Became a Dynasty Defender: Jan 17, 2006 13:57:55 GMT -5
|
Post by littleblue on Jan 7, 2019 14:54:04 GMT -5
I'm seeing a lot of rumors that Ginsberg is now in hospice care. No chemo, no radiation, tumors like hers suggest metastatic cancer. Has anyone else heard such talk?
FWIW - I'm not suggesting it's true, nor would I wish such a fate upon anyone.
|
|
Became a Dynasty Defender: Jun 3, 2002 11:49:19 GMT -5
|
Post by ruppsrunt on Jan 7, 2019 15:54:00 GMT -5
she is NOT hearing cases for the first time---not able to attend court sessions.
TRUMP will soon name a new Supreme Court Justice--female--ultra-conservative--votes in Senate to pass, even if the 3 women vote no--murkowski--collins--- romney--the 3 women cannot hold the nominee hostage!!
There is still HOPE for this once great RePUBLIC.
rr
|
|
Became a Dynasty Defender: Dec 24, 2008 12:00:13 GMT -5
|
Post by Streeter on Jan 7, 2019 22:50:40 GMT -5
Yay let's make the SC 5 to 3 an make it into a political weapon to legislate from bench. That's genius....... SC is meant to be balanced an should be.
|
|
Became a Dynasty Defender: Dec 24, 2008 12:00:13 GMT -5
|
Post by Streeter on Jan 7, 2019 22:57:37 GMT -5
Yay let's make the SC 5 to 3 an make it into a political weapon to legislate from bench. That's genius....... SC is meant to be balanced an should be.
|
|
Became a Dynasty Defender: Jan 9, 2006 11:37:14 GMT -5
|
Post by houstoncat on Jan 7, 2019 23:11:25 GMT -5
Yay let's make the SC 5 to 3 an make it into a political weapon to legislate from bench. That's genius....... SC is meant to be balanced an should be. You are right but what do you think the obama courts did and are still doing see the ninth circuit Not as lopsided as you think streeter with roberts and kavanaugh
|
|
Became a Dynasty Defender: Jan 9, 2006 11:37:14 GMT -5
|
Post by houstoncat on Jan 7, 2019 23:25:00 GMT -5
RBG has been a transcedent Jurist i dont agree with her politics but shebis undeniably brilliant on a par with ant not to suprisiingly good friends with Scalia.
I truly wiish she did not have to suffer as she undoubtly is if she is in her final days. The next SCOTUS nominee needs to be not just conservative but intellectually and morally brilliant difficult in these times. A woman outside of ivy league indoctrinaton needs to be chosen
|
|
Became a Dynasty Defender: Dec 24, 2008 12:00:13 GMT -5
|
Post by Streeter on Jan 8, 2019 0:20:59 GMT -5
Yay let's make the SC 5 to 3 an make it into a political weapon to legislate from bench. That's genius....... SC is meant to be balanced an should be. You are right but what do you think the obama courts did and are still doing see the ninth circuit Not as lopsided as you think streeter with roberts and kavanaugh gop leaning is already there by 1 vote u make it 5 to 3 an GOP can use the SC as a hammer that it is not meant to be. Jmo Obama was dumbass why would that make it okay for Trump to do same shit.... oooooohhh I got u back its childish.
|
|
Became a Dynasty Defender: Sept 8, 2001 20:59:02 GMT -5
|
Post by Katman on Jan 8, 2019 7:01:10 GMT -5
Yay let's make the SC 5 to 3 an make it into a political weapon to legislate from bench. That's genius....... SC is meant to be balanced an should be. The Constitution is meant to only be applied 1 way. Trump will nominate someone who applies it the way it was intended. As for the Communist agenda, let them balance that in China. As the Marxist/Communist said...Elections have consequences. Deal with it.
|
|
Became a Dynasty Defender: Jun 3, 2002 11:49:19 GMT -5
|
Post by ruppsrunt on Jan 8, 2019 8:00:12 GMT -5
some historical comments/beliefs of a wacko jurist-- [RBG] Why was she 'selected'? Who appointed her? Remember [her] history. Ref: 230-page book called Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, published in 1977 by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Highlights: >Called for the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.” (Page 101) >Called for the sex-integration of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts because they “perpetuate stereotyped sex roles.” (Page 145) >Insisted on sex-integrating “college fraternity and sorority chapters” and replacing them with “college social societies.” (Page 169) >Cast constitutional doubt on the legality of “Mother’s Day and Father’s Day as separate holidays.” (Page 146) >Called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to people who are “less than 12 years old.” (Page 102)
>Asserted that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional. (Page 195) >Objected to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” (Page 97) >Ginsburg wrote that the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.” (Page 98) >Demanded that we “firmly reject draft or combat exemption for women,” stating “women must be subject to the draft if men are.” But, she added, “the need for affirmative action and for transition measures is particularly strong in the uniformed services.” (Page 218) >An indefatigable censor, Ginsburg listed hundreds of “sexist” words that must be eliminated from all statutes. Among words she found offensive were: man, woman, manmade, mankind, husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, serviceman, longshoreman, postmaster, watchman, seamanship, and “to man” (a vessel). (Pages 15-16) >Wanted he, she, him, her, his, and hers to be dropped down the memory hole. They must be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal statutes must use the bad grammar of “plural constructions to avoid third person singular pronouns.” (Page 52-53) >Condemned the Supreme Court’s ruling in Harris v. McRae and claimed that taxpayer-funded abortions should be a constitutional right. humanevents.com/2005/08/23/senators-overlooked-radical-record-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/Who are the doctors 'currently' treating [RBG]? What other political [former/current] sr. political heads are they affiliated w/? What 'off-market' drugs are being provided to [RBG] in order to sustain minimum daily function? What is the real medical diagnosis of [RBG]? Who is managing her care? Who is 'really' managing her care? The clock is ticking. PANIC IN DC. rr
|
|
Became a Dynasty Defender: Dec 24, 2008 12:00:13 GMT -5
|
Post by Streeter on Jan 8, 2019 8:33:36 GMT -5
Yay let's make the SC 5 to 3 an make it into a political weapon to legislate from bench. That's genius....... SC is meant to be balanced an should be. The Constitution is meant to only be applied 1 way. Trump will nominate someone who applies it the way it was intended. As for the Communist agenda, let them balance that in China. As the Marxist/Communist said...Elections have consequences. Deal with it. Morons like urself only see total extremes. U extremists are what is really wrong with America to the far right if so some is a Democrat or even just not far right like they are a communist now even going beyond socialist which was also ridiculous. Faaaaar left ur a white suppremisist...... going beyond even Racist which was also ridiculous. SC is supposed to un biased ..... that will never happen due to politics but it should be balanced with no more than 4 to 3 either way.
|
|
Became a Dynasty Defender: Jun 3, 2002 11:49:19 GMT -5
|
Post by ruppsrunt on Jan 8, 2019 9:32:12 GMT -5
The Constitution is meant to only be applied 1 way. Trump will nominate someone who applies it the way it was intended. As for the Communist agenda, let them balance that in China. As the Marxist/Communist said...Elections have consequences. Deal with it. Morons like urself only see total extremes. U extremists are what is really wrong with America to the far right if so some is a Democrat or even just not far right like they are a communist now even going beyond socialist which was also ridiculous. Faaaaar left ur a white suppremisist...... going beyond even Racist which was also ridiculous. SC is supposed to un biased ..... that will never happen due to politics but it should be balanced with no more than 4 to 3 either way. streeter--I see you do NOT understand the supreme court responsibility. The court is to adjudicate decisions to UPHOLD the CONSTITUTION. It is NOT to make new law, but to determine legality(constitutionality) of law created by legislators. YOU have the progressive view--the constitution is a "living entity, to be changed according to the times". Sadly, the changing constitution is exactly what activist judges and progressives want. Many seek to "write a new GUIDELINE" and decry the obsolescence of the Constitution. Those are the judges nominated by clinton and dermarxist. sadly, both of the bush presidents nominated some weenies to the court also. roberts is a prime example. roberts is the only justice to have re-written a law---obamacare, calling required payments a tax. That is NOT the job of the courts--but progressive judges make law--rather than interpret law, and send back bad law to meet constitutionality. rr
|
|
Became a Dynasty Defender: May 25, 2002 20:20:04 GMT -5
|
Post by fiddling on Jan 8, 2019 10:53:16 GMT -5
Morons like urself only see total extremes. U extremists are what is really wrong with America to the far right if so some is a Democrat or even just not far right like they are a communist now even going beyond socialist which was also ridiculous. Faaaaar left ur a white suppremisist...... going beyond even Racist which was also ridiculous. SC is supposed to un biased ..... that will never happen due to politics but it should be balanced with no more than 4 to 3 either way. streeter--I see you do NOT understand the supreme court responsibility. The court is to adjudicate decisions to UPHOLD the CONSTITUTION. It is NOT to make new law, but to determine legality(constitutionality) of law created by legislators. YOU have the progressive view--the constitution is a "living entity, to be changed according to the times". Sadly, the changing constitution is exactly what activist judges and progressives want. Many seek to "write a new GUIDELINE" and decry the obsolescence of the Constitution. Those are the judges nominated by clinton and dermarxist. sadly, both of the bush presidents nominated some weenies to the court also. roberts is a prime example. roberts is the only justice to have re-written a law---obamacare, calling required payments a tax. That is NOT the job of the courts--but progressive judges make law--rather than interpret law, and send back bad law to meet constitutionality. rr Good point. As more and more people (many illegal) enter the USA, the center can move. The Constitution does not move. The remedy for those who want change is Constitutional amendments, not courts.
|
|
Became a Dynasty Defender: Jan 9, 2006 11:37:14 GMT -5
|
Post by houstoncat on Jan 8, 2019 11:12:26 GMT -5
Morons like urself only see total extremes. U extremists are what is really wrong with America to the far right if so some is a Democrat or even just not far right like they are a communist now even going beyond socialist which was also ridiculous. Faaaaar left ur a white suppremisist...... going beyond even Racist which was also ridiculous. SC is supposed to un biased ..... that will never happen due to politics but it should be balanced with no more than 4 to 3 either way. streeter--I see you do NOT understand the supreme court responsibility. The court is to adjudicate decisions to UPHOLD the CONSTITUTION. It is NOT to make new law, but to determine legality(constitutionality) of law created by legislators. YOU have the progressive view--the constitution is a "living entity, to be changed according to the times". Sadly, the changing constitution is exactly what activist judges and progressives want. Many seek to "write a new GUIDELINE" and decry the obsolescence of the Constitution. Those are the judges nominated by clinton and dermarxist. sadly, both of the bush presidents nominated some weenies to the court also. roberts is a prime example. roberts is the only justice to have re-written a law---obamacare, calling required payments a tax. That is NOT the job of the courts--but progressive judges make law--rather than interpret law, and send back bad law to meet constitutionality. rr RR is absolutely right Streeter SCOTUS is supposed to review and weigh arguments against the constitution as written and amended by the amendment process, not make new law they have no constitutional or legal mandate to do so. If a change is wanted by the people (not congress the people it needs to follow the process (good example women's voting rights. right now we are seeing jurists at all levels making law concerning first amendment rights talking of hate speech banning it. While in principle I agree with the concept, the first amendment guarantees the right in this country to say what you want, where you want, and as long as its not violent how you want. Scalia often ruled preserving that right even though he would say he personally found it difficult but the precepts of the constitution required it. Judges on the 9th and others are superseding federal law in a clearly federal jurisdiction as regards control of immigration. States have no say so in immigration policy other then elected officials voting for changes in the law that's the process. Sanctuary states do not exist in law, they are declared, a state cannot (or isn't supposed to) infringe on the federal law nor impede its implementation in particular on interstate matters (in my example clearly immigration). They can or should if they wish engage in peaceful civil disobedient protest but those that stand in the way of remanding an illegal immigrant to custody are subject to arrest or even potentially if it suited some activist lawyer (either side) potential litigation from criminal to civil. We are at this point I believe in a post-constitutional period in our country. One jurist can totally prevent a president from doing his constitutional mandate by readjusting precedent to his or her personal leanings. Not facts mind you but personal beliefs. That's not how our legal system is set up. Read "Men in Black". And food for thought why is it the 44th president could do executive orders to give DACA individuals some respite and the 45th can't rescind it? A judge rules because he doesn't like the current view by a current present or maybe even is paid to do so by promises of more power on a higher court. The only real problem with our constitution is the ass hats running this country folks supposedly elected to do the peoples work. In short SCOTUS don't make law it evaluates cases against the constitutional principles and established precedent. If you want to change the constitution go through the process 5 people shouldn't be able to change it not without the consent of the people. These judges are not elected this is a constitutional Democratic/Republic governed by the consent of the governed. It is not a Judocracy (my word don't think it exists), or a 100% Democracy, Autocracy, Monarchy, or a Theocracy. One last word for this rant, RBG is very old, hopefully still has her mental faculties, but by not resigning as she can't really do her job anymore she's hurting everyone. It may come to where here fellow Justices demand it. It isn't unprecedented. Court nominations ebb and flow with time, this cycle its one way next cycle it might not be the same way. True constitutionalist are needed, not ideologues. I also think we need to get a SCOTUS Jurist that ain't IVY League no new thought there or unfortunately condoning of new ideas or more importantly civil discourse. Good Thread
|
|
Became a Dynasty Defender: Jun 3, 2002 11:49:19 GMT -5
|
Post by ruppsrunt on Jan 8, 2019 11:45:15 GMT -5
rgb Called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to people who are “less than 12 years old.”
NO sane person can condone such stupidity!!!
The sooner rgb is declared unfit to make judgements about anything--the better.
rr
|
|
Became a Dynasty Defender: Dec 24, 2008 12:00:13 GMT -5
|
Post by Streeter on Jan 8, 2019 13:22:38 GMT -5
Morons like urself only see total extremes. U extremists are what is really wrong with America to the far right if so some is a Democrat or even just not far right like they are a communist now even going beyond socialist which was also ridiculous. Faaaaar left ur a white suppremisist...... going beyond even Racist which was also ridiculous. SC is supposed to un biased ..... that will never happen due to politics but it should be balanced with no more than 4 to 3 either way. streeter--I see you do NOT understand the supreme court responsibility. The court is to adjudicate decisions to UPHOLD the CONSTITUTION. It is NOT to make new law, but to determine legality(constitutionality) of law created by legislators. YOU have the progressive view--the constitution is a "living entity, to be changed according to the times". Sadly, the changing constitution is exactly what activist judges and progressives want. Many seek to "write a new GUIDELINE" and decry the obsolescence of the Constitution. Those are the judges nominated by clinton and dermarxist. sadly, both of the bush presidents nominated some weenies to the court also. roberts is a prime example. roberts is the only justice to have re-written a law---obamacare, calling required payments a tax. That is NOT the job of the courts--but progressive judges make law--rather than interpret law, and send back bad law to meet constitutionality. rr seriously. Wtf?? I said I thought the Suprene court was better to be balanced at 4 3 not 5 2. ....... from that I'm a progressive....... I guess I should feel flattered I wasn't just labeled a commie right away as is ur schtik.
|
|