Ginsberg going to live with Muffsy if Trump wins
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-07-2016, 07:04 PM (This post was last modified: 14-07-2016 07:09 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Ginsberg going to live with Muffsy if Trump wins
(13-07-2016 03:26 PM)BnW Wrote:  It was a stupid thing for her to do. All she did was compromise the perception of her objectivity.

I think she knew exactly what she was doing. And I think she anticipated the reaction. And I think her retraction was written ahead of time. And I think she accomplished exactly what she intended to. "Her mind is shot". You keep thinking that cheetojesus. Notorious RBG is one scary fucking intellect. She could probably sumo Girly by just staring me down.




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
14-07-2016, 07:24 PM
RE: Ginsberg going to live with Muffsy if Trump wins
I think she knew what she was saying too. It was inappropriate.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2016, 07:29 PM
RE: Ginsberg going to live with Muffsy if Trump wins
(14-07-2016 06:51 PM)BnW Wrote:  
(14-07-2016 08:19 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Bullshit, Alito said something infinitely worse like 2 weeks ago and nobody gave a fuck. Scalia made a lucrative side career of saying the worst bullshit that he then used in his actual decisions. This got press because it is part of "The Story of the year" Donald Trump, had one of the conservative justices said the same thing about Hillary it would not have made page 3.

I have identified a new logical fallacy. I call it the "other people do bad things" fallacy. I think how it works is pretty obvious, but, basically, it's when you try to skirt an argument against a person or statement you agree with by highlighting that someone in a similar type of position did something bad, which may not be in any way related to the actual point.

The issue isn't her voicing an opinion. The issue is her weighing in on a political campaign. What happens if this election ends up in a similar situation as the Bush v Gore election? When it's before the Supreme Court, is she going to recuse herself? She just said she doesn't think Trump should be President. How can she rule objectivelyon any issue a Trump administration would bring before the court? She has completely called into question her willingness to be an impartial jurist. Find me any example where Scalia or Alito or any Justice weighed in on a specific campaign or individual.

I'll wait.

Oh did I miss the part where a supreme court justice lost their right to opine on a public election? How is her not being a fan of Trump worse than Alito or Scalia basically disregarding the 1st amendment?

I'll wait.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
14-07-2016, 07:55 PM (This post was last modified: 14-07-2016 07:58 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Ginsberg going to live with Muffsy if Trump wins
(14-07-2016 07:24 PM)BnW Wrote:  I think she knew what she was saying too. It was inappropriate.

Weighing the inappropriateness of injecting herself into politics against her fear for America of a Trump Presidency, RBG went with inappropriate. Makes her even more gangster.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2016, 09:57 PM (This post was last modified: 15-07-2016 01:28 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Ginsberg going to live with Muffsy if Trump wins
She and Scalia were good friends. She watched him opine on all sorts of political stuff for years. She knew exactly what she was doing.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2016, 07:18 AM
RE: Ginsberg going to live with Muffsy if Trump wins
(14-07-2016 07:29 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(14-07-2016 06:51 PM)BnW Wrote:  I have identified a new logical fallacy. I call it the "other people do bad things" fallacy. I think how it works is pretty obvious, but, basically, it's when you try to skirt an argument against a person or statement you agree with by highlighting that someone in a similar type of position did something bad, which may not be in any way related to the actual point.

The issue isn't her voicing an opinion. The issue is her weighing in on a political campaign. What happens if this election ends up in a similar situation as the Bush v Gore election? When it's before the Supreme Court, is she going to recuse herself? She just said she doesn't think Trump should be President. How can she rule objectivelyon any issue a Trump administration would bring before the court? She has completely called into question her willingness to be an impartial jurist. Find me any example where Scalia or Alito or any Justice weighed in on a specific campaign or individual.

I'll wait.

Oh did I miss the part where a supreme court justice lost their right to opine on a public election? How is her not being a fan of Trump worse than Alito or Scalia basically disregarding the 1st amendment?

I'll wait.

Of course she doesn't lose her right to voice an opinion. And, "worse" is a subjective judgment. But, it is objectively an issue for any Supreme Court Justice to voice an opinion on a matter that could possibly end up before them, or a candidate who may have issues represented before the Court. The details of what Justice it was and which candidate or official it is are irrelevant. It calls into question the impartiality of the whole process.

There is a reason Justices have historically not commented on these types of matters. They are human beings who obviously have their own opinions on issues, but when they speak in public they are always speaking as a member of the Court.

It was inappropriate for her to comment on an election that could conceivably end up needing the Court to intervene and a candidate who could win and whose administration would regularly appear before her. She has needlessly created a conflict.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
15-07-2016, 09:37 AM (This post was last modified: 15-07-2016 01:30 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Ginsberg going to live with Muffsy if Trump wins
(15-07-2016 07:18 AM)BnW Wrote:  
(14-07-2016 07:29 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Oh did I miss the part where a supreme court justice lost their right to opine on a public election? How is her not being a fan of Trump worse than Alito or Scalia basically disregarding the 1st amendment?

I'll wait.

Of course she doesn't lose her right to voice an opinion. And, "worse" is a subjective judgment. But, it is objectively an issue for any Supreme Court Justice to voice an opinion on a matter that could possibly end up before them, or a candidate who may have issues represented before the Court. The details of what Justice it was and which candidate or official it is are irrelevant. It calls into question the impartiality of the whole process.

There is a reason Justices have historically not commented on these types of matters. They are human beings who obviously have their own opinions on issues, but when they speak in public they are always speaking as a member of the Court.

It was inappropriate for her to comment on an election that could conceivably end up needing the Court to intervene and a candidate who could win and whose administration would regularly appear before her. She has needlessly created a conflict.

Then how come Scalia got away with it for years ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2016, 09:50 AM
RE: Ginsberg going to live with Muffsy if Trump wins
Scalia threw his 2 cents into election politics? I don't recall that. You have an example?

I know he threw his opinion out with regularity but that's not the same as involving yourself in an election.

Btw, Ginsburg CAN do what she did. There is no rule against it. But, it's inappropriate for someone in her position for the reasons I stated previously.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2016, 09:55 AM
RE: Ginsberg going to live with Muffsy if Trump wins
Btw, your question on Scalia goes to my "other bad deeds " fallacy. It was inappropriate for Ginsburg to do what she did. It's not suddenly made appropriate if someone else does it. That's why I said the subjective details don't matter. A Supreme Court Justice who does this calls into question their impartiality when they do. I agree that Scalia's comments on general political issues raised issues for him. That wasn't ok either. But, I believe Ginsburg went even further than he ever did.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
15-07-2016, 10:35 AM
RE: Ginsberg going to live with Muffsy if Trump wins
(15-07-2016 09:55 AM)BnW Wrote:  Btw, your question on Scalia goes to my "other bad deeds " fallacy. It was inappropriate for Ginsburg to do what she did. It's not suddenly made appropriate if someone else does it. That's why I said the subjective details don't matter. A Supreme Court Justice who does this calls into question their impartiality when they do. I agree that Scalia's comments on general political issues raised issues for him. That wasn't ok either. But, I believe Ginsburg went even further than he ever did.

This is probably just something we are never going to agree on. I do not feel it was inappropriate for her to state her opinions. If you can prove that, in the event Trump is elected and brings a case before the court, her judicial opinions are unfairly biased against him and out of character for her past decisions then you have point.

The thing you are trying so hard to push as a fallacy is simply not one, it is pointing to others in a similar position doing similar things and having no fallout from them and showing how hypocritical this issue is. You have admitted she has a legal right to not only have but express her opinion and until such a time as she actually does discriminate against Trump simply because she does not like him this is a fluff story and nothing more.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: