not everything a person believes in is good.
Posted on 9/25/20 at 1:36 pm to MMauler
quote:
Not one of them said, "Yeah, but it’s not the f*cking job of a Supreme Court justice to change the fricking law.
Not according to Sotomayor. Courts are for creating policy.
Posted on 9/25/20 at 1:57 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:that's why they keep winning; libs break all the rules and the conservatives go along
Judges should never be fighting for their own ideological point of view. Am I wrong??
Posted on 9/25/20 at 2:00 pm to arcalades
I’m just glad that commie bitch is dead
Posted on 9/25/20 at 2:09 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
RBG fought for what she believed in
So did Hitler
Posted on 9/25/20 at 2:20 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
That according to the commentator on Fox a moment ago. And yet justice is supposed to be blind.. someone tell me, how can justice be blind if you are “fighting for your beliefs and ideology” from the bench? Judges should never be fighting for their own ideological point of view. Am I wrong??
Nope. That's exactly what is wrong with lionizing a zealot, and activist judge. She fought for her philosophy and her agenda, not for the Constitution. She should be forever tarnished for the very thing we are being told she should be celebrated for. Clown world. Honk Honk.
Posted on 9/25/20 at 2:30 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
UNLESS it's a religious conservative. Then yeah, that's a problem.
Posted on 9/25/20 at 2:35 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
Moral relativism at its finest. She loved her some dismembered babies.
Posted on 9/25/20 at 2:36 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
And she believed in killing babies and punishing native Americans
Posted on 9/25/20 at 3:34 pm to Flats
quote:
Not according to Sotomayor. Courts are for creating policy.
And that is the problem...Most people also get laws and Amendments confused.
The Supreme Court is supposed to use the Constitution to determine how to apply it to current rulings. This you have to understand what the original intent of the Amendment was and apply it. Now what you think it should be.
Similar to Abortion....There is no law for Abortion. The Court at the time ruled that the 14th Amendment gave people the Right to Privacy. Thus you cannot deny people the Right to Privacy to ask for an Abortion.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News