She did some great stuff in her early days when actual discrimination existed. She even argued a case and won on behalf of a man who was discriminated against for his gender.

I don't agree with her approach to the Constitution and her desire to inject herself into politics recently is troubling, but I do have to admire her early work. She doesn't get it right enough in my view, but from time to time she does.

Classic leftist claptrap.

Add to that her history as an ACLU apparatchik, and she places herself at a safe distance from those people whose ideas we need to take seriously.

The Constitution is the primary obstacle to the designs of the left. The birth of the ACLU in the cradle of the American Communist Party makes their avowed goal of protecting constitutional rights laughable, albeit sinister and diabolical.

The only reason we don’t identify the ACLU with the Party today is that Communism as a viable political force never regained its status after the mauling Joe McCarthy handed it. (At least not until the Obams years.) But a Communist by any other name stands for the same things, and lying about who they are and what they stand for is simply SOP. Likewise accusing your opponents of the crimes you are committing,

In the Supreme Court building in Washington, DC, Lady Justice can be found in 3 places: The Contemplation of Justice Statue (a seated female figure in a shawl) studies the smaller statue of Justice. This Justice is blindfolded and cradles a set of scales in her arms.

The Judiciary is the only major branch of Gov't where its members are supposed to be objective and unbiased in their interpretation of the Law.
The Legislature is the place in Gov't where competing biases are debated openly and aggressively.
Seems someone needs to give RBG a lesson in civics.

She's unbiased? By "unbiased" she means "leftist."

It's time for RBG to "exit stage right"; [past her prime,

Since Ginsburg isn't the chief Justice she has no say, the evidence was on TV for all to see, the senate could just vote on the known aspects of the case. Have to remember this is a justice that wants to eliminate the electoral college, so constitutionally astute on her oath to defend it is seriously lacking ...

Where was she during the 3yrs of Democratic bias after the election?
The Democrats are the biased ones. They rigged the whole impeachment exercise that they conducted and now they are attempting to dictate the rules that the Senate uses for the trial.
Democrats don't have an honest bone in their bodies. The only honest ones were those 4 who refused to vote at all or voted against.

The law is an ass. Bias is a political reality and in a case like this it’s going to be decided by the majority party. Get used to it, the Democrats started this and they lost. Now they can pay the price all the way through the next 4 years.

Prosecutors, as well as jurors, should not be biased. They should look at the evidence and decide whether the crime should be prosecuted. Which is why the old justice should have called on all representatives who had a substantial bias against Trump prior to this Ukraine garbage, to not vote on the impeachment. But Ruth is a biased individual as well. She is as hypocritical as any other Republican or Democrat in Washington.