Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Ruth Bader Ginsburg blames “macho atmosphere” for Hillary’s 2016 loss

Ruth Bader Ginsburg blames “macho atmosphere” for Hillary’s 2016 loss

“Yes, sexism played a prominent part.”

During a discussion at Columbia University, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg blamed a “macho atmosphere” and rampant sexism for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 electoral loss.

“I think it was difficult for Hillary Clinton to get by even the macho atmosphere prevailing during that campaign, and she was criticized in a way I think no man would have been criticized,” she said. “I think anyone who watched that campaign unfold would answer it the same way I did — Yes, sexism played a prominent part.”

Ginsburg has made no effort to conceal her disdain for Trump, publicly criticizing him on numerous occasions.

Prior to the election, Ginsburg called Trump a “faker“.

In a July 2016 interview with the NYT, Ginsburg suggested, likely jokingly, that moving to New Zealand might be preferable to living in Trump’s America:

“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.

Referring to something she thought her late husband, tax lawyer Martin Ginsburg, would have said, she said: “Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”

Ginsburg later regretted making so many public negative comments about Trump, saying, “On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them. Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future, I will be more circumspect.”

She might not be blaming Trump directly in her latest comments, but Ginsburg’s certainly suggesting he’s the reason Hillary lost.

Regardless, she thinks America is ready for a female president.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Well, then — perhaps she should run!

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to rustyshamrock. | February 13, 2018 at 5:09 pm

    Run way to the nearest rest home, Ruth.

    You would know all about being too “macho” Bader-Ginsburg, since your hyper-masculine traits made Hilary look like a little girl! SNARK! Or to just quote Barrack Obama about Hillary in 2008: “Hillary cries like a girl.”

    HRC loss will be analyzed for a long time. She garners more of the popular vote which belies all the arguments to date.

      Barry in reply to Lee Jan. | February 13, 2018 at 8:06 pm

      She garners more of the popular illegal vote which belies all the arguments to date.

      FIFY, commie.

      And most of that from the communist paradise known as California.

      Milhouse in reply to Lee Jan. | February 13, 2018 at 8:28 pm

      Which arguments does it belie?

      The bullcrap of popular vote is another loser argument. By losers. For losers.
      The winner wasn’t determined by popular vote, both candidates knew it, media for sure knew as they kept talking about how many electoral votes hildabeast was going to win when she beat God Emperor Of the United States (GEOTUS) Donald J. Trump.

      Had this election been about popular vote, GEOTUS would have run a totally different campaign and kicked the crap out of hildabeast again.

      Janelle in reply to Lee Jan. | February 14, 2018 at 6:40 pm

      It is time to recognize that she she lost.!!!

      “HRC loss will be analyzed for a long time. She garners more of the popular vote which belies all the arguments to date.”

      This isn’t a response to Lee Jan (which in Chinese, means “One with no brains.”) It’s for readers passing through:

      Mr. One With No Brains forgot to mention the Electoral College. (Obama once claimed to point out he taught Constitutional law there, until his handlers informed him to shut his yap.)

      The most delicious part of all this is that the left bet the ENTIRE leftist house on hillary klinton, and as usual, she screwed it up.

      The left really had it made: they had it all. Then they hired hillary klinton.

      What a great comedy will be written about her in the future: “A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The White House.”

      MarkJ in reply to Lee Jan. | February 16, 2018 at 6:46 am

      Your “popular votes” assertion is irrelevant, so give up and move on. As has been pointed out, it’s the electoral votes that count. Bottom line: Trump got the electoral votes where he needed them and HRC didn’t–simple as that. Example: California was a blowout for HRC, but she didn’t need the votes there–she really needed them in the Midwest states, most of which Trump took instead. Factor out the excess California votes and Trump would have certainly also won the popular vote as well.

      Try this sports analogy: in the 1960 World Series, the NY Yankees outscored the Pittsburgh Pirates in runs 55-27…and still lost 3-4. Why? Because, under the existing rules of the game, the Pirates won the games they needed to win and the Yankees didn’t.

    Whether she decides to run for elective office, or not, she most certainly should recuse herself from any case before the Court which involves Trump. After all those comments, even saying she regrets them will not provide sufficient evidence of an ability to eliminate her disdain for Trump from her deliberations.

    But she won’t.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to rustyshamrock. | February 16, 2018 at 3:22 pm

    “Ginsburg later regretted making so many public negative comments about Trump”

    It is too late for regrets. Hillary knew or should have known how the Electoral system works. Either she, he campaign managers, or both were clearly incompetent.

    On top of that, Hillary has acted like a spoiled teen, blaming everyone else for her loss.

    I looked at Hillary and Trump, I came to the conclusion that Trump was the lesser evil. As it has turned out, Trump has been better than what I thought he was going to be.

    I thought that Democrats would learn from their loss, it is clear that they are just like Hillary, unable see why they lost or to do anything to prevent an instant replay of that loss in the next election.

    Their collective psychosis is in many ways similar to that of Palestinians.

Amazing how many people are still upset that the electoral college prevented the election of a corrupt politician with an anti-Midas touch. Even more amazing how they consider rejection of this clearly unqualified person somehow anti-female simply because the individual in question was female.

I was opposed to Hillary because she’s wrong about virtually everything. I was opposed to Hillary because she’s horrifically corrupt. I was *terrified* of her election because everything she touches turns to excrement. Fortunately for the country, “everything she touches” included her campaign, so she managed to lose the election in spite of the best efforts of the media, the then-current administration, and apparently corrupt politicized people in the FBI and the FISA courts.

…and she was criticized in a way I think no man would have been criticized

I guess that explains all the fawning press she’s received for 30 years

    H Rotten Klinton has behaved like no man in high office in the country has ever behaved, save for Benedict Arnold, and especially disgraced former president and traitor barack hussein obama.

    Incredible how the left will embrace the second scummiest politician ever to come up on the American body politic, if not one of the worst genocidal maniacs threatening the US with nuclear weapons.

    Know people by their allies.

    “and she was criticized in a way I think no man would have been criticized…”

    Ok, how’s this: She’s a dumb, corrupt woman, not worth an old blue stained dress.

    What man could you say that about?

I blame RBG for co-enabling and nourishing the upsurge of Leninist-Maoist neo-Jacobinism in America.

Good to know we have a Supreme Court Justice with such a firm grasp of reality. //

She’s still alive?

Ginsburg’s judgement is poor, her analysis is illogical. She should not be deciding what is constitutional.

    n.n in reply to Fen. | February 13, 2018 at 6:31 pm

    She is an acolyte of the Pro-Choice Church, who sincerely believes that denying individual dignity (e.g. [color] diversity), denying intrinsic value (e.g. selective-child), social justice adventures (e.g. opening abortion fields with elective causes), and redistributive change (i.e. minority or monopoly capital and control), are “progressive”. She’s right… or rather left. They are unqualified monotonic functions, typically evaluated at the twilight fringe.

    Worse, she’s betrayed her oath of office:

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended the use of foreign law by American judge:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html

e pluribus unum | February 13, 2018 at 5:53 pm

“RutaBaGa- it’s time to hang up the jabot and robe and call it a day.You extended the ’60’s well beyond their sell-by date.”

“she was criticized in a way I think no man would have been criticized”

People picked Trumo because they knew he would be impeached for the things that Hillary would get away with.

The last year has proven them right. Maybe you were asleep for all that.

America’s been ready for a female president for a long time. 2016 merely showed that it won’t elect the first female who presents herself.

Sarah Palin, the prototype of the matriarchal American, was denied political viability by female chauvinists and their archetypal male accomplices.

regulus arcturus | February 13, 2018 at 6:33 pm

This woman is a fool and needs to be removed from the court immediately.

    Foolishness is not grounds for impeachment and removal.

      regulus arcturus in reply to Milhouse. | February 13, 2018 at 8:31 pm

      It actually is.

        No, it isn’t. Not for a judge. You keep showing your ignorance. Which, by the way, isn’t grounds for removing a judge either.

          regulus arcturus in reply to Milhouse. | February 13, 2018 at 10:03 pm

          Wrong, ignoramus.

          Someone who exhibits repeated foolishness or incoherence, or general mental deterioration can and must be removed from the bench (or public office).

          Ginsburg fits that profile exactly.

          Additionally, her speeches, especially this most recent engagement, are inappropriate given her stature and likely involvement in future cases to be argued before her.

          Likewise her anti-Trump comments prior to the election were completely inappropriate.

          She should have been removed for those actions alone.

          At minimum, she must recuse herself from any litigation involving Trump given her documented animus towards him.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | February 13, 2018 at 10:07 pm

          Sigh. You are the ignoramus, here and always. A federal judge cannot be removed except for bad behavior. That is the law, whether you like it or not. Your ignorance is your problem, and you should not inflict it on others. Keep your mouth shut unless you know what you’re talking about.

          tphillip in reply to Milhouse. | February 14, 2018 at 7:13 am

          >Sigh. You are the ignoramus, here and always. A federal judge cannot be removed except for bad behavior.

          Sigh. You ignoramus. The official reason for a judge to be impeached is for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. So if Congress deems that using foreign law to determine the constitutionality of a US law meets the definition then, lo and behold, the conditions are met.

          And before you get all “excited” please note where in the Constitution “high crimes and misdemeanors” is defined. And then think REAL HARD how that definition can be manipulated to mean whatever is needed. Much like how people are fired “for cause”.

          Now be a dear and instead of putting words in mizzoumike’s mouth you actually respond to his questions. Don’t be a Rags.

          Edward in reply to Milhouse. | February 14, 2018 at 8:44 am

          Milhouse is correct some of the time. This is not one of those times. Articles I and II of the Constitution provide removal of Judges by the House voting Articles of Impeachment and the Senate Convicting. In Impeachment proceedings High Crimes and Misdemeanors are whatever the Congress decide they are. This is a political process, not a legal process.

          What Milhouse apparently has homed in on is a theory put forth which claims that Federal Judges can be removed for failing to adhere to the standard of “good behavior” (alternatively could be called removal for “bad behavior”). IOW, two professors believe Federal Judges can be removed under the provisions of Articles I and II, but also may be removed for failing to maintain “good behavior”. Here’s a link: http://www.law.northwestern.edu/faculty/fulltime/pfander/RemovingJudges.pdf

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | February 14, 2018 at 11:40 am

          Look, you ignoramuses, why don’t you all try reading the constitution instead of prattling? Judges’ tenure does not derive from Article I or II, and therefore neither does the authority to remove them. Judges’ tenure is in Article III, and it explicitly provides that they shall hold their offices “during good behavior”. Therefore the only grounds for removing them is bad behavior. Not foolishness, incompetence, or anything else that cannot be described as bad behavior. This is not a theory, it is an explicit constitutional provision, which everybody can see for themselves if they only bother reading the document they pretend to value so much.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | February 14, 2018 at 11:53 am

          Having briefly scanned the paper you linked to, no, that is not what I’m talking about. The theory discussed there is that Congress could provide for a judicial method for removing judges. It’s intriguing, but I’m very skeptical of it for the reasons given in the paper; it goes against the model the framers had in mind. The power to remove judges belongs to Congress, not to their fellow judges. But the grounds on which Congress can remove a judge must be a violation of the clause which guarantees his tenure, i.e. the good behavior clause. This is not a theory, and it’s not at all controversial. That you are ignorant of it just means you’re not competent to discuss the topic.

        As usual, milhouse is giving the public bad advice:

        Samuel Chase (April 17, 1741 – June 19, 1811) was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and a signatory to the United States Declaration of Independence as a representative of Maryland. He was impeached on grounds of letting his partisan leanings affect his court decisions:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase

        He remained in office, though like bill clinton, he was stained with impeachment.

        Ginsburg is worse than Chase ever was.

          As usual, FineReports is as dishonest as a Clinton. The House impeached Chase for alleged bad behavior, because that is the only ground for impeaching a judge, exactly as I informed the moron from Regulus. The senate disagreed strongly with the House’s opinion, and acquitted him. On most of the charges the prosecution couldn’t even get a majority, let alone 2/3, and on several charges the vote to acquit was overwhelming — in one case unanimous.

          Mo matter how many lies you tell, the fact will remain that federal judges cannot be removed for foolishness, incompetence, senility, or anything except proven bad conduct.

          >As usual, FineReports is as dishonest as a Clinton. The House impeached Chase for alleged bad behavior

          There’s that Milhouse lie again.

          Again, a judge can be removed from office if he’s impeached and convicted of ““Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Not bad behavior.

          Words. They mean things. But not to Milhouse.

          tphillip, like FineReports and Regulus, you are not entitled to your own facts. The criterion for removing a federal judge is bad behavior. Nothing else.

          (Of course treason and bribery are by definition bad behavior and would therefore be grounds for removal, but “high crimes and misdemeanors” is not a term that means anything when applied to judges, while there can be bad behavior that would not rise to that level in an executive branch officer, but would be grounds for removing a judge.)

          The Democratic-Republicans wanted to replace Federalist judges—many of them last-minute appointments by the outgoing President Adams—with good Democratic-Republicans. They were quite explicit that they wanted the offices for “better men”.

          They attacked Samuel Chase because they thought he’d be an easier target than the grand prize, John Marshall. However, they pretended that the grounds for impeachment were not mere policy differences but were some sort of misbehavior on the bench, mainly drunkenness. And Chase did indeed drink rather a lot of whiskey, even during trials. Of course in those days water was considered a health hazard … which, before common knowledge of bacteria and its growth habits, it was.

          That impeachment effort failed. It is too often assumed today that this means that the charges were without sufficient merit … which is just silly. It didn’t work then, but that hardly proves that it will never work. Vanguard I blew up on the launch pad; that didn’t prove that space travel is impossible.

          The fact that three of the charges were defeated overwhelmingly is proof that those charges had little or no merit. Two more of the charges failed to get even a majority, in a Jeffersonian-controlled senate, which again speaks to their relative lack of merit.

          In any case the fact remains that he was charged with bad conduct, not with foolishness, incompetence, or anything else that our resident liars and morons claim Ginsberg can be removed for.

          At this point, we have a new name for Milhouse:

          Outhouse.

OleDirtyBarrister | February 13, 2018 at 6:56 pm

Ruth Babykiller Ginsberg is nothing but a leftist charlatan and political hack. The Republicans, in one of countless examples, showed how spineless they are when they allowed her to join the court.

She, Hillary, and their fellow leftist travelers suffer from delusion and dissociative disorder. They still refuse to accept the fact that Hillary is an insufferable turbobitch to many Americans. Further, they ignore the fact that Trump beat out a large field of more established competitors in his party because he took the right position on immigration and the economy for the purposes of the 2016 election.

No sexism here, nosireee.

“She might not be blaming Trump directly in her latest comments, but Ginsburg’s certainly suggesting he’s the reason Hillary lost.”

Duh.

What Ginsburg’s opinion shows is that she is not a politician nor does she have a clue what it takes to run a successful campaign. Did she not see the corruption that the clinton’s have been responsible for their entire lives together? Did she not see how badly clinton’s campaign was being run? Did she not notice that the three big mostly blue states that hillary lost, she did not campaign in? Did she not notice the lack of a single message offered by hillary’s campaign? No Mrs. G, you are very lucky that your time on the SCOTUS came at a time when the RINOs in the Senate outnumbered men/women with integrity and common sense!

But had Hillary won, would RBG be complaining of sexism’s role in the election, considering that many voted for her (and therefore against her male opponent), at least in part, if not primarily, because she is a woman? Almost certainly not.

Leftists are finding it impossible to face the truth – the best candidate won. Hillary, no matter how good a president she may have been (if you believe it’s possible she may have been a good president) was a terrible candidate who ran an awful campaign.

Hatred of corruption is a sexist and macho attitude?!? Who knew?

Ginsburg is a fake Supreme Court Justice.

    You bet your ass she is:

    “I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/oath/textoftheoathsofoffice2009.aspx

    What a bad joke, huh?

A•fric•an Justice

Has Ginsburg written any opinions of consequence? Or is she on the Supreme Court because she’s a woman?

I’m sorry, but 84 is an excellent time to retire. Conservative or liberal; doesn’t matter. You’ve been there too long.

4th armored div | February 13, 2018 at 9:09 pm

looks like RBG is past her best use date.

Seriously, she is widow, lost her BFF on SCOTUS and cannot be a fair Justce, retire and enjoy your grandkids, or get a hobby, write a book, play tiddly winks, just leave already.

Macho atmosphere my a$$.

Hillary Clinton did it all to her own little self by spending decades telling us that Bill Clinton’s sexual actions had nothing to do with his presidency, and then telling us that DJT was unqualified for high public office because he observed that women throw themselves at celebrities and also told a funny story about himself being unable to prevail against the virtue of a married woman.

Shame on Justice Ginsberg for daring to comment, when she was utterly uninformed about Hillary Clinton’s actions. I expect more discretion of a judge, at any level.

“She might not be blaming Trump directly in her latest comments, but Ginsburg’s certainly suggesting he’s the reason Hillary lost.”

If so, Ginsburg is correct. Which other Republican candidate would have won the blue states carried by Trump? Which other Republican candidate would have energized those who typically vote Democrat in blue midwest states?

Despite being a horrible person, Hillary won a majority of the popular votes.

Yes, Hillary lost the presidential election because of Trump.

Now, did Hillary lose because of a “macho atmosphere”? I don’t think so. I think Hillary got so many “I gotta grab this opportunity to vote for a woman” votes that she probably received many more votes than Joe Biden would have received if he ran instead of Hillary.

Wasn’t michelle obama guilty of creating a macho atmosphere in the White House?

I’ll be so happy when Trump replaces her with someone competent.

Ruth Badgirl Commieburg should give serious thought to retirement.

I’m sure it had nothing to do with her socialist views and her corrupt endeavors, lying, and money laundering “charitable” foundation.

The problem is not that a justice on the Supreme court voices their political opinions

The problem is that a justice is on the Supreme court who has such biased opinions.

Hillary Clinton did NOT win the popular vote. You can’t win what is not in play. Trump was not trying to win the popular vote and neither was Hillary.

It’s as stupid as claiming the New England Patriots really won the Superbowl because they had more total yards gained than the Eagles, even though the scored less points.

Because if the popular vote mattered, the numbers would be comple5ely different than they were. Both campaigns would have spent more time money and energy in states like California and Texas. More Democrats would have voted in Red states, more Republicans would have voted in Blue states. No one can have any idea who would have gotten more character votes.

I’m really tired of explaining something so obvious. Anyone who claims Hillary “won” the popular vote is an idiot.

Edit –

No one can have any idea who would have more of the popular vote.

Ruthie, she is no Margaret Thatcher!

Yes, I am a very feminine woman – but with the election, I became a macho, feminine woman. Who somehow lost her right to make her own decision of whom to vote for. Voting my choice = “macho?”

So hard for Dems to admit people just didn’t like Hillary! I think they felt they HAD to vote for her. And somehow THEIR decision had to be mine. No, sir! And ma’am.

Word on the street says that Chuck Schumer is consulting with Haitian zombie voodoo experts on how he can keep RBG on the SCOTUS bench even after she dies.

Once again she proves she does not belong on the bench.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend