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.
What a wonderful bunch you all are. Can't wait until some of you get older and start being rewarded for some of the ugly, mean spirited comments you are making about her, Karma is a bit**, and has a way of paying us back.
Ginsburg has been a loyal public servant for decades, done more than any of you have ever done, and has had nothing but praise for her years of service.
But, when I see how some of you look up to an equally ugly natured man like Trump, that explains a lot.
oh yeah no ugliness from your side at all. give me a break. you had some psychotic deranged woman COMPLETELY MAKE UP false accusations of RAPE about the most recent SC nominee. you have nothing to complain about
Its a lifetime appointment. I know the Constitution disgusts you, but it is still the supreme law of the land. Get used to it.
no one is calling for her to be forceably removed so your comment is merely a straw man. its not in her health's best interest or the SC's best interest to stay on the bench. but you are right, its her choice.
you can bet we will hear chants of 'Trump killed RBG' when the job kills her. in reality it will be her own party that used her for their own interests. pretty gross.
She should have retired when she starting falling asleep on the bench over 10 years ago, or at least during Obama's 2 terms when he could have nominated her replacement. Instead, she selfishly clung to her post even though she was no longer mentally or physically fit enough to hold it.
I think she did that because she thought Hillary would be the next President, and she wanted to have the distinction of creating the vacancy that would allow the first female President to make her first SCOTUS nomination.
I think she did that because she thought Hillary would be the next President, and she wanted to have the distinction of creating the vacancy that would allow the first female President to make her first SCOTUS nomination.
That would have been Murdered Scalia. Remember Gorshuch?
Its a lifetime appointment. I know the Constitution disgusts you, but it is still the supreme law of the land. Get used to it.
To prevent a politician from replacing a justice or other federal judge for his political goals. What is shocking is that we like to think of our justices as neutral but now we see one holding on to her office for her political goal of thwarting the administration in power. So much for neutrality and the comments about a partisan justice of the Supreme Court
To prevent a politician from replacing a justice or other federal judge for his political goals. What is shocking is that we like to think of our justices as neutral but now we see one holding on to her office for her political goal of thwarting the administration in power. So much for neutrality and the comments about a partisan justice of the Supreme Court
To prevent a politician from replacing a justice or other federal judge for his political goals. What is shocking is that we like to think of our justices as neutral but now we see one holding on to her office for her political goal of thwarting the administration in power. So much for neutrality and the comments about a partisan justice of the Supreme Court
What "shocking" is that this is going to be the New Normal for Court Cases to not have a Judge present to hear the case. New Arguments are starting now ... as in Today. She won't be there to either HEAR the Case OR ask any Questions. She can't Judge what she is not present for.
Missing Oral Arguments due to illness is fine ..... the Judge who can't hear the Oral Arguments needs to be Recused from the Case. That's not what they propose ..... she won't hear the Cases, but will still RULE on the cases.
Simple Question .... has ANYBODY ever heard of a High Profile Court Case (which Supreme Court Cases all are by definition) without a Judge being present who RULES on the case????
Of course not ..... she has to either RECUSE ...... OR ...... RESIGN.
Why would the public accept anything but one of these outcomes?
That would be similar to allowing the Dead Judge Scalia Rule on Court cases after he died.
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.
