RGB is my heroine! If we had more women like her in the highest offices in the country, we would have more social justice and less inequality and possibly, war & enmity would be really the very last resort!
18
On too many occasions, Ginsburg has breached a time-honored and important code that forbids justices from making partisan political comments or talking out of school about pending cases or cases coming up to her court. In doing so, she undermined the appearance of impartiality, and the court's standing in the public eye. She continues to violate these rules, thus giving rise to legitimate concerns about her mental state. She really should step down, but her open contempt for President Trump means she will continue to hang on, and continue to bring unwanted controversy to her court.
3
Can never forgive SCOTUS for letting Citizens United pass, ushering in the era of dark money and, ultimately, Trump.
7
Justice Ginsburg should start with a criticism of the Supreme Court's unanimous opinion in VAN de KAMP v. GOLDSTEIN, 555 U.S. 335, (2009):
"We here consider the scope of a prosecutor's absolute immunity from claims asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). We ask whether that immunity extends to claims that the prosecution failed to disclose impeachment material, see Giglio, 405 U.S. 150, (1972), due to: (1) a failure properly to train prosecutors, (2) a failure properly to supervise prosecutors, or (3) a failure to establish an information system containing potential impeachment material about informants. We conclude that a prosecutor's absolute immunity extends to all these claims."
Until this ruling, administrative prosecutors had a constitutional duty to "insure communication of all relevant information on each case [including agreements made with informants] to every lawyer who deals with it." Giglio, at 154.
"We conclude that the very reasons that led this Court in Imbler to find absolute immunity [for all trial court prosecutors] require a similar finding in this case. We recognize, as Chief Judge Hand pointed out, that sometimes such immunity deprives a plaintiff of compensation that he undoubtedly merits; but the impediments to the fair, efficient functioning of a prosecutorial office that liability could create lead us to find that Imbler must apply here."
The Supreme Court should discourage bad actors, not reward them.
"We here consider the scope of a prosecutor's absolute immunity from claims asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). We ask whether that immunity extends to claims that the prosecution failed to disclose impeachment material, see Giglio, 405 U.S. 150, (1972), due to: (1) a failure properly to train prosecutors, (2) a failure properly to supervise prosecutors, or (3) a failure to establish an information system containing potential impeachment material about informants. We conclude that a prosecutor's absolute immunity extends to all these claims."
Until this ruling, administrative prosecutors had a constitutional duty to "insure communication of all relevant information on each case [including agreements made with informants] to every lawyer who deals with it." Giglio, at 154.
"We conclude that the very reasons that led this Court in Imbler to find absolute immunity [for all trial court prosecutors] require a similar finding in this case. We recognize, as Chief Judge Hand pointed out, that sometimes such immunity deprives a plaintiff of compensation that he undoubtedly merits; but the impediments to the fair, efficient functioning of a prosecutorial office that liability could create lead us to find that Imbler must apply here."
The Supreme Court should discourage bad actors, not reward them.
2
This poor old lady is obviously senile. Discussing upcoming cases on the Supreme Court docket before they are briefed and argued is clearly grounds for recusal. There must be a procedure for removing a justice when that person demonstrates a significant loss of ability. Ginsburg clearly meets this requirement.
6
Ginsburg, sad to say, is example #1 of the loss of independence in the American judiciary.
She epitomizes the hard-left bias of those judges like her.
She epitomizes the hard-left bias of those judges like her.
6
James Srewart: you are wrong.
17
You Go, Ruth!
24
please please we wish you good health and stamina until January, 2021.
23
Ruth Ginsburg, an American treasure. She's only three years older then I am and I intend to live to at least 100. You hang in there and keep up the fine work. If you go too soon we will end up with another Clarence Thomas on the bench, and we don't need another "yes" man on the supreme bench.
39
Why is it that this Justice is praised and cheered on when she comments on items beyond the court's jurisdiction.
I remeber well how Jusrice Scalia was raked over for his remarks about Dick Cheney and his other non judicials musings or writings.
While I wish Justice Ginsburg good health - good Lord will reconstitute this Court in due time.
Finally, to paraphrase Chief Justice Marshall, "it is emphatically clear that the Court should stick to deciding laws only."
I remeber well how Jusrice Scalia was raked over for his remarks about Dick Cheney and his other non judicials musings or writings.
While I wish Justice Ginsburg good health - good Lord will reconstitute this Court in due time.
Finally, to paraphrase Chief Justice Marshall, "it is emphatically clear that the Court should stick to deciding laws only."
5
Justice Ginsburg seems to think that it's right that she use her position on the Supreme Court as a bully pulpit; it's not. Her time and our country would be better served if she kept her focus and thoughts on the matters before the court. She comes across as a grandma who just ate a sour pickle.
6
Unfortunately, SCOTUS has become politically incorrect. One can sit back and place bets on "who " will vote "how," no matter what the case. The liberal bias has made a mockery of true justice.
5
Any mockery of SCOTUS would be the result of McConnell not giving Merrick Garland the hearing he was entitled to. Gorsuch has no business on the bench.
Fun fact: the great Thurgood Marshall's seat was filled by Clarence Thomas.
Fun fact: the great Thurgood Marshall's seat was filled by Clarence Thomas.
14
"Justice Ginsburg discussed several other cases on the court’s docket next term, including ones on the privacy of information held by cellphone companies, a clash between claims of religious freedom and same-sex marriage and a constitutional challenge to partisan gerrymandering."
Here is a Justice signaling how she will decide issues that have not yet been before the court. Lawyers preparing for cases before the Court should have no knowledge of a Justice's position on a matter except in the context of that Justice's previous, published decisions in a similar case. Judge shopping based on a judge's prior decisions is one thing, but based on opinions expressed in a paid for attendance forum quite another thing entirely. Take the scales from the hand of Justice and replace it with a bag of money.
Here is a Justice signaling how she will decide issues that have not yet been before the court. Lawyers preparing for cases before the Court should have no knowledge of a Justice's position on a matter except in the context of that Justice's previous, published decisions in a similar case. Judge shopping based on a judge's prior decisions is one thing, but based on opinions expressed in a paid for attendance forum quite another thing entirely. Take the scales from the hand of Justice and replace it with a bag of money.
5
I don't see that in the article or hear it in her remarks (see link in the article). It's more comments on the court showing their process and the way they interact. She did a lot to demystify the Supreme Court to students considering careers as lawyers— the sponsor of her talk.
She portrays a Court much more collegial and human than I would have thought. As to her personal inclination, that's been a matter of record for decades, from her Circuit Court opinions to her Confirmation Hearing remarks. I don't see how you could shop for a different lineup in the Supreme Court, except for waiting decades for a significant shift in personnel.
She portrays a Court much more collegial and human than I would have thought. As to her personal inclination, that's been a matter of record for decades, from her Circuit Court opinions to her Confirmation Hearing remarks. I don't see how you could shop for a different lineup in the Supreme Court, except for waiting decades for a significant shift in personnel.
13
There are 4 branches of government in this country and all of them deserve the approbation of the rest of the world. Congress and the executive simply (and ably) represent the incompetents who elected them: the voters. Any country that elects Trump and this Congress is not great, never was great. The court has earned no more respect than the others. Remember that all deliberate speed meant decades.
If all men were created equal how could some be auctioned off and others not? Abject hypocrisy is the only thing self evident about that claim.
The FBI headquarters is named after J Edgar Hoover, whose oath was to ignore the constitution at every turn while coveting women's underwear in his size.
Lincoln was wrong to preserve this union. There should have been a civil war but only to get compensation for the loss of federal property.
If all men were created equal how could some be auctioned off and others not? Abject hypocrisy is the only thing self evident about that claim.
The FBI headquarters is named after J Edgar Hoover, whose oath was to ignore the constitution at every turn while coveting women's underwear in his size.
Lincoln was wrong to preserve this union. There should have been a civil war but only to get compensation for the loss of federal property.
1
What compensation? The land the Feds sit on belongs to Maryland and Virginia and it should just return it to them. We can auction off the furniture and buildings keeping the the fanciest of them as museums of what was and could have been.
1
Justice Ginsburg is a great American and probably the greatest legacy of Bill Clinton's Presidency. I only wish we had 4 more like her and that they were a generation younger.
37
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is an American shero!
May her health be strengthened and her will stay strong.
May she live past 150 hale and lucid!
May her health be strengthened and her will stay strong.
May she live past 150 hale and lucid!
36
Please stay on the court as long as possible Justice Ginsburg; L'chayim.
53
Sadly, we can thank the Judicial Branch for "Citizens United" which is the worst ruling since Plessy v Ferguson. Although I respect Justice Ginsburg, it's hardly a triumph to compare the Supreme Court to the worst of the worst i.e. Trump & Congress.
11
May she live 10,000 years!
31
I read this and immediately conjured up the image of the heads of famous people in the jars in Futurama.
SCOTUS would be a much more balanced judiciary if the Republicans hadn't used dirty tricks to "illegally" delay the hearing of Obama's pick to replace Justice Scalia. So many politicians have NO honor or integrity unlike the SCOTUS members (even if I don't agree with their leaning on certain subjects). Apologies if this gives the impression of a rant; not intended.
SCOTUS would be a much more balanced judiciary if the Republicans hadn't used dirty tricks to "illegally" delay the hearing of Obama's pick to replace Justice Scalia. So many politicians have NO honor or integrity unlike the SCOTUS members (even if I don't agree with their leaning on certain subjects). Apologies if this gives the impression of a rant; not intended.
4
To The Honorable Justice Ruth Ginsburg, this American wishes you were the President because respect has to be earned, and you have long earned mine.
47
Glad she still has a sense of humor.
18
Go RBG
Go Cornell (she was a year ahead of me)
Go Cornell (she was a year ahead of me)
13
Justice Ginsburg's last remark (at least the Supreme Court has a higher approval rating than Congress) highlights the most disturbing problem with this court. To a person, these are the most elitist justices ever to sit together. They are frighteningly out of touch with the lives of most Americans - hence the many decisions over the past decade restricting access to the courts. But, unfortunately, this disconnect from the body politic should not surprise. All the justices are Harvard or Yale grads and largely the same for their clerks.
No, Justice Ginsburg, despite your admirable qualities and pathbreaking legal career, you have it wrong. The court enjoys increasingly less esteem in the public's eyes, compared to decades ago, because of its pro-corporate bias and undeniable elitist strain. The court is repeatedly tipping the scales in favor of the powerful, as though its duty is holding the pesky 99% at bay. And the public has noticed.
So much for equal justice under law. We can only hope that, some day, it will be so again.
No, Justice Ginsburg, despite your admirable qualities and pathbreaking legal career, you have it wrong. The court enjoys increasingly less esteem in the public's eyes, compared to decades ago, because of its pro-corporate bias and undeniable elitist strain. The court is repeatedly tipping the scales in favor of the powerful, as though its duty is holding the pesky 99% at bay. And the public has noticed.
So much for equal justice under law. We can only hope that, some day, it will be so again.
18
And amazingly enough, the one justice who makes a point of having non Ivy League law clerks is Clarence Thomas.
2
I love her. PEROID.
41
Period. Migraine.
7
Ma justice is the best we have in terms of what makes the difference between the right and wrong. She is absolutely right that all three branches of the government are in total in totally dysfunction, inefficient and incompetent. In fact, there is no real equal justice for all in this country.
The only way this nation can be fixed is through a new Constitution incorporated with the current one for the needs of the nation and the people in this 21st century. But first to achieve that, this Congress in which over 90 % of the people have no confidence, needs to be dissolved by the acclamation of the people.The the people to appoint 50 odd elders, like Ma Ginsburg to help write a new constitution with first priority to radically reform the three branches of the Government starting with the Legislative. Then the new Constitution to be ratified by the referendum of the people , One person one vote, as is the law of the land.
The only way this nation can be fixed is through a new Constitution incorporated with the current one for the needs of the nation and the people in this 21st century. But first to achieve that, this Congress in which over 90 % of the people have no confidence, needs to be dissolved by the acclamation of the people.The the people to appoint 50 odd elders, like Ma Ginsburg to help write a new constitution with first priority to radically reform the three branches of the Government starting with the Legislative. Then the new Constitution to be ratified by the referendum of the people , One person one vote, as is the law of the land.
10
Man, if this were to happen then the lobbyists would need to be banned from being allowed to insert ANY influence in the process. Lobbyists are the bane of the political system and when the Revolution comes they should all have a spot reserved for them on the "wall of redemption".
1
Always interesting to read about her and how the Supreme Court works. She is the Rocky the Flying Squirrel of the Supreme Court!
14
it'll be interesting to see what could happen if a 'liberal vacancy' happens in the last year of trump's--or his VP's--presidency if the republicans still have 50 senators. if mcconnell is still head guy, will he hew to his 'principle' of it being too late for a new nominee?
9
The Supreme Court may well be faring best in the eyes of Americans compared to the legislative or executive branches, but I wouldn't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back. Citizens United created an oligarchy. Heller v DC fundamentally re-wrote the 2nd Amendment and American society by deleting the first half of the sentence. And Bush v Gore, in overturning the concept of elections being run locally (to say nothing of the right-wing penchant for federalism) revealed the court as being filled with right-wing nominees who are nothing more than partisan hacks with robes.
21
Maybe a little unfair there tibercio vasquez. George Dubbya was the best President that Halliburton could buy at that time.
2
When it comes to unseemly conduct not befitting anyone in a federal capacity. , I'll put RBG up there with the Mooch any day of the week. In fact, I'll give her the win:while Mooch is good for laughs, it's not funny when a sitting Justice decides to take the law into her own hands. And mouth off everywhere from rallies to the Y.
She should be gone. Yesterday.
She should be gone. Yesterday.
8
I'm sorry to read this. She always speaks so well of you.
17
Tell us how you really feel . . .
9
Since justices cannot write legislation, can you explain exactly how she has "taken law into her own hands".
17
In a political environment where the colorful Justice Scalia, and the new Justice Gorsuch have often gotten away with being openly partisan, I see no reason why Justice Ginsberg shouldn't be able to enjoy the same privilege.
28
No. Neither Scalia nor Gorsuch openly derogated, in highly personal terms, the president. Ginsburg has. What she has gained in being "openly partisan" both she and the Court have lost in stature.
6
The rulings by Scalia and most likely in the future Gorsuch caused far more loss of stature than anything Ginsburg has done or could do.
8
Don't confuse outspokenness with effectiveness. Being a gadfly may be emotionally satisfying, but she is in the process of limiting herself.
3
I look forward to Trump filling her seat with a Federalist Society approved jurist.
4
Hardly ever agree with her...
But I have always loved and respected her.
Long may she run...
But I have always loved and respected her.
Long may she run...
6
unfortunately, although Supreme Ginsburg may be championing positions that are red meat to many readers of the Times, her comments on pending and potentially pending issues is not only irresponsible, but likely put her in a position of needing to recuse herself. I know this wont fly with the NYT readership, but just think if a conservative Supreme made preemptive comments such as these, it would create a firestorm.
5
I don't see how she telegraphed any positions one way or the other in these speeches. In fact, it appears to me that she was very careful to say only "we are considering important issues" and not "here is how I stand on these important issues." All she said was that she picked her battles!
26
a very tough old broad, as gritty as they come, and a ferocious spirit dedicated to being the best you can be at all times in your life-----the poster lady for not going quiet into the night! God bless her.
20
An as much as I agree with Ms. Justice Ginsberg on most issues, I think she talks too much about Court business. The decisions should speak for themselves. And only the decisions. Now, to be fair, I thought Scalia shot his mouth off way too much as well.
3
Does it now appear that the SCOTUS is acting to totally ignore the rule of law in order to shape society to their own personal perception of what societal norms should be? RBG appears to think they should: "... We decided that the government had been too restrictive in what family relationships qualify as close...”
Which begs the question: "Who much longer can the current Constitution, Bill of Rights, and its prior Amendments, really be expected to last?"
Which begs the question: "Who much longer can the current Constitution, Bill of Rights, and its prior Amendments, really be expected to last?"
1
The current Constitution was never expected to last, but was expected to evolve with the changing of the times, according to Jefferson.
“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
3
I don't think it is helpful for any justice to be as partisan as Judge Ginsburg. I understood that the court's role was to review the law, not make the law.
4
We should all re-register as independent (no party). Gerrymandering wouldn't do much good in that case.
1
Except that it appears that the records still indicate how you voted, not just how you are registered!
1
Justice Ginsburg says about immigrants who cannot be barred: “Just this week, we clarified that closely related persons include grandparents,” she said. “We decided that the government had been too restrictive in what family relationships qualify as close.” But why limit to families under the Court's ruling? Originally, the Court said: "familial." That term embraces close "family-like" relationships.
I hope on the next challenge the Court has a chance to include a close relationship (with a US citizen) who is is not merely part of the family of the U.S. citizen.
Are you listening ACLU? Find a case of a close relationship between a U.S. citizen and and a Muslim from one of the black-listed countries who are close (defined in dictionaries as "familial)."
GS
I hope on the next challenge the Court has a chance to include a close relationship (with a US citizen) who is is not merely part of the family of the U.S. citizen.
Are you listening ACLU? Find a case of a close relationship between a U.S. citizen and and a Muslim from one of the black-listed countries who are close (defined in dictionaries as "familial)."
GS
2
First let me say that Justice Ginsberg is a remarkable person and I hope she continues to be strong and healthy. She represents the highest values of justice fairness and is a landmark Justice for the Liberal viewpoint on the Supreme Court.
I differ with many who praised her and prayed for her continued presence on the court once she decided not to resign during President Obama's term. Now that she is still present I to pray for a long life.
In my opinion she should have resigned to give President Obama a chance to appoint another Liberal Centrist Justice.
If President Trump gets the chance due to Justice Ginsberg's retirement or death he will appoint another conservative strict constructionist and the court's ideological divide will be set for decades.
Live long Justice Ginsberg and stay well.
I differ with many who praised her and prayed for her continued presence on the court once she decided not to resign during President Obama's term. Now that she is still present I to pray for a long life.
In my opinion she should have resigned to give President Obama a chance to appoint another Liberal Centrist Justice.
If President Trump gets the chance due to Justice Ginsberg's retirement or death he will appoint another conservative strict constructionist and the court's ideological divide will be set for decades.
Live long Justice Ginsberg and stay well.
5
Well, if she resigned during Obama's second term McConnell may well have been able to stall the nomination of her replacement until 2017. She made the right move.
6
This is what grace, brilliance, skill, and perseverance look like. Whether you agree with her or not she is a beacon for us all in these days of chaos.
16
I would prefer to have SCOTUS justices that are able to fully participate and fully concentrate on the important issues facing the court. There have been multiple instances when Justice Ginsburg has lost focus, become confused, and has even fallen asleep. It is clear that her continued service is solely to serve a political agenda; which is exactly what should NOT be happening. It is well past time that Justice Ginsburg should retire and allow a full-time, cognizant and competent justice to serve.
2
Which justices don't serve a political agenda?
And I think you may be, um, stretching the truth quite a bit when describing RBG 's 'lost focus'.
And I think you may be, um, stretching the truth quite a bit when describing RBG 's 'lost focus'.
5
One could say exactly the same, and so much worse, about Trump. Perhaps he should "retire and allow a full-time, cognizant and competent" president to serve.
1
As a generic reply to all those who commented on my comment regarding the Justice's First Amendment rights, comments expected in advance, just as Caesar's wife, a Supreme Court Justice must seem above reproach and a-political. While we all know that is not the case with any of the justices, appearance is everything here.
1
The fact that gerrymandering is grossly undemocratic and destructive is so patently obvious that it is remarkable that it remains a 21st-century "issue."
Racial gerrymandering (whether done to benefit minority voters or to isolate and weaken them) is a wrongheaded and cynical exercise in manipulation.
Decades ago, the Supreme Court clarified that representation had to be based on the number of people, not on geographical or other artificial designs. Is it not equally obvious that the makeup of a particular voting district should be composed of
people who reside in the same area -- regardless of their political potentialities? With modern computer methods, it would be relatively easy to produce voter districts that are uniform in population, with district lines drawn in a way that rationally includes people based on where they live, not on their color, their politics, or their income.
This should be Politics 101, not a Great Question for our Highest Court.
Racial gerrymandering (whether done to benefit minority voters or to isolate and weaken them) is a wrongheaded and cynical exercise in manipulation.
Decades ago, the Supreme Court clarified that representation had to be based on the number of people, not on geographical or other artificial designs. Is it not equally obvious that the makeup of a particular voting district should be composed of
people who reside in the same area -- regardless of their political potentialities? With modern computer methods, it would be relatively easy to produce voter districts that are uniform in population, with district lines drawn in a way that rationally includes people based on where they live, not on their color, their politics, or their income.
This should be Politics 101, not a Great Question for our Highest Court.
23
gradyjerome--gerrymandering is another exceptional negative for the usa. most other countries have an independent commission which sets electoral boundaries.
3
gradyjerome: I proposed something similar to your idea a couple months or so back in these comment pages. Yes, it seems so simple to be able to develop SOMETHING better than gerrymandering. And it actually is. Unfortunately, the irony of gerrymandering is that, once started, it tends to keep in power those who like it and want to keep it around. Inevitably, the more it's done, the more outrageous the results, over time.
And, there is something similar to say about the electoral college. We could probably find a much better way, now, to accomplish the spirit of what it is ostensibly meant for, instead of the dog-wagging tail it has become.
And, there is something similar to say about the electoral college. We could probably find a much better way, now, to accomplish the spirit of what it is ostensibly meant for, instead of the dog-wagging tail it has become.
4
One sharp lady, too bad she hadn't made a run for the presidency.
I think she's doing what she loves and we, as a Nation, are better for it.
I think she's doing what she loves and we, as a Nation, are better for it.
27
From Justice Ginsburg we didn't hear anything about Citizens United—the Supreme Court's most egregious mistake.
Its damage is profound and colossal and continuing.
Justice Ginsburg, revisiting Citizens United needs to be at the forefront of your commentaries and talking points. [And there will have to be some way for Roberts et al to save face when it is revisited.]
[Your personal trainer publishing a book about your workout complete with photos seems so trivial.]
Its damage is profound and colossal and continuing.
Justice Ginsburg, revisiting Citizens United needs to be at the forefront of your commentaries and talking points. [And there will have to be some way for Roberts et al to save face when it is revisited.]
[Your personal trainer publishing a book about your workout complete with photos seems so trivial.]
12
From two years ago:
"Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg still is not happy about the 2010 Citizens United ruling that is responsible for opening the door for a whole new era in campaign funding and financing, she said Wednesday.
Speaking at an event at the Duke University School of Law on Wednesday, Ginsburg said the decision was the "most disappointing" ruling of her time on the bench, according to The New York Times, "because of what has happened to elections in the United States and the huge amount of money it takes to run for office."
Ginsburg's disapproval of the ruling is well documented — last year, she said that if she could overturn one decision of the past several years, Citizens United would be it."
"Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg still is not happy about the 2010 Citizens United ruling that is responsible for opening the door for a whole new era in campaign funding and financing, she said Wednesday.
Speaking at an event at the Duke University School of Law on Wednesday, Ginsburg said the decision was the "most disappointing" ruling of her time on the bench, according to The New York Times, "because of what has happened to elections in the United States and the huge amount of money it takes to run for office."
Ginsburg's disapproval of the ruling is well documented — last year, she said that if she could overturn one decision of the past several years, Citizens United would be it."
7
Please note the article does not state that RBG mentioned her trainer's book. Rather, the author of this article mentioned her trainer's book, perhaps because it was reported last month.
CU was a terrible decision that has harmed our elections. After recent personnel changes in on the court, I don't see how righting Citizen's United is currently feasible, and I don't agree that Justice Ginsberg complaining about the decision as a prime feature of her public comments would serve a valuable purpose.
CU was a terrible decision that has harmed our elections. After recent personnel changes in on the court, I don't see how righting Citizen's United is currently feasible, and I don't agree that Justice Ginsberg complaining about the decision as a prime feature of her public comments would serve a valuable purpose.
2
Politically, she's on the right side (i.e., my side), but a judge that runs off at the mouth is never a good idea, whatever the politics. It shows that judges are no better than anybody else, whereas the fiction that they are better is useful in engendering respect for the legal system.
9
I agree, yet when circumstances are extreme, perhaps extreme actions are required. After all, were Trump to be found guilty of anything of a criminal nature, and just turn around and pardon himself, I would hope the Supreme Court Justices on down the line would open their mouths rather quickly and say 'No, no, NO."
The fact is, Trump was elected. But it is also a fact -- a FACT -- that he is corrupting the office in terrible, troubling ways that will probably end up requiring some new rules and regulations, if not laws and Constitutional Amendments.
This administration is not typical in any sense, and the public has good reason to be fearful considering we're barely past 7 months of a presumed 48.
The fact is, Trump was elected. But it is also a fact -- a FACT -- that he is corrupting the office in terrible, troubling ways that will probably end up requiring some new rules and regulations, if not laws and Constitutional Amendments.
This administration is not typical in any sense, and the public has good reason to be fearful considering we're barely past 7 months of a presumed 48.
4
Not speaking up in the face of gross abuse of our government and our people would be an atrocity.
Justice Ginsberg is an inspiration, and one of the few people standing between US and feudalism.
Justice Ginsberg is an inspiration, and one of the few people standing between US and feudalism.
6
I wonder how she feels about serving on a court that has lost its legitimacy by permitting the participation of a man who stole a seat through an unconstitutional coup.
38
twice.
2
Unfortunately, this Supreme Court is also subject to an asterisk for the failure to appoint a Justice after Scalia died. Instead we got a trump nominee, whose decisions will also be subject to a question of legitimacy.
Good for RBG.
Let's keep the Russia investigation focus, NY Times. Let's see those tax returns.
Good for RBG.
Let's keep the Russia investigation focus, NY Times. Let's see those tax returns.
39
"When the stakes are higher, she said, she takes a different approach. “I will never compromise,” she said, “when it’s a question of, say, freedom of speech or press, gender equality.”"
Yeah just like the Honorable Justice John Harlan in Plessy.
Same cut of cloth.
Yeah just like the Honorable Justice John Harlan in Plessy.
Same cut of cloth.
4
Both are courageous American patriots. Since to be educated with regard to American history is, for the most part, to be self educated, I hope your comment will lead others to search and be inspired and grateful for such voices.
2
Thanks Margie:
I owe my Constitutional Law professor William Shaw a life long debt of gratitude for teaching me how SCOTUS works. Working at Harlan's firm in NYC, Dewey Ballantine also gave me added respect for the jurisprudential lion he was. In the meantime:
See Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) (Harlan, J. dissenting) (separate is NEVER equal)
I owe my Constitutional Law professor William Shaw a life long debt of gratitude for teaching me how SCOTUS works. Working at Harlan's firm in NYC, Dewey Ballantine also gave me added respect for the jurisprudential lion he was. In the meantime:
See Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) (Harlan, J. dissenting) (separate is NEVER equal)
1
I see a great deal of discussion here about the need for fixed terms for Justices. That is certainly in conflict with the Founder's intent as set forth in Article III of the contitution. But, is the longevity of the Court's Justices really a problem causing significant strife in the function of our democracy? Or is the the legally limited but practically unlimited tenure of the members of our Congress. I suggest we direct our term limit discussions elsewhere.
4
More importantly, should not Pelosi be forced to resign? And should there be term limits for senators. We need representatives of the new generation. Most of the senators now are completely out of date. They are just now learning about cell phones and computer confidentiality which is too, too bad.
How can the present senate even begin to debate the subject of Clnton emails?
How can the present senate even begin to debate the subject of Clnton emails?
2
With regard to congress, the president, and justices serving on courts throughout the land: More pertainent to a the functioning of democracy than term limits are thorough annual medical evaluations which would insure that those with a decrease in mental capacity (dementia) do not continue to serve. Thank Gd that Justice Ginsburg's brilliant mind is still sharp as a tack!
1
No one who is 84 years old should be in such a powerful position in our government regardless of what their political stripes are or how much they work out. We face a future of bewildering complexities that would have been fantasies just a short time ago, and the times demand people that have functioned within this world, and just as important, will have to live with their own decisions. One can only hope that terms of office or a mandatory retirement age for justices will eventually be adopted. There have been occasional past embarrassments committed by some justices who stayed too long. One hopes that won't happen to Justice Ginsberg.
6
If you were talking about senators, I'd agree with you.
7
I don't understand the reason for burying her dissent on "minor cases". If the dissent has merit, shouldn't we get to see it?
5
Seems like a political calculation - conceding a stronger precedent to be set on a topic that she doesn't find as important, but in exchange getting her peers to allow her to set a strong precedent on topics important to her but not to them.
3
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works.
(Matthew 5:14-16)
Let us hope that Neil Gorsuch will rise to the occasion and stop carrying water for big corporate interests. If he decides for the continuation of gerrymandering, our proud Democratic Republic will become irreparably harmed.
(Matthew 5:14-16)
Let us hope that Neil Gorsuch will rise to the occasion and stop carrying water for big corporate interests. If he decides for the continuation of gerrymandering, our proud Democratic Republic will become irreparably harmed.
12
He is who he appears to be, a Scalia replacement, a fake justice appointed by a fake President.
4
God bless you, Justice Ginsburg. And keep you strong and healthy until our current president is long gone.
81
I second you Mr. Thomas but would add the following edit:
"...And keep you strong and healthy ^at the very least^ until our current president is long gone."
"...And keep you strong and healthy ^at the very least^ until our current president is long gone."
17
Ginsbergs gavel beats the Trump feckless grovel.
24
So grateful for Justice Bader Ginsburg's wisdom on the court.
Brooklyn's own! I love her.
Brooklyn's own! I love her.
43
Supreme Court justices, chosen specifically to rule on constitutional issues, should stick the that and that alone. No other public commentary.
6
They didn't give up their citizenship for a job.
14
She entitled to the same first amendment rights as the rest of us.
17
Would you take away their First Amendment right of free speech as a private citizen?
3
Honorable Justice Ginsburg, if you would like to continue doing the "best" job of three branches of government, please champion the reversal of Citizens United.
Allow the American people, not money, to choose our destiny.
Allow the American people, not money, to choose our destiny.
68
I applaud Justice Ginsburg for her service but at 84; I feel it is past time for her to retire and see to her own family. My belief is that no one monopolizes a position forever and that gives others a chance to do for their country. These positions should not be a career, they should be serving the people. Term limits!
2
So that whole thing about the Founders protecting the independence of the judiciary through lifetime appointments doesn't sit well with you?
5
All for it. I have posted elsewhere one neutral algorithm introducing such limits. But, of course, we would not want an accident of history (your choice and specific timing) to influence such big change. ALL 9 justices should resign and then we can embark on re-empanelling. With 2/3 Senate approval required. An old but defensible argument for 2/3 is that it provides a tiebreaker for every conflicting pair of votes, with all tiebreakers going the same direction.
I am a firm believer in term limits, for everything from Congress right down to the boards of local non-profit organizations. By getting new people, with different opinions and experiences, all of us benefit.
As for lifetime appointments set forth by the Founders for the Supreme Court, please keep in mind that the length of life in that century was much shorter than it is today. None of the founders could have envisioned someone serving at 84, as most people were dead by then.
Meanwhile, best wishes that Justice Ginsburg's iron constitution will carry on!
As for lifetime appointments set forth by the Founders for the Supreme Court, please keep in mind that the length of life in that century was much shorter than it is today. None of the founders could have envisioned someone serving at 84, as most people were dead by then.
Meanwhile, best wishes that Justice Ginsburg's iron constitution will carry on!
Thank YOU Mrs. Ginsburg, you are a role model! And, allow me to be outspoke from my little corner in this society of ours: If, hopefully, #45 is out for the obvious and "alleged" strong reasons, are we going to be free also of Mr. Gorsuch who was named to the SC by Supreme #1 twitter?
13
That is my hope, also.
If 45 was elected through criminal means--such as collusion with Russia--then Gorsuch is "the fruit of the poison tree." (In addition, of course, that 45 had no right to fill the SCOTUS seat in the first place, since it was stolen by Malicious Mitch.)
If 45 was elected through criminal means--such as collusion with Russia--then Gorsuch is "the fruit of the poison tree." (In addition, of course, that 45 had no right to fill the SCOTUS seat in the first place, since it was stolen by Malicious Mitch.)
When it comes to which branch of the government is doing the best job, I would have to say the bar isn't set very high these days.
34
The "bar". Get it?
1
Justice Ginsburg, you are an inspiration. Willing to speak your mind but also willing to learn from your regrets. Staying informed and relevant you are a model for many of us. Thank you for serving us and please stay healthy. We need you.
97
Of the three branches of our Government, Legislative, Executive and Judicial, the Judicial most reflects successful implementation of the Founders design. Justice Ginsberg is a shining example.
62
The one branch not elected and appointed for life.
1
As a proud member of the Supreme Court Bar, I consider Justice Ginsburg The "Lion" of the Court.
63
If you love common sense and no-nonsense judicial results this is your judge. Long live Justice Ginsburg!
61
There are still heroes in American public service not tainted by the current administration's leader. Ms. Ginsburg is one. Thank you for your service.
65
So if there is a lion in the court today, it is she. I really hope this gerrymander case is a win for all Americans. Political Parties should not be making decisions for the American People with such a slanted view point. The point was made that if the boundaries in 2012 where the same in those in 2010 the Republicans would have lost the house.
132
Gerrymandering is a small factor. The Democrats control only 6 statehouses ..the Senate and the President are not aided by it in any way.
5
My general advice on full color images of anyone in workout gear is they are best done outdoors in Miami in one's twenties. As the decades advance increase the latitude, such that by your sixties you are north of the Artic Circle and dressed for winter.
We need ten year terms for Supreme Court justices. No one should have any job for life.
And if they get the gerrymandering case wrong that will be the final nail in the coffin of our democratic experiment.
We need ten year terms for Supreme Court justices. No one should have any job for life.
And if they get the gerrymandering case wrong that will be the final nail in the coffin of our democratic experiment.
2
Your offence at the thought of someone "north of the 60s being picture in work out gear is rather shallow. In a country where TV shows, sporting titles like "The Biggest Loser" "Extreme Weight Loss" and "My 600 Lb Life, have no problem finding participants, seeing an 84 year old woman who pursues fitness is aspirational. Go Ruth Go.
2
The simple solution to the 18th century practice of gerrymandering is to assign each state so many congressional slots based on population as per the Constitution; the parties each nominate the same number of candidates - including third parties; the voters vote; and each party receives the percentage of slots based on its percentage vote. If two senators can be selected in this manner, why not also for the house of representatives?
46
Because congresspersons are intended to be local, which a statewide vote would not reflect.
2
Implementation can be tricky, but this is the right approach.
see http://www.fairvote.org who is actively working along these lines, and
http://www.genuineideas.com/ArticlesIndex/gerrymandering.html to understand why even senatorial votes are distorted by electing senators on alternate years, rather than both senators at a time..
see http://www.fairvote.org who is actively working along these lines, and
http://www.genuineideas.com/ArticlesIndex/gerrymandering.html to understand why even senatorial votes are distorted by electing senators on alternate years, rather than both senators at a time..
1
Farby.....it should be based on the number of U.S "citizens" not "residents." The majority of Americans are not in favor of giving sanctuary cities and states the right to use their unlawful residents representatives in our government. ...
1
The gerrymandering issue is broader than racial discrimination. Basically, the district-based voting system locks out ANY geographically dispersed interest groups, not just racial groups but LGBT or home schoolers, etc, from ever winning a seat. Limiting our constitutional rights of free association and equal protection.
At-large voting cures this and many other ills, but likely too radical for the court- see this short essay explaining the issues http://www.genuineideas.com/ArticlesIndex/gerrymandering.html
At-large voting cures this and many other ills, but likely too radical for the court- see this short essay explaining the issues http://www.genuineideas.com/ArticlesIndex/gerrymandering.html
17
I am a fan of Justice Ginsburg and I wish her well and I hope she continues her exercise routine. We need her on the Court.
115
You're way out in front, Justice Ginsberg! Please stay there as long as possible. Thank you so much for your work on behalf of our nation.
185
The time is long overdue for a mandatory retirement age for the judiciary, and term limits for supreme court justices.
2
You can be stupid at the age of 50 just as well as 85. Some of decisions by justices below 65 years old should have been reason to get rid of them.
41
She's a real inspiration and I trust her to do the right thing. Just PLEASE don't retire any time soon!
147
Ginsburg, Sotomayer, Kagan v. Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Gorsuch. I think we need more women on the Supreme Court.
135
And we needed broadened representation across the socio-economic divide; justices who have grown up without great wealth and privilege. Perhaps it is time to also include people who have gone to non-Ivy league institutions.
A court of and by the people's peers.
A court of and by the people's peers.
6
Correct, anne, even Scalia said as much.
Dear Anne, Justice Sotomayer came from a very, very poor family. She also studied very hard and was able to get financial aid and graduate from..............Princeton.
4
I would have liked to have heard more about Citizens United. The majority of the court gave its blessing to elections in the U.S. being bought and sold. I would have also liked to have heard more about voter suppression by the court's majority. It must be very difficult for Justice Ginsburg to sit through the dismantling of republican democracy. Gerrymandering is part of the problem, but it is not root cause of voter disenfranchisement in the U.S.
72