Ruth Bader Ginsburg misses court due to illness

[rwee2000]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg misses Supreme Court arguments due to illness | Fox News

ignoring the circus show in the house there is the bigger issue right now.
she is 86 been treated for cancer at least 3 times.

her health is failing and it doesn't look good. it is possible that she might not be able
to continue her work on the bench. it is possible that trump could set a record as a president
and get to appoint a 3rd justice.

this country needs judges to uphold the constitution more than ever as right there is more and more effort to
undo freedom and liberty.

Let's assume she has to quit before the election, I wonder how many Democrats will start saying we need to wait until after the election to appoint a new member? Just like the Republicans did.

Yes, given the past we should wait until after the election, but I'm betting the Democrats will scream wait and the Republicans will say we should do it now.

 

[calamity]

So the McConnell rule applies to Democrats but not Republicans. Gotcha.

Funny how that works with hypocrites, liars and snakes.

 

[Obscurity]

Did you feel that way in 2010 and 2012?

Yes. I do.

 

[Obscurity]

nice try, that means if there was an opening, and the house was held by the opposite party, they could prevent an appointment. I hope Trump can replace at least two more democrats. Roberts has become erratic

Your opinion disgusts me. I want no more "originalists".

Originalism is childish and assumed society never changes. It does.

Constantly picking "originalists" is ignorance.

 

[TurtleDude]

Your opinion disgusts me. I want no more "originalists".

Originalism is childish and assumed society never changes. It does.

Constantly picking "originalists" is ignorance.

those who think the constitution should be whatever the current whim is are disgusting. Like pretending that the commerce clause allows congress any power it wants

 

[RaleBulgarian]

It has nothing to do with Justice because there wasn't a crime committed. So it's a personality conflict?

Impeachments aren’t criminal prosecutions. No actual crime is necessary. Trump’s violation(s) of the Constitution and his oath of office are much more than sufficient to warrant impeachment.

 

[ajn678]

Wrong. Obama did have the Constitutional right to nominate his pick to replace Scalia. Matter of fact, only the president can nominate a Supreme Court Justice. McConnell refused to even hold confirmation hearings. The first and only time in American history.

I am not wrong. In fact, I am literally correct about everything I said. Obama's right to nominate someone was given. I am sorry if you are confused on the manner. The constitution doesn't say that Obama gets his nomination picked automatically. He got his pick. That is his right. It happened. Sorry if you believe in a different reality.

 

[Fishking]

So eager to stack the court, they're reduced to rooting for her death.

Desperately reaching for something that isn't there, per your usual MO. He specifically said that it seems she wouldn't be able to continue to fulfil her duties, not die. Care to try and lie again?

 

[Grand Mal]

Your opinion disgusts me. I want no more "originalists".

Originalism is childish and assumed society never changes. It does.

Constantly picking "originalists" is ignorance.

This is why I was against Canada adopting a constitution. My rights were well protected by English Common Law, which evolved through the centuries as part of society, while there's constant nit-picking abou whether something is constitutional or not and always will be.
A constitution is nothing more than a monument to the hubris of It's authors.

 

[ajn678]

Your opinion disgusts me. I want no more "originalists".

Originalism is childish and assumed society never changes. It does.

Constantly picking "originalists" is ignorance.

The Constitution gave us ways to address society changes. Perhaps going down the proper channels is better. Everyone cries about what Trump has been doing, and then they want even more control given to elected officials rather than how the Founders set up the nation. Remember that if you give the people you like the power to do what you like, if the people that don't like you get into power, they will have just as much or more power to enact judgement against you.

 

[CaughtInThe]

I wonder what the Lord and Savior thinks about current Republicans. The ones who pretend to be Christians probably don't care.

 

[ajn678]

This is why I was against Canada adopting a constitution. My rights were well protected by English Common Law, which evolved through the centuries as part of society, while there's constant nit-picking abou whether something is constitutional or not and always will be.
A constitution is nothing more than a monument to the hubris of It's authors.

Interesting you would bring up English Common Law given England's current problems with government overreach and Nanny State attitudes.

 

[ecofarm]

I don't recall that from Eco-but other lefties were orgasmic over Scalia dying and thinking Obama would get to put another justice in the mold of Kagan on the bench

Not "other lefties", some lefties. Don't group me in with those anti-gun, socialist, peacenik hippies.

 

[CLAX1911]

Impeachments aren’t criminal prosecutions. No actual crime is necessary. Trump’s violation(s) of the Constitution and his oath of office are much more than sufficient to warrant impeachment.

They still don't have anything on him. Just some imaginary whistleblowers testimony.

 

[yankintx]

Ruth will retire immediately after the Nov 2020 election when there is Dem President Elect. My predilection, she is going no were just yet, she will hang on for another year.

 

[Grand Mal]

Interesting you would bring up English Common Law given England's current problems with government overreach and Nanny State attitudes.

You figure government overreach doesn't happen with your constitution in place? You think the US Constitution performs the miracle of keeping politicians honest?
Tell you this much, the conservative ideal Daddy State has government overreach built right into it. And it was conservatives, those 'small government' (snicker!) charlatans, who are the worst offenders.

Edit- which particular example of government overreach in Britain are you referring to?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I am not wrong. In fact, I am literally correct about everything I said. Obama's right to nominate someone was given. I am sorry if you are confused on the manner. The constitution doesn't say that Obama gets his nomination picked automatically. He got his pick. That is his right. It happened. Sorry if you believe in a different reality.

My mistake. I misread your post as asserting that Obama did not have the right to pick/nominate Scalia’s replacement.

It is relevant however to discuss how Obama was screwed out of his nominee by McConnell. The same McConnell who said he would allow for hearings and a vote on RBG’s replacement, should she retire/expire.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg misses Supreme Court arguments due to illness | Fox News

ignoring the circus show in the house there is the bigger issue right now.
she is 86 been treated for cancer at least 3 times.

her health is failing and it doesn't look good. it is possible that she might not be able
to continue her work on the bench. it is possible that trump could set a record as a president
and get to appoint a 3rd justice.

this country needs judges to uphold the constitution more than ever as right there is more and more effort to
undo freedom and liberty.

If you can't feel empathy you should at least pretend that you do.

 

[Obscurity]

those who think the constitution should be whatever the current whim is are disgusting. Like pretending that the commerce clause allows congress any power it wants

What's disgusting is presuming a document from 130 years ago is expected to address all things in modern society.

It isnt.

I want no more whining about legislating from the bench from you lot.

 

[TurtleDude]

What's disgusting is presuming a document from 130 years ago is expected to address all things in modern society.

It isnt.

I want no more whining about legislating from the bench from you lot.

ever heard of amendments?

 

[Obscurity]

My mistake. I misread your post as asserting that Obama did not have the right to pick/nominate Scalia’s replacement.

It is relevant however to discuss how Obama was screwed out of his nominee by McConnell. The same McConnell who said he would allow for hearings and a vote on RBG’s replacement, should she retire/expire.

Dont worry. The sanctimonious right wing ****s will of course ignore the past and steamroll forward, cementing match mcskidmarks legacy and that of djt.

 

[TurtleDude]

My mistake. I misread your post as asserting that Obama did not have the right to pick/nominate Scalia’s replacement.

It is relevant however to discuss how Obama was screwed out of his nominee by McConnell. The same McConnell who said he would allow for hearings and a vote on RBG’s replacement, should she retire/expire.

so he is a partisan. so what else is new

 

[ajn678]

You figure government overreach doesn't happen with your constitution in place? You think the US Constitution performs the miracle of keeping politicians honest?
Tell you this much, the conservative ideal Daddy State has government overreach built right into it. And it was conservatives, those 'small government' (snicker!) charlatans, who are the worst offenders.

Edit- which particular example of government overreach in Britain are you referring to?

I never said there wasn't overreach. I think the Constitution does a fairly good job at keeping politicians more honest than they could be, as well as how our government is set up in general. I am not sure what your diatribe about Daddy State and things is reaching at. As far as Britian goes, freedom of speech is a big thing. It is one of the main things I was referring to. Other certain laws that are being put in place or are talked about just bring the Nanny State levels up to another level. One of the bigger ones that was making the rounds last year I believe was the porn law where you would have to go to the police to verify your age before you could access the sites. These types of things just erode and erode your freedoms year by year.

 

[ajn678]

My mistake. I misread your post as asserting that Obama did not have the right to pick/nominate Scalia’s replacement.

It is relevant however to discuss how Obama was screwed out of his nominee by McConnell. The same McConnell who said he would allow for hearings and a vote on RBG’s replacement, should she retire/expire.

Its not relevant though. The "old ways" of doing things in Washington are long gone, and they didn't end with McConnell. The party in power is going to nominate and confirm a justice if they have the ability to do that. It really is that simple. Both sides have done it and both sides will continue to do it. Don't pretend that if the Democrats were in the same situation they wouldn't have done it.

 

[ajn678]

What's disgusting is presuming a document from 130 years ago is expected to address all things in modern society.

It isnt.

I want no more whining about legislating from the bench from you lot.

The general idea of freedom hasn't changed in 130 years. As long as human beings exist, freedom will be what every reasonable person will strive towards.