Ruth Bader Ginsburg Misses Court
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
How many days altogether? Be factual please! |
Anonymous
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? |
Anonymous
More than any others and she's actually not together enough to avoid missing work. |
Anonymous
| This thread has become boring. What will be will be. Let’s hope for the best. |
Anonymous
Can’t give the actual numbers of days she’s missed, why is that? |
Anonymous
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. |
Anonymous
For some reason women always have to do it backwards and in heels. |
Anonymous
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. |
Anonymous
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. |
Anonymous
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. |
Anonymous
The point, dunce, is that it does it’s analysis within the context of construing, inter alia, Supreme Court precedent. Each case is not nearly as profound or sweeping as you imagine and the Court does not write on a clean state. You are deeply confused or misinformed. |
Anonymous
| Weekend at Ginsburg |
Anonymous
Hi drama queen |
Anonymous
She should have retired in 2014. |
Anonymous
+1 How many times has Thomas spoken in oral arguments? Dude doesn’t even engage for a decade - where is the “concern” for that? |