Legal/scotus thread
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
We literally have already gone over that (like usual for all of your questions on anything and then you act like we haven’t)
But oh, cool that you didn’t have any story of anyone out there trying to pass legislation on killing children.
That’s a relief that it doesn’t exist
But oh, cool that you didn’t have any story of anyone out there trying to pass legislation on killing children.
That’s a relief that it doesn’t exist
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/06/10/ruth-bader-ginsburg-retire-legacy-00038638
Much of the wistfulness is felt not by disappointed idealist purchasers of lace-collar Halloween costumes or RBG refrigerator magnets, but by people who might have been the justice’s peers — people well established in law, politics and public service, many of whom can empathize with the complicated feelings involved in calling it quits.
“It’s certainly hard for me, now, to think of her work and of her — and not to, these days, work up a degree of regret and anger,” says Dorothy Samuels, who authored The New York Times’ legal editorials during her 30 years on the paper’s editorial board. “This is so multilayered because she cared so passionately about advancing equality for everybody. She figured out a way to get women to be part of the constitution. And yet, what she has helped to give us is a court that for a long, long time is going to be undoing the equality rulings that she was part of.”
Samuels heard the same thing from former clerks and other inner-circle members while researching a book in the years before Ginsburg’s death. “It was an extraordinarily self-centered thing to do.”
“She gambled,” says Michele Dauber, the outspoken Stanford law professor, speaking of Ginsburg’s apparent calculation that Hillary Clinton would be in the White House to appoint her successor. “But she didn’t just gamble with herself. She gambled with the rights of my daughter and my granddaughter. And unfortunately, that’s her legacy. I think it’s tragic.”
Much of the wistfulness is felt not by disappointed idealist purchasers of lace-collar Halloween costumes or RBG refrigerator magnets, but by people who might have been the justice’s peers — people well established in law, politics and public service, many of whom can empathize with the complicated feelings involved in calling it quits.
“It’s certainly hard for me, now, to think of her work and of her — and not to, these days, work up a degree of regret and anger,” says Dorothy Samuels, who authored The New York Times’ legal editorials during her 30 years on the paper’s editorial board. “This is so multilayered because she cared so passionately about advancing equality for everybody. She figured out a way to get women to be part of the constitution. And yet, what she has helped to give us is a court that for a long, long time is going to be undoing the equality rulings that she was part of.”
Samuels heard the same thing from former clerks and other inner-circle members while researching a book in the years before Ginsburg’s death. “It was an extraordinarily self-centered thing to do.”
“She gambled,” says Michele Dauber, the outspoken Stanford law professor, speaking of Ginsburg’s apparent calculation that Hillary Clinton would be in the White House to appoint her successor. “But she didn’t just gamble with herself. She gambled with the rights of my daughter and my granddaughter. And unfortunately, that’s her legacy. I think it’s tragic.”
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Conventional wisdom says its highly unlikely for a party to win 3 straight Presedential election college victories.
You know you're going to hear that coming from prominent leftist politicians.
I just hope they continue because the country is finally seeing the level of crazy thats on the left.
sturg33
I
1. They keep using this dumb ass line about the crowded theater... and they are factually wrong about... the left lives in a fairy tale land
2. Why are there never consequences to the lawmakers who break the law? Why aren't they automatically recalled, or jailed?
[tw]1539986249607520256[/tw]
2. Why are there never consequences to the lawmakers who break the law? Why aren't they automatically recalled, or jailed?
[tw]1539986249607520256[/tw]
sturg33
I
My point is that NY passed an ILLEGAL gun law... as just decided by the court... what are the consequences for that?
It's just like Biden's constant ILLEGAL mandates that the courts had to keep striking down.
These politicians took an oath to uphold the law... and then they intentionally do the opposite. That is breaking the law and when you or I break the law there are consequences