Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow, her health seems to really be going downhill. She was barely able to talk and barely able to keep her head up and avoid falling asleep for just one hour.
Liberals could care less about her health or comfort, they just want a vote on the supreme court.
Lots of liberals think she will be healthy enough to serve 5 more years.
I wonder if her health might cause it to be necessary for President Trump to appoint a 3rd very conservative, constitutionalist to the court the founding fathers of America would be proud of like the last two judicial scholars.
It's sad that liberals are using this women for a vote on the supreme court. If Hillary Clinton would have been President I wonder if she would be relaxing gracefully in her own home rather than being used for liberals for a vote.
No she didn't. She said she was not "100% sober". That is a big difference. If you have a glass of wine with dinner, like she did, then you are not 100% sober. It doesn't make you drunk. That's like saying "I had a beer with dinner, I was drunk when I drove home four hours later." (You would not have been 100% sober, but you certainly would not have been drunk.)
What's your definition of "not 100% sober"? I cannot find where she said she had one glass of wine?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
She admitted to having a glass of wine with dinner before the state of the union address. Supreme court justices are not required to attend so she wan't on the job. Her job is ruling on cases before the court.
She was there in her official capacity....whether she had to be there or not....
This is a disgusting thread. Justice Ginsburg has more than earned the right to dictate when she retires from the bench. Her dedication to public service is inspiring. She's still able to run mental circles around the likes of these posters and the current president.
It isn't. There's no malice here. We might joke around about it, but we're not wishing anyone a painful or tortuous end. You left are the real ghouls....because you are just insisting on her serving out the rest of her life on the bench, no matter how feeble and decrepit she is, in the hopes she will continue to be an activist judge that makes law from the bench.
The left has terrible ideas which are never popular, so they have learned that they can hijack the judiciary to get their ideas made into policies, through judicial activism. And that's wrong, its against everything the judiciary was intended to be, and its going to change. Judges are not supposed to be activists for any cause except the natural rights of man as guaranteed by the Constitution, and the limitations on government as prescribed by the Constitution. That is their only job. It isn't to help the left get their horrible and aggressive Marxist ideology made into law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
NOPE!
When my dad got like that, he lasted about a year.
Agreed, I have seen many elderly that resemble her, and they never have lasted much longer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
Lusting for the death of someone....not even a new low for this crowd.
Nobody is lusting for her death. We want her to retire, which she should have done already. Look, I don't agree with her politics at all, and I disapprove of her judicial activism. I think she should have had the integrity to retire when she realized she wasn't at 100%. And for that matter she should have had the integrity to not be an activist in the first place. However, that's bygones. At this current time, she's got nothing to be ashamed of by retiring, which she SHOULD have done when Obama was POTUS so that he could replace her with someone of similar temperament, if that's what she wants to see on the Court. She didn't do that, why I do not know. Maybe she had the vanity to think nobody could fill her shoes. Who knows?
But she has certainly earned the right to retire, and she should do it. It would be in the best interests of the nation to replace her with a younger justice who has the vitality of youth or at least middle-age, instead of what she's got...which is this shell of a body and a mind clearly existing in the shadows of its twilight years.
Look, obviously liberals would prefer her staying on board. But what is all this talk about her being pressured(forced) to stay on. Any evidence? Maybe see feels forced for her own political ideology(like it is up to her to keep the court from going even more conservative, "I have to hold on until a Democrat gets into the executive seat"). But I don't see any evidence that there is direct or even indirect pressure on her.
Why are right-wingers circling RBG like vultures? There already is a conservative majority on the SCOTUS.
nope - there is a moderate majority, not a conservative one. And until ALL 9 are moderates, our work isn't done. Sadly, Kagan and Sotomayor are young, so it won't happen in my life time unless they can be impeached from crimes against the Constitution
Maybe, maybe not, either way that isn't stopping her from croaking or retiring until then.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
