Ruth Bader Ginsburg Misses Court

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how she's functioning being so I'll every other week

Ok, troll. Move along. Go haunt some other board.

Shes been out a lot including last week

How many days altogether? Be factual please!

More than any others and she's actually not together enough to avoid missing work.

Can’t give the actual numbers of days she’s missed, why is that?

Since you’re not going to answer let me: she’s missed one day so far this year, due to a stomach bug. The only other days she missed in her entire career came last January when she kissed 6 days after treatment for cancer.

For some reason women always have to do it backwards and in heels.

+1

How many times has Thomas spoken in oral arguments? Dude doesn’t even engage for a decade - where is the “concern” for that?

+2. Thomas could have been dead on the bench and no one would have noticed until the smell wafted through the courtroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how she's functioning being so I'll every other week

Ok, troll. Move along. Go haunt some other board.

Shes been out a lot including last week

It probably is inconsequential that she's missing work. She probably has something akin to a Mad-Libs book, where there's a pad with _________ blank spaces to fill in for the cases, and under each blank space it says "insert liberal dogma here", and any of her clerks can just fill it out for her.

Funny, and all along I thought it was called “legal precedent” instead. Silly me.

The job of the USSC isn't to apply legal precedent.

It is to decide if legal precedent or laws are Constitutional or not.

Did you not go to high school?

DP. Within the context of applying S Ct precedent (case law) and the principle of state decisis. A quick look through any S Ct case will confirm this. It is your post that is dumb and illiterate beyond human comprehension.

I wanted to reply at the time, but thought better of it. I figured it wasn’t worth the electrons. However, I now reverse myself. I thought your response was spot on

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how she's functioning being so I'll every other week

Ok, troll. Move along. Go haunt some other board.

Shes been out a lot including last week

It probably is inconsequential that she's missing work. She probably has something akin to a Mad-Libs book, where there's a pad with _________ blank spaces to fill in for the cases, and under each blank space it says "insert liberal dogma here", and any of her clerks can just fill it out for her.

Funny, and all along I thought it was called “legal precedent” instead. Silly me.

The job of the USSC isn't to apply legal precedent.

It is to decide if legal precedent or laws are Constitutional or not.

Did you not go to high school?

DP. Within the context of applying S Ct precedent (case law) and the principle of state decisis. A quick look through any S Ct case will confirm this. It is your post that is dumb and illiterate beyond human comprehension.

DP

Incorrect.


The Supreme Court is charged with making sure prior lower court decisions (especially those with decisions which will be precedent-setting) pass constitutional muster muster. Likewise for new laws that are challenged in the court system.


If the Supreme Court's job was simply to make sure legal precedent was applied, then abortion would still be illegal and gays couldn't be married. Because that was the existing legal precedent, until those cases reached the USSC.

Jesus. I made the comment in quick reply to a troll. I didn’t need — nor do you guys - to give a law school lesson. I never said “simply” apply precedent. Calm down. It was a joke. Jokes aren’t always precise. Wasn’t looking for the A from Tribe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how she's functioning being so I'll every other week

Ok, troll. Move along. Go haunt some other board.

Shes been out a lot including last week

It probably is inconsequential that she's missing work. She probably has something akin to a Mad-Libs book, where there's a pad with _________ blank spaces to fill in for the cases, and under each blank space it says "insert liberal dogma here", and any of her clerks can just fill it out for her.

Funny, and all along I thought it was called “legal precedent” instead. Silly me.

The job of the USSC isn't to apply legal precedent.

It is to decide if legal precedent or laws are Constitutional or not.

Did you not go to high school?

DP. Within the context of applying S Ct precedent (case law) and the principle of state decisis. A quick look through any S Ct case will confirm this. It is your post that is dumb and illiterate beyond human comprehension.

DP

Incorrect.


The Supreme Court is charged with making sure prior lower court decisions (especially those with decisions which will be precedent-setting) pass constitutional muster muster. Likewise for new laws that are challenged in the court system.


If the Supreme Court's job was simply to make sure legal precedent was applied, then abortion would still be illegal and gays couldn't be married. Because that was the existing legal precedent, until those cases reached the USSC.

PP is correct. SCOTUS does not even bother to take cases where they think that legal precedent has been properly applied unless there is some novel question, circuit court split in the way precedent has been applied, or evolving norm (like gender or racial equality) which means that prior precedent should be challenged/reconsidered.

Yes, SCOTUS considers previous precedents and tries to continue to apply them or clarify meaning consistent with prior precedents where possible in line with the principle of stare decisis, but that is not the same as saying their job is to follow legal precedent.

SCOTUS takes cases precisely because there's a chance there is an argument to break or make precedent. Here are a few I can think of just off the top of my head:

Griswold (giving women access to birth control)
Brown (ruling separate education is unequal)
Meritor (recognizing sexual harassment as a Title VII violation)
Roe (upholding the right to abortion and providing guidance which created the current structure of the right to abortion)
Obergefell (requiring all states to grant and recognize other states same sex marriages)

And, even when SCOTUS does end up upholding precedent, it can lead to societal revolution. See Dred Scott (upholding the enslavement of Scott despite state law to the contrary).

People want RBG off the court, precisely because she has been a genius at crafting the breaking of precedent - both as an attorney before the court and as a judge on the court) so as to ensure the equality of women in our society.


Everyone gets an A today. Class dismissed now!!? You’re ruining my fun. This is after work entertainment.

[Anonymous]

I have a feeling that the next text in response to the exchange above is “she started it.”

[Anonymous]

I hope Trump honors RBG with a female replacement, Amy Barret.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope Trump honors RBG with a female replacement, Amy Barret.

Nikki Haley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope Trump honors RBG with a female replacement, Amy Barret.

Nikki Haley.

Either would be an excellent and enduring choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope Trump honors RBG with a female replacement, Amy Barret.

Nikki Haley.

Either would be an excellent and enduring choice.

Nikki Haley has a Bachelor’s degree in Accounting.
At the risk of sounding “elitist “, I would hope the President would nominate a SCJ candidate with a law degree and relevant work experience.

[Anonymous]

If RBG can hold on a little longer, I think Mitch will have to wait until after the election. However, if she goes before year-end, I think we're looking at Amy Barrett.

[Anonymous]

May RBG outlive all of you ghouls rooting for her death.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If RBG can hold on a little longer, I think Mitch will have to wait until after the election. However, if she goes before year-end, I think we're looking at Amy Barrett.

Why would he have to wait? He controls the senate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If RBG can hold on a little longer, I think Mitch will have to wait until after the election. However, if she goes before year-end, I think we're looking at Amy Barrett.

Why would he have to wait? He controls the senate.

DP. I don’t think this was pp’s point, but there’s a lot of potential peril to confirming a nominee so close to an election. First, going ahead with confirmation now when Merrill Garland was blocked might alienate some independents that can appreciate the hypocrisy in going forward. Second, if Trump nominates an extremist, it could swing moderates in favor of the Dem nominee. It would all but force Trump to nominate a true centrist or McConnell to put a halt on confirmation until after the election if Trump insisted on an extremist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope Trump honors RBG with a female replacement, Amy Barret.

Nikki Haley.

Either would be an excellent and enduring choice.

Nikki Haley has a Bachelor’s degree in Accounting.
At the risk of sounding “elitist “, I would hope the President would nominate a SCJ candidate with a law degree and relevant work experience.

Please cite the Article and Section of the Constitution where it requires USSC Justices to have a JD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If RBG can hold on a little longer, I think Mitch will have to wait until after the election. However, if she goes before year-end, I think we're looking at Amy Barrett.

Why would he have to wait? He controls the senate.

DP. I don’t think this was pp’s point, but there’s a lot of potential peril to confirming a nominee so close to an election. First, going ahead with confirmation now when Merrill Garland was blocked might alienate some independents that can appreciate the hypocrisy in going forward. Second, if Trump nominates an extremist, it could swing moderates in favor of the Dem nominee. It would all but force Trump to nominate a true centrist or McConnell to put a halt on confirmation until after the election if Trump insisted on an extremist.

Since all the polls have proven Trump will lose, this would be a last F U. Depends on how much sway polls have over Trump.