As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Ginsburg Wants to Change Electoral College System

How much does she support what the Founders did? I’ve heard her mention that other Constitutions are superior to ours.n So this is not surprising, that she wants New York City and Los Angeles to choose the president.

From the Washington Examiner:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she wants to change the Electoral College.

Asked at Stanford University on Monday night about what she would like to change, Ginsburg exclaimed, “the Electoral College!” She also decried partisanship and lamented the death penalty during her appearance at Stanford, according to the Mercury News.

“If I were queen, there would be no death penalty,” Ginsburg said.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

16 Responses to Ginsburg Wants to Change Electoral College System

  1. Without any info, I assume she had to take a oath to support the “constitution of the United States”? What is wrong with this person. Perhaps she thinks she is really a queen among knaves, a pure thinker among idiots or that she alone should decide what is constitutional and that means to upend the constitution.

    There should be no right wing or left wing of the Supreme Court, no progressive, no conservative, but purists who will interpret any action that conforms or denies the papers that keep us the most wonderful country in the world.

    • There should be no right wing or left wing of the Supreme Court, no progressive, no conservative, but purists who will interpret any action that conforms or denies the papers that keep us the most wonderful country in the world.

      This! Once again, spot on srdem65.

    • There are Guillotines stored at many of the FEMA camps that were originally intended to “terminate” any patriots that refused to be “reeducated” into communism/globalism. These could just as easily be used for the globalists/communists. I’m against the death penalty in criminal cases, but that all goes away in wartime, where you kill the enemy that is trying to kill YOU– perfectly OK in my view.

  2. So frightened of Ruthie kicking the bucket, a phalanx of Democrat protectors, similar to the odd black man who was at HRC’s side, surround her.

    I even saw some bizarre comment from a special snowflake offering her body parts like kidneys, etc.

    • Ginsburg is older than Kennedy, who I think will retire this summer. That should be Trump’s second appointment.
      Ginsburg number three. That old biddy, who can hardly stay awake during hearings, has survived stomach cancer as well as pancreatic cancer. One tough broad that needs to be in a rest home.
      These three appointments during his first term is why we put Trump in!

  3. Well, it is well known that justice Ginsberg leans far to the left, and would be very happy if the USA went full-on communist (that *IS* the limit of the LibTard equation, isn’t it?)

    NO justice Ginsberg, I think it would be WRONG and not inline with the original legislative intent of the US constitution to allow New York city and Los Angeles to determine who should be the president for all of the rest of the USA. That would be really bad, and would result in another armed revolution, in which people that think the way justice Ginsberg thinks would most likely end up swinging from the end of a rope.

    What REALLY gets my dander up is that justice Ginsberg allows her personal and party politics to influence her decisions, instead of deciding based on the original legislative intent of the US constitution. She should RETIRE or be IMPEACHED because of this.

    As far as the death penalty goes– unfortunately I have to agree with her– the death penalty is just plain wrong. The *ONLY* time a human being may take the life of another is when their life, or the life of another person is in immediate danger, and there is no other option. Once a criminal is locked up inside of a super-max prison, they can’t harm anyone– so there is no danger to anyone, and there is no reason to harm them. The death penalty is (essentially) a “revenge killing”– and thus is murder by a government (democide). In addition to the philosophical and legal reasons, there have been MANY cases where someone was executed, and then later we found that they were completely innocent– tragic– very tragic. There have been many cases where a prosecutor completely made up “facts” (or covered up exculpatory evidence) in order to get a conviction to promote their political careers. Sad– very sad… That said, I’m in favor of giving a criminal with a life sentence [without the possibility of parole] the option of self-euthanasia [assisted suicide] after they have been in prison for at least 20 years, and have exhausted all appeals– but *THEY* should “push the button” themselves– not anyone else.

    • I can’t disagree with most of your points on the death penalty, but no one I love has been murdered, tortured or ruined by some crazed criminal.
      It’s possible if such a horrible thing happened, I would become a rabid death penalty supporter.

  4. Well……First, she has to get 2/3rds of both the House and Senate or 2/3rds of the State to agree at a Constititional Convention……….until then her words mean nothing. BTW, has anyone changed her embalming fluid lately?

  5. As a Judge, how in her right (or should I say left) mind does she think she has the ability to do this?

    Would require a Constitutional Amendment…

    I actually do not wish the lady harm, but she should not be still on the bench…