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!
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.”
Just like this posting about Ruth, here’s another “You just can’t make up stuff as crazy as this” item.
The Artist instead paint Obama’s hands backwards
https://twitter.com/LADowd/status/963372529397137408
FYI – Obama’s Portrait Artist Is Known for Paintings of Black People Beheading White People
https://pjmedia.com/trending/obama-portrait-artist-known-paintings-black-people-beheading-white-people/
Um, no, he isn’t known for it. Out of his entire output, there are exactly two paintings with such a theme.
Sperm, on the other hand…
Only two? Leonardo only painted one portrait of Mona Lisa del Giocondo, but that didn’t keep him from being known for it.
He wasn’t known for it until long after he was dead. And this joker was not known for those two paintings until some right-wing sites decided yesterday to attack him for them.
He is, however, known for putting sperm everywhere.
Can’t reply directly to Millhouse. To whom I would say, are you telling me that if I painted two pictures of white people holding the heads of black people, I wouldn’t be “known for it”? You’re trying so hard to be a centrist that you’re losing your mind.
Mizzoumike, facts are what they are, and you’re not entitled to your own. It is a fact, not an opinion, that before yesterday this artist was not known for those two paintings.
As evidence, here is his Wikipedia page as it stood before yesterday. Notice that there is no mention of his Judith paintings.
I notice you have not answered the question.
I never posited that he was not known for those paintings before today.
No, you posited that he was known for these paintings. And that simply isn’t true. The claim that he was known for these paintings was invented out of whole cloth by lying bloggers who discredit the entire right wing with their dishonesty and spite. Your only choice is whether to join yourself to them and share their guilt, or to distance yourself and remain a decent person.
Please show me where I made that claim. I hadn’t heard of this person until today.
And you still have not answered my question, which is a valid one.
The topic of this thread is notamember’s claim that “FYI – Obama’s Portrait Artist Is Known for Paintings of Black People Beheading White People”. You came here to support that claim. Your question is speculative and irrelevant. What might have happened in other circumstances doesn’t affect what did happen in these.
A fake artist, and his portrait of a fake president: the ‘artist’ hired Chinese workers to paint his paintings.
There’s also some debate that there is sperm on the obama’s face on the painting. But then, who needs a painting for that to happen?
https://www.infowars.com/portrait-shock-obama-covered-in-sperm/
It seems to me that this painter could very well be a terrorist like the Florida shooter, one made a few obscure comments, the other used paintings. It seems to me that the FBI should give him a close look 🙂
HRC loss will be analyzed for a long time. She garners more of the popular vote which belies all the arguments to date.
She garners more of the
popularillegal vote which belies all the arguments to date.FIFY, commie.
And most of that from the communist paradise known as California.
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.
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.”
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.
If Buzzy is on any case involving Trump, we won’t take it seriously. Nor will Trump sit quietly by.
“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. //
Easily replaced by Nancy Pelosi
She’s still alive?
Nobody’s really sure…
Generalissimo Ginsburg is alive and playing soccer everyday.
Not her integrity. That died long ago.
Ginsburg’s judgement is poor, her analysis is illogical. She should not be deciding what is constitutional.
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
“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.
There was an experiment done that proved just the opposite.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/03/08/social-experiment-swapped-gender-roles-for-trump-and-clinton-ends-with-people-realizing-why-he-won-n2294898
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-k4HH8esNk
No, it doesn’t prove the opposite. It doesn’t even address my point.
It says that when a male actor recited Hillary’s words and a female actress recited Trump’s words, Hillary supporters were more supportive of Trump’s position and more critical of Hillary’s.
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.
Hmm, character before sex. That’s so [American] conservative.
Sarah Palin, the prototype of the matriarchal American, was denied political viability by female chauvinists and their archetypal male accomplices.
…especially those in the Lie-Stream Media/MSM….
This woman is a fool and needs to be removed from the court immediately.
Foolishness is not grounds for impeachment and removal.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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
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.
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.
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.
No, none at all. Where are you seeing any?
May your image be painted by the obamas’ official portrait painter.
That’ll teach you.
Sperm and all.
“She might not be blaming Trump directly in her latest comments, but Ginsburg’s certainly suggesting he’s the reason Hillary lost.”
Duh.
Ever think Hillary is the reason Hillary lost?
That’s the most delicious part of all this.
The left can’t take the fact they were dumb enough to bet the house on her.
As usual, she delivered – incompetently.
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?
The patriarchy hates competition.
/sarc off
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?
Zing!
Yes, she has written opinions of consequence.
Yes, in fact she wrote the majority opinion in the seminal case, “Milhouse v. The Rest of Us.’
I’m sorry, but 84 is an excellent time to retire. Conservative or liberal; doesn’t matter. You’ve been there too long.
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.
She’s certainly macho enough in this portrait:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084579/Is-cartoon-comparing-Michelle-Obama-Marie-Antoinette-racist.html
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!
She’s not even a Neville Chamberlain.
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.