jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why didn't she retire when Obama was President?!
Hubris Arrogance.
What makes you folks believe that Moscow Mitch would have allowed Obama to fill the seat? Anyone with a memory longer than a gnat's would understand that history suggests he wouldn't.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why didn't she retire when Obama was President?!
Hubris Arrogance.
Anonymous wrote:So is she released? It said Sunday morning?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can we please focus on what’s important? Who’s Trump gonna nominate to replace her? Who else is that notorious? LOL.
Whatever you are wishing for RBG right now, may it be returned upon you and your loved ones in spades.
There is an entire thread with over 300 posts about Trump going to Walter Reed, with some posts wishing him the very worst. I hope you expressed your objection to the same sentiments over those ghoulish posts.
+1. And I like how RBG is hospitalized, yet the lead story in CNN.com today is about Trump’s health. Talk about Fake News! No wonder we don’t trust the media.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:She's gonna retire soon, you don't go to Hopkins for a fever when you live in dc
She better hang on until we get a legitimate President.
And, more importantly, a Senate who isn’t corrupt.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:She's gonna retire soon, you don't go to Hopkins for a fever when you live in dc
She better hang on until we get a legitimate President.
Anonymous wrote:She's gonna retire soon, you don't go to Hopkins for a fever when you live in dc
Anonymous wrote:When have we had a Court stacked with Justices who made political speeches before being nominated?
People previously deemed unappointable are suddenly short-listed.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Because traditionally we have a balance judiciary and the vote count signals whether you have a true precedent, or what is essentially a political or philosophical difference. In the rare times that we have an unbalanced judiciary, even votes that are above 5-4 tend not to be viewed as strong precedent. They tend to be cited with “an Asterix” and the dissenting opinions are often more powerful than the holding of the court, and for those years and until the precedent precedent is corrected by a balanced court, our jurisprudence is in flux.
And unbalanced Supreme Court is never a good idea.
When have we “traditionally have a balance judiciary”?
Anonymous wrote:Because traditionally we have a balance judiciary and the vote count signals whether you have a true precedent, or what is essentially a political or philosophical difference. In the rare times that we have an unbalanced judiciary, even votes that are above 5-4 tend not to be viewed as strong precedent. They tend to be cited with “an Asterix” and the dissenting opinions are often more powerful than the holding of the court, and for those years and until the precedent precedent is corrected by a balanced court, our jurisprudence is in flux.
And unbalanced Supreme Court is never a good idea.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Because traditionally we have a balance judiciary and the vote count signals whether you have a true precedent, or what is essentially a political or philosophical difference. In the rare times that we have an unbalanced judiciary, even votes that are above 5-4 tend not to be viewed as strong precedent. They tend to be cited with “an Asterix” and the dissenting opinions are often more powerful than the holding of the court, and for those years and until the precedent precedent is corrected by a balanced court, our jurisprudence is in flux.
And unbalanced Supreme Court is never a good idea.
Hahaha it's only bad if it's conservative, lol