Justice Ginsburg Slams Senate After Impeachment Verdict

So much for an unbiased judiciary.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Photo Courtesy of EUI via Creative Commons License

After the impeachment verdict was delivered, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once again interjected her opinion into the political world.


Ginsburg was obviously not happy with the outcome, stating, “I can give an example of our own legislature: The US Senate was once a model of civility and good fellowship, readiness to compromise for the good of the public.

“Today it’s divided sharply, but when I remember back to how it once was, I am hopeful.”

Yeah, that was before Republicans found their backbone and refused to stand up to all the Democrat nonsense!

Silent During the Impeachment

One could take Ginsburg’s opinion a bit more seriously if she had chimed in at all during the House hearings.

When the Democrats were railroading Trump and rigging the hearings by not allowing Republicans to call their own witnesses, she was silent as a church mouse.

Ginsburg did later say that she would hope that both parties would figure a way to work all of this out.

She stated, “So I am hopeful that people of goodwill in both of our parties will say, ‘We have had enough of dysfunction. Let’s work together for the good of all of the people who compose the nation.'”

Depoliticizing the Judiciary

There was another comment I found rather interesting from Ginsburg and it goes to a point I have been making for some time.

Today, our judiciary has become more political than ever before.

When you look up and down the rulings during this administration, you can name the outcome long before it ever goes before a judge.

If it is a conservative-appointed judge, the ruling goes down in favor of Trump and if it is a liberal-appointed judge, the ruling goes against Trump.

That, quite frankly, is not how the judiciary is supposed to work.

President Trump has called out the judiciary for being biased based on ideology and he is 100 percent correct and the record of the cases decided both for and against him is proof of that.

Ginsburg seemed offended by that comment, stating, “Vital to the rule of law in any land is an independent judiciary, judges who are not under the thumb of other branches of government — the executive and legislative power holders — and therefore equipped to administer justice impartially.”

The problem, though, is that what she says and does are two different things.

I can look over the SCOTUS docket for upcoming cases and predict how Ginsburg will vote in just about every case.

How nine people can see the same case so differently is baffling to me, considering they are all supposed to use the same precedent and Constitution as their guideline.

The liberal ideology, however, has twisted things so far out of whack, the rule of law today means nothing.

  1. Independent judiciary??? If you believe we have had an independent judiciary , especially since bo was in the white house, you’re either lying to yourself, or that cancer is slowly chomping down on your very last brain cells. Let it go, Ginsburg- time to hang up the robe for a little R&R- you need it !

  2. Dear Judge Ginsburg,

    As an observant lady with an IQ well above average, did you happen to notice how equally balanced the voting was in both the House and the Senate? In the House, all Democrats voted to impeach, except for two Representatives voted to impeach, except for two that had character attacks and turned Republican and one that just voted “Present.”

    Naturally, all of the Republicans voted against impeachment.

    The Senate also played partisan politics, except for Romney, who torpedoed both his character and reputation.

    The case was a fallacy and was not voted on by evidence, legality or character. Only two Presidents
    should ever have been impeached. Nixon was guilty and resigned to avoid embarrassment and scandal. Clinton left personal fluids on both Monica’s chin and her dress, but lived to cheat another day.

    Impeachment is now just a political tool and we’ll see another attempt in two years.

  3. It’s about time Ginsburg packed it in and retired. The only reason she doesn’t retire, she doesn’t want Trump to pick the next supreme court justice. If Trump is re-elected, Ginsburg may not live long enough to stop Trump. Civility. When were the Democrats ever civil. If they were we wouldn’t have the likes of ANTIFA running around and beating up on people. If the Democrats were civil, they would have accepted the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, and Hillary would have dissolved in the wind. If the Democrats were civil, America wouldn’t have Bureaucrats from DOJ, FBI, and the intelligence community trying to overthrow the president.

  4. Those on the “Left”, or “Progressives”, are the ones using the Courts to advance the political agenda. If the Judges on the Court followed the US Constitution instead of advancing their “Progressive” agenda people would respect them.


  6. Ginsburg is just proving that it is way past time for her to be gone from the Court. In FACT she is proving she should NEVER placed on the Court at all. be placed o

  7. I bet she was happy with the outcome of the Roger Stone case, she is a liberal biased communist until she draws her last breath.

  8. The 4 liberal , anti-Constitution , “SCOTUS justice” paid-off criminals have done NOTHING FOR America their whole corrupt lives & worthless careers !

  9. In a sane world, Ginsberg would have been impeached and sent on her way many years ago. She once admitted that she found the Constitutions of many other countries to be superior to ours. She specifically stated that she liked South Africa’s Constitution, because it allowed and encouraged the government to confiscate the property of individuals with no recompense if the government decided it had a good reason to take it. Her job is to interpret laws-not to provide justice for individuals. She is supposed to see if new laws fill the conditions required by the Constitution (ours, not South Africa’s). This being the case it becomes very difficult for me to understand why all rulings are not 9-0 no matter the issue. If they are all using the same Constitution, how can five people think the law fits the Constitution while four feel it does not? I believe it is because the liberals on the bench see the Constitution the way they wish it read, while the other five see it the way it is written. The Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms-whether you are a big fan of guns or hate the hell out of them there is only one way to interpret the law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Article
Dr. Epstein

Google Whistleblower and Fierce Hillary Critic Says Wife’s Horrific Car Crash May NOT Be an ‘Accident’

Next Article
ANTIFA Attempted Murder

ANTIFA 'Protesters' Caught on Video Trying to Kill Woman

Related Posts