View Full Version : RGB in hospital after fall
Ginsburg, 85, hospitalized after fracturing 3 ribs in fall
https://www.yahoo.com/newsroom/vibes/us-news/v-ecd5e8af-dc90-3332-9efb-d522bf6b8dfa_c-0d7fe398-6462-3f8e-99c3-96a628f96f50_a-5da3f48a-6938-31a9-9c29-569aa2a1cda4
Ginsburg is in the hospital for 3 broken ribs after a fall.
SomeOtherGuy
11-08-18, 08:46
Brace for a flurry of lurid, horrific and 100% false allegations against 37 different potential SCT Justice candidates.
Everyone breath. False alarm. Continued foreshadowing.
Not good. I've known many elderly acquaintances, friends, friends of friends that fell and it's usually their road to the end. They'll develop other ailments from it and will rarely recover. Last month a friend's mother fell and broke her pelvic bone, a month later she was gone. Not wishing ill will toward Mrs. Ginsburg. Wishing her well.
The_War_Wagon
11-08-18, 09:22
Just wait for the shock SHE'S in for, if she EVER comes to...
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc305/The_War_Wagon/kavanaugh_meme_zpsd3oywvez.png
Russians did it!
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
She was doing body shots with Kavanaugh.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-08-18, 09:34
Broken ribs, old lady, posture like that, in winter.... ugh. That has pneumonia written all over it.
Well, her replacement is assured. Old age and death remain undefeated.
I think its time for her to take her rightful place at Satan's side...
Liberals are already offering ribs and spare organs for her. To build a Frankenberg.
Yes, they'll reanimate her. Ruth Vader Ginsburg. Never underestimate the power of the dark side.
Averageman
11-08-18, 12:03
Broken ribs, old lady, posture like that, in winter.... ugh. That has pneumonia written all over it.
Pretty much my exact thoughts, pneumonia is right behind those broken ribs this time of year.
https://i.imgur.com/1pMviCs.jpg
I don't wish her dead by any means, but sometimes you just need to reevaluate and go to old folks home.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
MorphCross
11-08-18, 14:36
Sure they can rebuild her and rehabilitate but physically unfit to stay in her position is physically unfit. If it is determined she will be removed and the next nomination will be up for grabs.
Moose-Knuckle
11-08-18, 14:50
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1901/45736113362_ebce6ff5e5_b.jpg
What a tragedy. I'll sure be happy to see Amy Coney Barrett replace her though.
It'll be interesting to watch the left and feminists tear apart a female nominee, show their true colors and what hypocrites they are.
I wish her a speedy recovery and a long peaceful retirement.
Andy
I do not wish her ill but she does need to retire. With her age and health this puts her at bad risk of Pneumonia. If the Dems had been smart she would have retired while Obama was in office and he could have appointed someone. But their loss is our gain.
And I will say, despite not liking Trump overall I have been pretty happy with his SCOTUS picks.
Grand58742
11-09-18, 07:39
"Let me help you down those steps..." Justice Kavanaugh
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-09-18, 08:00
I actually said a prayer for her yesterday. I see what the Dems are doing in FL and AZ and GA. **** her and her soul.
Still not back at work. If her lung operation was done using minimally invasive surgical technique, normally out for a few days - couple of weeks. If done open, it would take longer to come back, but usually not more than 4-6 weeks. Two months? And missing oral arguments without even a word?....that's suspicious to me, even for an 85 year old and especially given the absolute news blackout on the issue. Appears to be something else going on...I suspect that Democrats are in a behind-the-scenes panic as they figure out how to deal with their worst nightmare and avoid letting Trump have a third Supreme Court appointment.
No matter what happens to Trump in 2020, three Supreme Court Justices...? That is going to leave a mark.
Supreme Court gives no indication when Ruth Bader Ginsburg might return
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-gives-no-indication-when-ruth-bader-ginsburg-might-return
Ever see Weekend at Bernie's?
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-09-19, 12:46
Ever see Weekend at Bernie's?
They all know how she'll vote anyways....
When does the movie about her come out? They are trying like hell to make it so that no one but a leftist liberal man hater could possibly replace her- and watch all the 'investigations' go into hyper partisan mode because we can't have replaced by a MAN who is UNDER INVESTIGATION.
All I can think about is that scene late in Saving Private Ryan where the German slowly slips the knife in and the American eventually stops resisting. The Reaper is here for you Ruth, just let gooooooooo. You F'd up and overplayed your hand. There is a price to pay for that.
Ever see Weekend at Bernie's?
Posted this in the Rubio thread too:
https://jonathanturley.org/2007/08/30/through-addictions-to-dementia-supreme-court-justices-have-refused-to-step-down-the-need-for-reforming-the-supreme-court/
It really wouldn't be that different from crap that has already been done repeatedly.
It would not surprise me if she croaks within six months.
It would not surprise me if she croaks within six months.
I seriously wonder if that isn't exactly the reason for the information blackout. If true, hard to imagine that Team Trump doesn't know about it. That would be a big secret to keep.
She's been dodging cancer bullets for decades. Or maybe not. My thinking is that two lung lesions are likely to represent metastatic disease. That's always a bad prognostic sign.
Averageman
01-09-19, 16:05
It would not surprise me if she croaks within six months.
I think you might be being very generous with that amount of time.
titsonritz
01-09-19, 16:43
It would not surprise me if she croaks within six months.
I wouldn't be surprised if she's been dead for a month, has been stuffed in a freezer somewhere and only been seen via CGI with a bunch of commies still trying to figure how to play it out.
Doc Safari
01-09-19, 16:56
At least she didn't go hunting in Texas.
Dr. Bullseye
01-09-19, 17:55
Is this three days she has missed? How do you find out if she shows up for work or not---is there a site, what??
Is this three days she has missed? How do you find out if she shows up for work or not---is there a site, what??
I rely on the news media to keep me informed on her whereabouts. Surely they wouldn’t lie about something like that.
At least she didn't go hunting in Texas.
Ha, Scalia correct?
SeriousStudent
01-09-19, 19:07
I am betting Jeff Dunham is hunting down a wig and glasses, and booking a hotel in DC.
https://i.imgur.com/Eq2o0bj.jpg
Except for the turban, there is a striking resemblance.
Do you think if she croaks in the next month or two it would change anything on getting a deal with the Democrat's on the wall or barrier for border security?
Do you think if she croaks in the next month or two it would change anything on getting a deal with the Democrat's on the wall or barrier for border security?
It would sure give Trump some yuge bargaining leverage.
Coal Dragger
01-09-19, 21:54
Do you think if she croaks in the next month or two it would change anything on getting a deal with the Democrat's on the wall or barrier for border security?
Nope.
Diamondback
01-09-19, 22:08
I am betting Jeff Dunham is hunting down a wig and glasses, and booking a hotel in DC.
Except for the turban, there is a striking resemblance.
"Silence! I KEEL you!" :D LOL
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-09-19, 22:14
Do you think if she croaks in the next month or two it would change anything on getting a deal with the Democrat's on the wall or barrier for border security?
Why are you talking about a screwdriver to cut a 2x4. That isn’t the tool to use. If anything replacing her would take Roberts out of the swing seater business. He is too worried about how his precious SCOTUS is seen to actually do the dirty and needed work of slowing down the Progressives.
Diamondback
01-09-19, 22:28
Why are you talking about a screwdriver to cut a 2x4. That isn’t the tool to use. If anything replacing her would take Roberts out of the swing seater business. He is too worried about how his precious SCOTUS is seen to actually do the dirty and needed work of slowing down the Progressives.
Here's how I'd expect the dominoes to fall:
>4-2-3 current Court Balance (Roberts and his ass-remora Kavanaugh)
>RBG out, Barrett nominated (and we'll assume confirmed); Roberts lets his inner Souter out and drags Assremora along with him
>New balance at BEST 4-1-4 Kavanaugh swing (right back to where we started with Kavanaugh as new Anthony Kennedy), 5-4 Left at worst. Remember, Earl Warren was a "Republican" and turned out to be a flaming Progdouche...
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-09-19, 22:39
First come the full-body screams about Trump being illegitimate.
Diamondback
01-09-19, 22:44
First come the full-body screams about Trump being illegitimate.
True, I was just going for the Clifffs Notes version. :) The Left and their Nevertard quislings already scream that about every breath Trump takes anyway...
Grand58742
01-09-19, 23:12
Let's see how many nerds we have on here that get this reference.
https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/469117460?profile=original&width=702
Diamondback
01-09-19, 23:16
Let's see how many nerds we have on here that get this reference.
https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/469117460?profile=original&width=702
Not sure about that specific ref, but I've long been saying I expect them to stuff and mount RBG as a Disneyland Audio-Animatronic on the bench, just like they did with former Klan terrorist Robert 'Sheets' Byrd (D-KKK) in the Senate.
Let's see how many nerds we have on here that get this reference.
HMc
https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/469117460?profile=original&width=702Captain Christopher Pike
SeriousStudent
01-10-19, 00:16
Pike actually showed activity on an EEG, though......
titsonritz
01-10-19, 00:25
"The Menagerie"
Doc Safari
01-10-19, 15:34
Drum roll, please....
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-10/white-house-prepares-ginsburg-supreme-court-vacancy-report
According to a source familiar with the discussions, the White House "is taking the temperature on possible short-list candidates, reaching out to key stakeholders, and just making sure that people are informed on the process. They're doing it very quietly, of course, because the idea is not to be opportunistic, but just to be prepared so we aren't caught flat-footed."
The White House is urging outside allies to be prepared for another bruising confirmation battle should Ginsberg’s health take a sudden turn for the worse, according to four sources with knowledge of the overtures. Outside groups, led by the Federalist Society and the Judicial Crisis Network, played a leading role in helping to confirm Kavanaugh and, before that, Justice Neil Gorsuch.
The groups have advised the Trump team on everything from potential nominees to political and media strategy, producing television advertisements and blitzing reporters with supportive messaging. Together, the conservative groups spent over $7 million on ads supporting Kavanaugh’s nomination. -Politico
My take: I can hear the sound of lefty loons soiling themselves all across this great land.
While I do not think her demise is imminent, WH obviously will have better Intel than any of us. This is hopeful.
Doc Safari
01-10-19, 16:12
While I do not think her demise is imminent, WH obviously will have better Intel than any of us. This is hopeful.
Demise may not be necessary. If she is unable to serve and is forced to retire Trump will still have to appoint a successor.
I can just hear Liberals now...
"The poor woman's body just couldn't take any more. She was forced to work til her last breath and dying day just to fight the oppression and tyranny :( "
SeriousStudent
01-10-19, 19:09
I have three words for you:
Amy Coney Barrett.
https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/who-amy-coney-barrett/
I have three words for you:
Amy Coney Barrett.
https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/who-amy-coney-barrett/
Oh, she's coming. The question is days, weeks or months out?
Oh I do.. I couldn't figure the exact episode but every time I think of her I think of that episode.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-10-19, 20:51
Demise may not be necessary. If she is unable to serve and is forced to retire Trump will still have to appoint a successor.
Let's be clear. If they can't replace RBG with someone that they hand pick (who would never actually get GOP support) it is full the '300'- death or victory.
The only outside would be to acquiesce and put up someone the Dems would accept, with the long play of Trump being seen as a healer and getting middle of the road and helping with a second term. Might play if it happens later next year.
Are you suggesting Trump to play a Dem/Moderate card?! No way in Hell.
He may be a strange bird but he does not go down that road. His appointments are hard right as well as can be expected. We never know what rests in the minds of powerful people but Trump places the people that his voters suggest hold their values.
ETA: sorry, I think I mis-read your post... but still... if Trump were to even slightly waiver on clear sinsberg re-appointment it would be a no vote in 2020. Please be aware if you type her initials it will get robo'd so best not to do it.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-10-19, 21:18
Please be aware if you type her initials it will get robo'd so best not to do it.
??????
??????
Call me crazy paranoid but the left is going nuts over her and notorious "initials" have become a "thing" Same as a school or nightclub shooter. There are a gazillion people that do not know who the SCOTOS Justices are. A certain voter block will vote for the principals of "this cool name" .... Don't enable them.
Call her the old lady, whatever. But stop using the name the Left uses. It gets searched by the powers of the Internet. Don't empower the opposition.
Dr. Bullseye
01-10-19, 21:51
When she dies she needs to be buried within four hours or she will turn.
Diamondback
01-10-19, 22:58
Are you suggesting Trump to play a Dem/Moderate card?! No way in Hell.
He may be a strange bird but he does not go down that road. His appointments are hard right as well as can be expected. We never know what rests in the minds of powerful people but Trump places the people that his voters suggest hold their values.
ETA: sorry, I think I mis-read your post... but still... if Trump were to even slightly waiver on clear sinsberg re-appointment it would be a no vote in 2020. Please be aware if you type her initials it will get robo'd so best not to do it.
I dunno, Kavanaugh seems to be a Roberts ass-remora so far and Roberts is letting his inner Souter out more... and with the fight it took to get even THAT limpdick on the bench, imagine the #Resistance a REAL Strict Constructionist would face.
The entire Barrett family is in my prayers, because the Leftofascists are going to bring a Full Court Press against each and every one of them individually and personally, even the minor children. I saw the same thing with a friend of mine who was a schoolteacher from "her own" at Washington Education Association just because her father entered the Republican primary to challenge Patty bin Murray, even though he didn't win and she was at the time closer to them than him politically. (Notable exception being 2A/self-defense issues... a year or two after that she packed up and moved to a private school to teach.) Apologies for the tangent, but it DOES illustrate the lengths the Left will go to to hurt ANYONE associated in even the slightest and most involuntary way with even the most trivial of their enemies... each and every one of us and all our loved ones have bullseyes on our backs, so keep your heads on a swivel out there, brothers.
SeriousStudent
01-11-19, 00:23
Oh, she's coming. The question is days, weeks or months out?
I think two weeks.
Coal Dragger
01-11-19, 02:41
Nah, RBG will hold on until death. Probably 12-18 months.
The_War_Wagon
01-11-19, 06:43
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc305/The_War_Wagon/ruuuuth_zpsbojahbmd.jpg
If she croaks while Trump is in office, I don’t believe the lunatic left and the media have really any say in the matter at this point. The problem will be the GOP in the Senate. Look for Mittens to pronounce that he will only support a "moderate" nominee approved by the Democrats. And Collins will go along with him, saying she supported Kavanaugh, because he was unjustly treated, but now, there should be "balance" on the court.
There is a longer game here as well. Justice Breyer and Justice Thomas will retire before 2025. So whoever wins in 2020 will get to replace both of these Justices. (Unless Thomas decides to retire at the end of this term, which, though I love the guy, would be a wise choice for the future of the country, given the uncertainty of 2020).
Imagine if Trump gets not 3 conservative Justices, but rather 5 onto the court - four of them replacing liberal justices
If true, and Trump nominates a woman, will the Democrats come up with sex scandals to impugn the nominees integrity?
Of course. Stupid question.
Nah, RBG will hold on until death. Probably 12-18 months.
She has probably been dead for several months now and it is being covered up.
Whiskey_Bravo
01-11-19, 14:26
She has probably been dead for several months now and it is being covered up.
Along the lines of what I have been thinking. She is probably on life support .
When she dies she needs to be buried within four hours or she will turn.
or maybe just an at sea burial all UBL style.. We certainly can't have any shrines of her..
..Float away from me Ginsburg.. float away..
Walk toward the light Ruth. It's been a good run. Walk to the light.
You know I don’t like her politics nor even her outlook but I kinda don’t believe in harshing on an old lady who most likely will die pretty soon.
If she was my mother, I would probably be bloodying some noses and busting some jaws if I heard folks say that around me.
She will die. She will be replaced. As we all will.
We should leave it at that.
Say what you will about her, she came up in a time where there were more barriers to women in her profession then could be imagined today. She has always stuck to what she believes and has been consistent in both her message and beliefs which is more than we can say for most in the political and legal professions. While I haven’t always agreed with her rulings, especially in matters related to firearms and personal liberty, I think we should all at least show her a little respect and basic humanity. Wishing for her death as has been posted here is truly not acceptable and makes one no better than a savage.
Last two posts should be the standard.
Yeah, I'd like to see her retire and be done because I'd like to see the Supreme Court move to the right, but RBG has been an effective public servant for decades, vigorously pursuing her interpretation of the Constitution and the law. It may be different than my interpretation but I can't work up any hate for her, make fun of her, or wish her dead just because she sees things differently than me.
Averageman
01-11-19, 21:21
Then again, it might not be about interpretation at all and more about fundamental change through a wildly inappropriate misappropriation of the founders intentions.
Say what you will about her, she came up in a time where there were more barriers to women in her profession then could be imagined today. She has always stuck to what she believes and has been consistent in both her message and beliefs which is more than we can say for most in the political and legal professions. While I haven’t always agreed with her rulings, especially in matters related to firearms and personal liberty, I think we should all at least show her a little respect and basic humanity. Wishing for her death as has been posted here is truly not acceptable and makes one no better than a savage.
Yet at the same time Rebecca Latimer Felton of Georgia, the first woman to serve in the United States Senate, took the oath of office on November 21, 1922. The first woman elected to the Senate was Hattie Wyatt Caraway of Arkansas. Appointed to fill the vacancy caused by the death of her husband, U.S. Senator Thaddeus Caraway, Ms. Caraway then sought and won election on her own in 1932
The first female Congresswoman was Jeannette Rankin was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Montana in 1916, and again in 1940. Florence Prag Kahn entered the U.S. House of Representatives in 1925 as the first Jewish woman in either chamber of Congress. U.S. Representative Vera Buchanan died in 1955, making her the first woman in either chamber to die in office. Patsy Mink, an Asian American, entered the U.S. House of Representatives in 1965 as the first woman of color in either chamber of Congress.
So while it exists in some parts of society, please spare me the "glass ceiling" nonsense. Long before people started screaming about the ERA women were already in government and had been for 50 years.
It would be nice if instead of the "never happened" myth, that people concerned with the issue maybe took time to point out that for almost 100 years women have been part of the government and there is no reason anyone else can't do that same.
But it's hard to promote a "locked out" social inequity when in reality women have been part of running the country since the 1920s. And even the whole "women didn't get to vote until 1920" is only partially true.
Before the Nineteenth Amendment was passed in 1920, some individual U.S. states granted women suffrage in certain kinds of elections. Some allowed women to vote in school elections, municipal elections, or for members of the Electoral College. Some territories, like Washington, Utah, and Wyoming, allowed women to vote before they became states.
The New Jersey constitution of 1776 enfranchised all adult inhabitants who owned a specified amount of property. Laws enacted in 1790 and 1797 referred to voters as "he or she", and women regularly voted. A law passed in 1807, however, excluded women from voting in that state.
Lydia Taft was an early forerunner in Colonial America who was allowed to vote in three New England town meetings, beginning in 1756, at Uxbridge, Massachusetts. The women's suffrage movement was closely tied to abolitionism, with many suffrage activists gaining their first experience as anti-slavery activists.
Say what you will about her, she came up in a time where there were more barriers to women in her profession then could be imagined today. She has always stuck to what she believes and has been consistent in both her message and beliefs which is more than we can say for most in the political and legal professions. While I haven’t always agreed with her rulings, especially in matters related to firearms and personal liberty, I think we should all at least show her a little respect and basic humanity. Wishing for her death as has been posted here is truly not acceptable and makes one no better than a savage.
If there was a supreme court justice that was opposed to desegregation, and tried to put into place laws that would limit the freedoms of Americans simply due to the color of their skin...would they be considered "no better than savages" for wishing that person dead and refusing to show respect for their basic humanity?
I ask because I have no respect for anyone who takes it upon themselves to try and limit or restrict any of my constitutional rights. And you would think that somebody who spent so many times trying to improve the rights of Group A would understand that they have to show to same consideration for every other group when it comes to rights guaranteed by the Constitution. To do otherwise shows a basic disrespect for the Americans that get ignored and a savagery on the part of any member of government who willingly violates any of the bill of rights or citizen laws.
And past good deeds do not offset present crimes against the people. It is simply another reminder that they had the capacity to know good from bad but chose to attack freedoms anyway.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-12-19, 03:29
You know I don’t like her politics nor even her outlook but I kinda don’t believe in harshing on an old lady who most likely will die pretty soon.
If she was my mother, I would probably be bloodying some noses and busting some jaws if I heard folks say that around me.
She will die. She will be replaced. As we all will.
We should leave it at that.
Say what you will about her, she came up in a time where there were more barriers to women in her profession then could be imagined today. She has always stuck to what she believes and has been consistent in both her message and beliefs which is more than we can say for most in the political and legal professions. While I haven’t always agreed with her rulings, especially in matters related to firearms and personal liberty, I think we should all at least show her a little respect and basic humanity. Wishing for her death as has been posted here is truly not acceptable and makes one no better than a savage.
So she was for women's rights, yeah. Hitler built great roads and fought the Russians before it was cool. We don't overlook his massive disregard for civil rights and I won't over look her's either.
If she had retired 36 months ago, she would have gone out to adoring fans and all kind of accolades and been replaced by someone that might be on the court for another 40 years. She didn't.
Why am I a savage for contemplating the demise of a woman who would strip me of my civil rights and make me a serf? F her. Any talk her passing sooner than later can't be called wishing anything bad for her. That expiration code fell off of her, let alone passed a decade ago.
>mfw people start comparing people they don't like to Hitler
https://media.giphy.com/media/Fjr6v88OPk7U4/giphy.gif
The man was technically a war hero who died richer than most of us and married to blond jailbait too. Point?
It's an SJW tactic. It's lame. IDGAF about women's rights nor chicks on the bench. She is an American in good standing who has never outright killed anybody and she is an old lady. If she were my mom (and she does have children) and some dude was talking mess; he'd be nursing a fat lip. She has every right to stay as it is a lifetime appointment. If you don't like it, change the laws.
Poor form otherwise. I would hope you wouldn't spit in someone's hamburger if you didnt like them either....
Then again, it might not be about interpretation at all and more about fundamental change through a wildly inappropriate misappropriation of the founders intentions.
Our belief of the founders’ intentions...yes. As has been said of all of the SC Justices, except the ones that agree with us. All the rest of them are ass-remoras, limpdicks, lefto-fascists, progdouches, satan’s buddies, and deserve to die. I think that degree of junior high name-calling detracts from the points that people are trying to make.
Say what you will about her, she came up in a time where there were more barriers to women in her profession then could be imagined today. She has always stuck to what she believes and has been consistent in both her message and beliefs which is more than we can say for most in the political and legal professions. While I haven’t always agreed with her rulings, especially in matters related to firearms and personal liberty, I think we should all at least show her a little respect and basic humanity. Wishing for her death as has been posted here is truly not acceptable and makes one no better than a savage.
I'm okay with that. The woman has voter repeatedly and consistently to reduce the Constitutionally protected Rights of the American people. She doesn't interpret the Constitution as her role in our government dictates, she tries to amend it outside the allowable channels to do so. She deserves her place in hell for that. The way I see it, the sooner she gets there, the better for America.
I'm okay with that. The woman has voter repeatedly and consistently to reduce the Constitutionally protected Rights of the American people. She doesn't interpret the Constitution as her role in our government dictates, she tries to amend it outside the allowable channels to do so. She deserves her place in hell for that. The way I see it, the sooner she gets there, the better for America.
Quote the Zen Master, "We'll see"
You don't know who Trump may appoint as a negotiation tactic. After Kavanaugh, he may pick another total left fielder.
So again, before you wish death on others...
"we'll see"
and another favorite quote: The devil you know is better than the devil you don't
You don't know who Trump may appoint as a negotiation tactic. After Kavanaugh, he may pick another total left fielder.
Hard to know. I could see Trump putting up a more left-leaning nominee as a means of facilitating both confirmation and securing some kind of deal with a House that's certain to be obstructive to anything he wants to do. I could also see him petulantly saying "f*** you" and trying to ram a hard right-wing constructionist through the Senate.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-12-19, 09:36
>mfw people start comparing people they don't like to Hitler
https://media.giphy.com/media/Fjr6v88OPk7U4/giphy.gif
The man was technically a war hero who died richer than most of us and married to blond jailbait too. Point?
It's an SJW tactic. It's lame. IDGAF about women's rights nor chicks on the bench. She is an American in good standing who has never outright killed anybody and she is an old lady. If she were my mom (and she does have children) and some dude was talking mess; he'd be nursing a fat lip. She has every right to stay as it is a lifetime appointment. If you don't like it, change the laws.
Poor form otherwise. I would hope you wouldn't spit in someone's hamburger if you didnt like them either....
Where in the ever living hell have you been for the past 15 years? Every GOPer is compared to Hitler from the git-go.
OK, did Mao ever shoot anyone?
The bitch would oversee and approve of the illegal and unconstitutional moves that would bring down our Republic. I don't care how agile her mind is, or was.
The gloves are off. The left only sees you as human if you agree with them. But sure, I'm the a-hole.
ETA: Since when does the sainthood start before death? Demonize till you're dead, then you get the soul spring cleaning.
You want to know the real reason RBG wants to stay alive until a DEM POTUS? She knows if she dies with Trump in office, the left will turn her death, funeral and legacy into a shit show for political reasons. Coleman times 100.
Where in the ever living hell have you been for the past 15 years? Every GOPer is compared to Hitler from the git-go.
OK, did Mao ever shoot anyone?
The bitch would oversee and approve of the illegal and unconstitutional moves that would bring down our Republic. I don't care how agile her mind is, or was.
The gloves are off. The left only sees you as human if you agree with them. But sure, I'm the a-hole.
First, I would never say you're an A-hole.
Second, just because they use these childish barbs doesnt mean we have to do the same.
Third, Mao wrote a whole book on Guerilla Warfare and for the time it wasn't too off point. Probably better info than the Mel Tappan books. He was no Sun Tzu, but I am pretty sure he merked some dudes in his day.
We just disagree. Don't let your frustration change your character. Don't let a day define you.
Love and Hate are both impostors who trick people into doing the irrational
thopkins22
01-12-19, 10:20
I’m happy to see people standing up for decency. I wanted to say something earlier but didn’t have the words.
Her relationship with Justice Scalia should be an example to us. They were quite literally best friends.
It is entirely possible to be a good and decent person, an intelligent and educated person, and a person who wants the best possible world for the largest number of people who has a different view on what that means in terms of policy.
The idea that someone who is on the left is bound and determined to see full blown communism and the enslavement of the bourgeoisie is absurd.
This is counterproductive thought if you’re interested in living in a free society where ideas compete. It is 100% every bit as awful as what the left does and a complete and total buy-in to identity politics. It is far more dangerous to our nation than any of her votes over the years.
She is a woman who served our nation for 38 years, and she did so with dignity. This bullshit about women had been elected fifty years earlier is ****ing stupid. A number of people have been to space. Guess becoming an astronaut is easy.
Hoping for her retirement while you have a Republican President is one thing. Salivating at her death is abhorrent, regardless of how many rights she just can’t wait to trample in her fervent desire to enslave or whatever it is you want to believe.
Ideas matter. And they matter a hell of a lot more than cheap rhetoric and hitting your opponent when they’re down. Free markets and free minds are ideas that don’t need all this counterproductive emulation of the far left.
She could have retired during President Obama's term and been replaced by a radical socialist "govern from the bench" judge. Since she didn't, she needs to hurry up and resign or die and hopefully President Trump will nominate a true supporter of the constitution.
ramairthree
01-12-19, 11:25
Regardless of any single individual’s opinion of her,
I think the main point we can all agree on is that the left will Weekend at Bader’s her Past any point of reason to avoid the current president from replacing her. And that is the issue.
Regardless of any single individual’s opinion of her,
I think the main point we can all agree on is that the left will Weekend at Bader’s her Past any point of reason to avoid the current president from replacing her. And that is the issue.
No question. Her repeated statements (before Trump got elected) that she'd absolutely retire when she couldn't "do the job full-steam" have likely pretty much fallen by the wayside. I'll bet the Democrats are scared shitless, especially with the White House admitting that they are circling overhead.
No doubt that she's been told, and likely believes, that preventing Trump from getting another SC appointment is more important than being an effective Supreme Court Justice.
....
Averageman
01-12-19, 12:14
She is a woman who served our nation for 38 years, and she did so with dignity. This bullshit about women had been elected fifty years earlier is ****ing stupid. A number of people have been to space. Guess becoming an astronaut is easy.
Hoping for her retirement while you have a Republican President is one thing. Salivating at her death is abhorrent, regardless of how many rights she just can’t wait to trample in her fervent desire to enslave or whatever it is you want to believe.
Ideas matter. And they matter a hell of a lot more than cheap rhetoric and hitting your opponent when they’re down. Free markets and free minds are ideas that don’t need all this counterproductive emulation of the far left.
So it needs to be easy? Or does it need to be easier for Women" or should it be very difficult for someone of either gender attain any public office or position?
Here's the rub on Ginsberg and doing the right thing by stepping aside; She had the chance during the Obama administration when he would have had a clear shot at hand picking her replacement. She didn't, so after a bout of cancer earlier, She had a chance to step down and live out her remaining years in peace knowing her replacement would have held many of the same opinions she did. She chose not to.
So as much as I don't wish her to die a painful death, I would like to be able to see good logic, political thinking and common sense, I'm sorry, I don't see that coming from Ginsberg lately. Allowing the Court to be put in a perilous position, simply isn't good judgement.
You are correct ideas matter, but more than ideas, actions have consequences. If you follow the logic above you have to ask yourself, "Why didn't or why wont or why hasn't She stepped aside?"
At a time when we banter about the possibility of a second Civil War, you might want to ask yourself "How did we get here?"
It's my opinion poor Leadership, a lack of accountability and perhaps in this case, the ego's of many elected or nominated to serve in a position were far too fragile to provide service to the public, or to honor their oath.
So if tomorrow to save Ginsberg's life she was put into a medically induced coma, what's going to happen then?
If She's in a bad spot, Ginsberg put herself there.
I ask because I have no respect for anyone who takes it upon themselves to try and limit or restrict any of my constitutional rights. And you would think that somebody who spent so many times trying to improve the rights of Group A would understand that they have to show to same consideration for every other group when it comes to rights guaranteed by the Constitution. To do otherwise shows a basic disrespect for the Americans that get ignored and a savagery on the part of any member of government who willingly violates any of the bill of rights or citizen laws.
I don't know, at the end of the day I think it boils down to a matter of belief as to what the Constitution actually says and, more importantly means. I would tend to get more perturbed at someone who represents themselves one way, then turns 180 after they have the position.
You have at times represented yourself as either agnostic or atheist. That is anathema to my beliefs. Would it therefore be fitting for me to exhibit vehement hatred for you, calling for your death?
Remember in RBG, we are talking about someone who has never raised a hand in violence to advance her beliefs, nor, as far as I know, used her position for personal gain.
You sometimes have to love your enemies more than yourself.
Because they sometimes just don’t know
Averageman
01-12-19, 13:42
You sometimes have to love your enemies more than yourself.
Because they sometimes just don’t know
It's difficult for me to believe someone or some group of people never took Ruth aside and told her she was putting her ego ahead of her legacy and the balance of the Supreme Court.
It's almost impossible to me that no one saw this coming.
So as much as I can love my enemies, the lack of common sense and decorum is likely what made them my enemy in the first place.
You have at times represented yourself as either agnostic or atheist. That is anathema to my beliefs. Would it therefore be fitting for me to exhibit vehement hatred for you, calling for your death?
Lacking any meaningful evidence I could never be atheist or religious and will remain agnostic until that changes. With that out of the way, the HUGE difference between me an her is I would never mess with the first amendment simply because I don't share the same beliefs as other people, because I believe in the Constitution.
Also these things don't need to be "interpreted" the Federalist Papers are pretty clear. When you limit personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution you are an enemy of the Constitution and the people.
That is true when SCOTUS and Congress erode the second amendment, it is true when they changed eminent domain for private use.
Now if I was in government, and I started limiting religious freedoms in spite of the first amendment, I wouldn't expect you to say happy things about me. If I was President and treated religious people the way we treat gun owners and wanted to put ALL of them on a watch list because an impossibly small fraction blew up abortion clinics then I'd really expect anything other than good wishes and would consider those who still tried to love me fools.
thopkins22
01-12-19, 16:14
So it needs to be easy? Or does it need to be easier for Women" or should it be very difficult for someone of either gender attain any public office or position?
It should be equally difficult. But don’t pretend that it was. There is a lot that explains disparity, largely that most women aren’t as inherently driven to power. But do you honestly believe that as eighteen year olds, your grandparents had identical chances of becoming Supreme Court justices? How about plain old attorneys or doctors?
I don’t want equal outcomes. I just think that it is silly to pretend that she hoed the same row that her colleagues at that time had to hoe.
I was definitely surprised that she didn’t retire during Obama’s term, just as I’m surprised Thomas isn’t retiring now. I think it can easily be chalked up to old quarterback syndrome, in that it’s hard to know when to hang up the cleats.
For the efficacy and integrity of the court, I hope she makes it. Remember the court has no enforcement mechanism. Their opinions only matter if the legislature and executive choose to listen. A slightly conservative court has sway, a truly stacked one could hasten our march towards despotism.
Averageman
01-12-19, 16:41
It should be equally difficult. But don’t pretend that it was. There is a lot that explains disparity, largely that most women aren’t as inherently driven to power. But do you honestly believe that as eighteen year olds, your grandparents had identical chances of becoming Supreme Court justices? How about plain old attorneys or doctors?
I don’t want equal outcomes. I just think that it is silly to pretend that she hoed the same row that her colleagues at that time had to hoe.
I was definitely surprised that she didn’t retire during Obama’s term, just as I’m surprised Thomas isn’t retiring now. I think it can easily be chalked up to old quarterback syndrome, in that it’s hard to know when to hang up the cleats.
For the efficacy and integrity of the court, I hope she makes it. Remember the court has no enforcement mechanism. Their opinions only matter if the legislature and executive choose to listen. A slightly conservative court has sway, a truly stacked one could hasten our march towards despotism.
Well a lot of issues in the past have been settled by the Supreme Court, they don't legislate, but they do interpret law, therefore indirectly uphold the interpretation of legislation.
I do however feel like anyone with any common sense might consider their age and general health conditions while serving in such a position and have the good sense to step aside before harming the Court and in turn the Nation.
As this is such a contentious time and the issues guys like Bork, Thomas and now Kavanaugh have been put through, she simply didn't do the right thing, or perhaps even the "smart" thing at the right time.
As Steyr AUG pointed out RBG simply wasn't the first woman to succeed in politics or to move up through our government to attain positions of power.
Being an "Old Guy", my Grandparents were born either slightly before or slightly after the turn of the Century. Their access to education and the economic conditions they were born in to were more influential to them rising to serve on the Supreme Court than their sex.
I think is you are a good citizen you can also see the logic of "balance" in the Supreme Court, but not all of us are good citizens of this Country. I think again, Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh have been clear examples of the left not being willing to be civil or to have any level of decorum when it comes to these matters. What concerns me about that is "Who would they prefer in this case?"
I have an idea that wouldn't be a free market economy capitalist or clear thinker who will hear these cases without bias and refer to the Constitution for guidance. There are many who would rather reinterpret or perhaps even throw the whole thing away.
I say that kind of sadly, but to be honest, Kavanaugh, and Thomas were publicly flogged outside of the rule of law and portrayed as either rapists or sexual deviants simply because they are Men.
RBG could have avoided a lot of drama and stress to our Nation by stepping down before we came to this precipice, but I have this feeling her ego would only allow her to die on the bench.
thopkins22
01-12-19, 17:28
.
I say that kind of sadly, but to be honest, Kavanaugh, and Thomas were publicly flogged outside of the rule of law and portrayed as either rapists or sexual deviants simply because they are Men.
I dunno about that. I like Kavanaugh as a judge, and I don’t believe the attempted sexual assault claims. I’m glad he was confirmed. But the public record of his activities during those years is pretty sketchy in terms of judgement and definitely portrays a massive douchebag.
Thomas on the other hand was only ever accused of sexual harassment, with the lady passing a polygraph(we know is unreliable,) and he himself refusing to take one. It’s probably true though in my opinion probably shouldn’t torpedo a nomination.
The bigger issue with Thomas was that he truly had one year of experience as a judge at all. He has been a blight on the court in my opinion, and should have been passed over for a more qualified judge.
As to my point about your grandparents, let’s say your parents then. Hell my own grandmother did not trust female physicians. I don’t think we can earnestly say that the paths were available without ruffling feathers. My own mother got a B.A., and then went to secretarial school so she could actually get a job. It was different, and not in a great way.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-12-19, 17:56
You sometimes have to love your enemies more than yourself.
Because they sometimes just don’t know
If I had love RBG more often than I love myself, I'd have to kill myself..... I'd have no free time, she'd have have no free time. It would just be awkward.
Diamondback
01-12-19, 17:58
The bigger issue with Thomas was that he truly had one year of experience as a judge at all. He has been a blight on the court in my opinion, and should have been passed over for a more qualified judge.
"Qualified" like a David Souter or an Earl Warren? Thomas has his flaws, but as an originalist he's the closest thing to Scalia we got left, and as long as the DC Bipartisan Axis of Dickweasel holds sway every single vacancy is going to be a fight to avoid another flaming Commie like Ginsburg or a limpwristed limpdick Lite-Beer Leftist like Kennedy/Roberts/Kavanaugh.
thopkins22
01-12-19, 18:27
"Qualified" like a David Souter or an Earl Warren? Thomas has his flaws, but as an originalist he's the closest thing to Scalia we got left, and as long as the DC Bipartisan Axis of Dickweasel holds sway every single vacancy is going to be a fight to avoid another flaming Commie like Ginsburg or a limpwristed limpdick Lite-Beer Leftist like Kennedy/Roberts/Kavanaugh.
Qualified as in had a judicial record and experience.
The fact that he fits my ideology does not mean that he opines in the correct manner rather than from ideology. He can be viewed as an originalist because it often gives with his beliefs, not because he is a great judge who can decide what the law was meant to do. In that way, he is much more partisan and even Scalia.
Let’s use the gay marriage vote as an example. Roberts and Scalia correctly wrote that while marriage equality is a perfectly fine concept and even preferred in a free society but is a matter of legislation and not to be decided by five lawyers, Thomas tries to argue that allowing gay marriage is bad for religious freedom.
I should note that I agree with the outcome of the case, but not that it was done via judicial means.
Averageman
01-12-19, 19:40
I dunno about that. I like Kavanaugh as a judge, and I don’t believe the attempted sexual assault claims. I’m glad he was confirmed. But the public record of his activities during those years is pretty sketchy in terms of judgement and definitely portrays a massive douchebag.
Thomas on the other hand was only ever accused of sexual harassment, with the lady passing a polygraph(we know is unreliable,) and he himself refusing to take one. It’s probably true though in my opinion probably shouldn’t torpedo a nomination.
The bigger issue with Thomas was that he truly had one year of experience as a judge at all. He has been a blight on the court in my opinion, and should have been passed over for a more qualified judge.
As to my point about your grandparents, let’s say your parents then. Hell my own grandmother did not trust female physicians. I don’t think we can earnestly say that the paths were available without ruffling feathers. My own mother got a B.A., and then went to secretarial school so she could actually get a job. It was different, and not in a great way.
As nearly everything that Kavanaugh was accused of happened in his early to mid teenage years, having been a school teacher for a minute, having been a career NCO and having raised my own Son, I can assure you that I have seen it all and I consider most of that as overblown to an extreme.
Thomas was given in essence a public lynching by the Democratic Party.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX39hWBfkeA
The common thread between Thomas and Kavanugh are that there simply were no accusations against either until they were nominated to the SCOTUS. You can easily throw stones at either of these Men, but has in modern history has any liberal SCOTUS nominee faced this type of scrutiny?
So lets compare levels of civility, fairness and the legalities of making some of these accusations.
Dr. Bullseye
01-12-19, 21:13
"Loving your enemy"--that is just Jesus Wussie talk. Sorry, but you get no respect from me. I want all Leftists just plain ole dead.
Lacking any meaningful evidence I could never be atheist or religious and will remain agnostic until that changes. With that out of the way, the HUGE difference between me an her is I would never mess with the first amendment simply because I don't share the same beliefs as other people, because I believe in the Constitution.
Also these things don't need to be "interpreted" the Federalist Papers are pretty clear. When you limit personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution you are an enemy of the Constitution and the people.
That is true when SCOTUS and Congress erode the second amendment, it is true when they changed eminent domain for private use.
Now if I was in government, and I started limiting religious freedoms in spite of the first amendment, I wouldn't expect you to say happy things about me. If I was President and treated religious people the way we treat gun owners and wanted to put ALL of them on a watch list because an impossibly small fraction blew up abortion clinics then I'd really expect anything other than good wishes and would consider those who still tried to love me fools.
Okay. As you know from my PM's I respect your opinion, even when we disagree. Thanks.
Okay. As you know from my PM's I respect your opinion, even when we disagree. Thanks.
It's not a concern. I understand the difference between debate and attack.
"Loving your enemy"--that is just Jesus Wussie talk. Sorry, but you get no respect from me. I want all Leftists just plain ole dead.
I agree. Love is faggot shit. We should just kill everyone we dont like and let God sort em out....
...Or we could just switch to decaf and get over ourselves. Both are viable options
A slightly conservative court has sway, a truly stacked one could hasten our march towards despotism.
That's rich! [emoji38]
So a more liberally stacked court wouldn't lead us to socialist despotism?
"Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism."
- Barry Goldwater
thopkins22
01-12-19, 22:50
That's rich! [emoji38]
So a more liberally stacked court wouldn't lead us to socialist despotism?
It absolutely would! That’s my point. The court really should be balanced. The Supreme Court has no enforcement mechanism. None. It only works if the people that need to respect it actually respect it. Congress can kill funding to things if it’s laws aren’t respected. Hell congress can declare war. The president tells the government how to execute the laws they’re tasked with executing...or he can choose not to.
The court...just says what it thinks, and everyone says “well that settles that.” But only because we believe in it. Like our currency to some degree.
I’m not saying that nine Antonio Scalias or extremely libertarian justices would lead us to problems via their decisions(I believe quite the opposite in fact.). I do believe that a perceived lack of integrity in the court would lead to that though. I also believe that people want the court to do more than it can, all the while decrying activist judges.[emoji23]
My father actually worked for Barry Goldwater back in the day. Pretty sure I was read conscience of a conservative to go to sleep to until i was out of short pants. I promise you that issue by issue, I’m to the right of almost anyone on this forum. But I also believe in achieving those aims through debate, education, decency, and slowly and moderately. Me forcing my eden on someone in California is no more right than them doing it to me.
thopkins22
01-12-19, 22:57
As nearly everything that Kavanaugh was accused of happened in his early to mid teenage years, having been a school teacher for a minute, having been a career NCO and having raised my own Son, I can assure you that I have seen it all and I consider most of that as overblown to an extreme.
I agree that none of it should have disqualified him, but I’ve never even heard of someone talking about double teaming girls, butt sex, vomiting from all the booze, making genuinely disgraceful comments about some girl that was apparently passed around like a petty favor, and so forth in a yearbook. It’s insanely bad behavior.
Now he’s lived an entire lifetime with none of that behavior since, and like I said, his credentials are impeccable and I’m happy he was confirmed. But we can agree that that’s pretty rough? Maybe I was just raised differently. Not that I was an angel, but I certainly knew that it was in extremely poor taste to put something like that in a yearbook.
I agree. Love is faggot shit. We should just kill everyone we dont like and let God sort em out....
...Or we could just switch to decaf and get over ourselves. Both are viable options
There is a third option, scorn and disdain. I'm good with that regarding our enemies. Just not in a kumbya mood when it comes to those out to harm me and mine.
And if I'm going to love some simple minded, pretty thing spouting off socialist ideas with no conception of consequences well the adult film industry is full of potential infatuations. Sunny Leone is probably still top of my list.
"Loving your enemy"--that is just Jesus Wussie talk. Sorry, but you get no respect from me. I want all Leftists just plain ole dead.
Judging by the very blasé way described killing I am going to assume you have never had to take a life. Those of us that have know that is not a weight to be taken lightly and the immature mental masturbation you are engaging in isn’t helpful.
It absolutely would! That’s my point. The court really should be balanced. The Supreme Court has no enforcement mechanism. None. It only works if the people that need to respect it actually respect it. Congress can kill funding to things if it’s laws aren’t respected. Hell congress can declare war. The president tells the government how to execute the laws they’re tasked with executing...or he can choose not to.
The court...just says what it thinks, and everyone says “well that settles that.” But only because we believe in it. Like our currency to some degree.
I’m not saying that nine Antonio Scalias or extremely libertarian justices would lead us to problems via their decisions(I believe quite the opposite in fact.). I do believe that a perceived lack of integrity in the court would lead to that though. I also believe that people want the court to do more than it can, all the while decrying activist judges.[emoji23]
My father actually worked for Barry Goldwater back in the day. Pretty sure I was read conscience of a conservative to go to sleep to until i was out of short pants. I promise you that issue by issue, I’m to the right of almost anyone on this forum. But I also believe in achieving those aims through debate, education, decency, and slowly and moderately. Me forcing my eden on someone in California is no more right than them doing it to me.
The problem is progressives, both people and government. Having attained their wildest dreams will just continue to the far outer reaches of the extremes and the most bizarre Berkeley born thoughts of the last decade will simply become centerist mainstream as a result.
Progressives were once a corrective course, but having attained some measure of "justice and equality for most" didn't reach a desired goal, they simply found new windmills to joust and the movement went right along with them. If allowed they will one day champion "equal rights and protections for insects" because hey...they were here first so really isn't it their planet?
By contrast, conservatism isn't trying to dial things back to slavery days and witch trials, we are just trying to maintain what the founders put forth and not let things get insane. Of course we have very few conservatives these days but lots of progressively minded republicans.
It's difficult for me to believe someone or some group of people never took Ruth aside and told her she was putting her ego ahead of her legacy and the balance of the Supreme Court.
It's almost impossible to me that no one saw this coming.
So as much as I can love my enemies, the lack of common sense and decorum is likely what made them my enemy in the first place.
She, like the rest of the democrats and a large part of the rest of the country, thought there is no way Hillary wasn't going to get elected. I'm betting she figured she had 8 more years before she had to worry. The stress of that mis-step is taking its toll I'd say...
What worries me the most is from now on it'll be a fight to get anyone on the SCOTUS. Gone are the days that a person will be confirmed by both sides. It'll be a one sided blood bath sadly...
thopkins22
01-13-19, 06:55
By contrast, conservatism isn't trying to dial things back to slavery days and witch trials, we are just trying to maintain what the founders put forth and not let things get insane. Of course we have very few conservatives these days but lots of progressively minded republicans.
I would argue that progressives were never a corrective course but a reaction to something that was never really bad but simply different.
But your last sentence is where the problem lies for me. I would love to have nine justices who say “clearly marriage of any sex is no the purview of the government, machine guns and artillery should be in private hands, people should be allowed to poison themselves with whatever substance they like, and labor should be a free market just like anything else.”
I want the government prosecuting fraud, theft, and violence, and then getting out of our lives.
But today...as the world exists? It’s a disaster because we are so polarized...and that’s not what conservative are even trying to attain.
Look at what most people who aren’t conservative think it means. Should we back down or compromise our beliefs? No. But need to be aware of the climate. And celebrating some nice old lady’s imminent death is in extremely poor taste and demonstrates the behavior that is going to backfire on us.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_judicial_appointments
So when will the (R) vs. (D) supreme Court nominee issue start producing results equaling promises made in The Federalist Papers?
I would argue that progressives were never a corrective course but a reaction to something that was never really bad but simply different.
When we had things like slavery, the draft and southern democrats representing the KKK it was progressive who were a course correction, of course "progressive" doesn't always mean Democrat.
Look at what most people who aren’t conservative think it means. Should we back down or compromise our beliefs? No. But need to be aware of the climate. And celebrating some nice old lady’s imminent death is in extremely poor taste and demonstrates the behavior that is going to backfire on us.
I'm not one to celebrate it, but I won't mourn the enemies of freedom. When Dung Xiaoping died I didn't celebrate, I was just glad he was gone and could do no more harm.
Diamondback
01-13-19, 17:13
"Balanced"? NO, SCOTUS should be stacked with STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISTS who understand and abide by the black-letter text of the Constitution according to Framers' intent in the Federalist Papers rather than spewing forth with "emanations" and "penumbras" drawn straight from their turdlockers.
Con Law properly practiced is just Contract Law on a Writ Large scale... if Gov v People were tried with the Constitution as a "contract" in a Contract Law case like a corporation vs its customers, USG would be found in Material Breach of Contract and subject to a level of Punitives never before seen in in the entire worldwide history of Civil Law and Torts. Perhaps even a referral for Criminal Fraud...
Moose-Knuckle
01-16-19, 23:08
The derp is strong in this thread, guess one to many nicks with the old Gillette SJW safety razor . . . :suicide:
No surprise really.
I wonder if their working double time down at the Planned Parenthood spirit cooking to sustain their High Priestess.
I don’t have the article in front of me but I read earlier today that not only did she cancel her appearance in LA at the Skirball center, but she already canceled her appearance in NYC early next month.
Averageman
01-17-19, 00:42
I believe they expect her back at work next week.
I have no idea about the validity of the source, but.............
https://www.smobserved.com/story/2019/01/07/news/stricken-with-pneumonia-ruth-bader-ginsburg-about-to-retire-from-supreme-court/3780.html
"Update, 1/16/19: Justice Ginsburg today cancelled a public appearance set for January 29, 2019, as she remains in a hospital fighting Pneumonia. The elderly judge appears to be nearing the end of her life, as the Trump administration asks allies for suggestions to replace her. Jan 29 in LA - Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Cancels Public Appearance in Los Angeles Set for January 29 https://t.co/ilYdXI05NH via @gatewaypundit
As any reader of the Santa Monica Observer knew last September, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has developed lung cancer. The 85 year old Supreme Court Justice had surgery as quietly as possible on December 22, 2018.
Following surgery, she has developed complications including pneumonia. Pneumonia often afflicts elderly post surgery patients in the US, since antibiotics have resulted in Multi Resistant Strains of the lung infection.
The left and the main stream media have tried to put on a brave face as Ginsburg missed three straight days of argument this week, interviewing cancer doctors to say that she would recover. They claimed that she was working in her hospital room, knowing that it was untrue.
No one in the media on in the Democratic party want to face the awful truth that President Donald Trump is about to replace one of the Court's most liberal justices."
thopkins22
01-17-19, 19:22
I have no idea about the validity of the source, but............
I can’t speak to the validity of the source, but it’s on the wire and CNN reported it yesterday. It’s a valid story either way.
Edit:That she is cancelling appearances. Nothing suggesting that she’s in hospital.
You saw that on CNN?! I posted that SMO link a while back and questioned it. I still have never been able to find any support for it. Other than what look like 5 minute web pages that basically quote it.
I would think a hospital would be the last place they would want her during the peaking of FLU season.
------- Here is what a CNN reporter said....
https://www.abc-7.com/story/39802539/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-cancels-2-upcoming-events
thopkins22
01-17-19, 23:09
I take it all back, it was a network.
https://www.wtnh.com/news/supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-canceling-events-for-surgery-recovery_20190117034604/1706985088
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg canceling events for surgery recovery
WTNH.com (press release) - 1d*ago
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is cancelling some upcoming events, as she recovers from surgery. Continue Reading. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg canceling events for surgery recovery
WTNH.com (press release) - 1d*ago
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is cancelling some upcoming events, as she recovers from surgery. Continue Reading.
Just read the rest of the article in question, which does seem to be wild with speculation about extended hospitalization...of which I have seen zero confirmation and it is NOT on the AP wire.
I wonder who is really acting on her behalf. I can't believe she is really doing much of anything.
Moose-Knuckle
01-18-19, 03:01
I have no idea about the validity of the source, but.............
https://www.smobserved.com/story/2019/01/07/news/stricken-with-pneumonia-ruth-bader-ginsburg-about-to-retire-from-supreme-court/3780.html
"Update, 1/16/19: Justice Ginsburg today cancelled a public appearance set for January 29, 2019, as she remains in a hospital fighting Pneumonia. The elderly judge appears to be nearing the end of her life, as the Trump administration asks allies for suggestions to replace her. Jan 29 in LA - Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Cancels Public Appearance in Los Angeles Set for January 29 https://t.co/ilYdXI05NH via @gatewaypundit
As any reader of the Santa Monica Observer knew last September, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has developed lung cancer. The 85 year old Supreme Court Justice had surgery as quietly as possible on December 22, 2018.
Following surgery, she has developed complications including pneumonia. Pneumonia often afflicts elderly post surgery patients in the US, since antibiotics have resulted in Multi Resistant Strains of the lung infection.
The left and the main stream media have tried to put on a brave face as Ginsburg missed three straight days of argument this week, interviewing cancer doctors to say that she would recover. They claimed that she was working in her hospital room, knowing that it was untrue.
No one in the media on in the Democratic party want to face the awful truth that President Donald Trump is about to replace one of the Court's most liberal justices."
Welp, bless her heart.
I have no idea about the validity of the source, but.............
https://www.smobserved.com/story/2019/01/07/news/stricken-with-pneumonia-ruth-bader-ginsburg-about-to-retire-from-supreme-court/3780.html
"Update, 1/16/19: Justice Ginsburg today cancelled a public appearance set for January 29, 2019, as she remains in a hospital fighting Pneumonia. The elderly judge appears to be nearing the end of her life, as the Trump administration asks allies for suggestions to replace her. Jan 29 in LA - Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Cancels Public Appearance in Los Angeles Set for January 29 https://t.co/ilYdXI05NH via @gatewaypundit
I suspect this article is almost entirely wishful thinking.
Averageman
01-18-19, 14:18
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/01/breaking-first-media-outlet-to-report-on-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-cancer-now-says-she-contracted-pneumonia-is-fighting-for-her-life/
As any reader of the Santa Monica Observer knew last September, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has developed lung cancer. The 85 year old Supreme Court Justice had surgery as quietly as possible on December 22, 2018.
Following surgery, she has developed complications including pneumonia. Pneumonia often afflicts elderly post surgery patients in the US, since antibiotics have resulted in Multi Resistant Strains of the lung infection.
Pneumonia after thoracotomy (if that old-fashioned method is how her lobectomy was done) wouldn't be a huge surprise, especially in an 84 year-old, but contracting it had nothing to do with drug resistance. Curing it might be problematic partially due to drug resistance, but probably not.
In the meantime, I'm going to leave pneumonia the category of wishful thinking until I hear it from a credible source (Fox, for example). SMOB is not very much that.
just a scout
11-24-19, 05:01
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/23/ruth-bader-ginsburg-hospitalized-after-having-chills-and-fever/
I’m thinking she had to go in for her transfusion of infant blood. Anyone else would’ve died long ago.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Supposedly she will be released today.
Averageman
11-24-19, 09:21
I hope she lasts until late November of 2020, we need another four years of Trump guaranteed before she checks out.
Grand58742
11-24-19, 10:32
I hope she lasts until late November of 2020, we need another four years of Trump guaranteed before she checks out.
I think she retires after Congress goes back into session for the new year. It's an election year, you know?
How long can Satan keep her going?
Averageman
11-24-19, 12:59
I think she retires after Congress goes back into session for the new year. It's an election year, you know?
My premise was that Trump will have a lot of opposition if he tries to replace her with less than a year left.
Dr. Bullseye
11-24-19, 13:10
My premise was that Trump will have a lot of opposition if he tries to replace her with less than a year left.
As if he would have any more opposition. Replace her before she is cold.
My premise was that Trump will have a lot of opposition if he tries to replace her with less than a year left.
Good Luck. They shot their wad on the last nomination. They gave their all and lost. The "resistance" is already turned up to 100%. Sadly, it will be the "usual suspect" RINOs that shoot Trump down for "fairness" since that's what they did to BHO... Romney, Collins and Murkowski.
Do you think the (D)s would hold off during an election year if they could railroad one of their progressive anti-constitution legislators in? No, they would not wait. Oh... The RINOs have to take the high road... THAT is why the (D)s always win the cat-fights.
ramairthree
11-25-19, 11:23
My premise was that Trump will have a lot of opposition if he tries to replace her with less than a year left.
How much more opposition could the man have?
If North Korea infiltrated dozens of operatives in an act of war that set off dirty bombs killing thousands of civilians on the national mall who were in the middle of a Public event celebrating abortion, reparations, gay stuff, illegal immigration, free college, expanded welfare, woman’s rights, free medical care, and earth day,
They would oppose him at every turn to do anything about it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.