Anonymous
11/24/2019 23:05
Subject: Re:Ruth Bader Ginsburg Misses Court
Anonymous wrote:Released and “doing well.”. That’s fantastic.
An 86-year-old with pancreatic cancer is not “doing well.”
Anonymous
11/24/2019 21:24
Subject: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Misses Court
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.
Anonymous
11/24/2019 20:47
Subject: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Misses Court
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.
Anonymous
11/24/2019 17:39
Subject: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Misses Court
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
Anonymous
11/24/2019 17:33
Subject: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Misses Court
Anonymous wrote:I wonder how she's functioning being so I'll every other week
Ok, troll. Move along. Go haunt some other board.
Anonymous
11/24/2019 17:16
Subject: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Misses Court
I wonder how she's functioning being so I'll every other week
Anonymous
11/24/2019 15:39
Subject: Re:Ruth Bader Ginsburg Misses Court
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Released and “doing well.”. That’s fantastic.
So glad she’s doing better. I’m surprised they didn’t keep her another day. You never know with older people; they can go downhill extremely fast.
NP - it will happen again and its sad she is only staying alive for the left to exploit.
She is staying alive so that Trump can’t appoint some crazy, unqualified right winger in her place. That is one tough lady.
Anonymous
11/24/2019 15:29
Subject: Re:Ruth Bader Ginsburg Misses Court
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Released and “doing well.”. That’s fantastic.
So glad she’s doing better. I’m surprised they didn’t keep her another day. You never know with older people; they can go downhill extremely fast.
NP - it will happen again and its sad she is only staying alive for the left to exploit.
Weird comment. She’s doing this for herself and her beliefs. Do you know what “exploit” means?
Anonymous
11/24/2019 15:28
Subject: Re:Ruth Bader Ginsburg Misses Court
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Released and “doing well.”. That’s fantastic.
So glad she’s doing better. I’m surprised they didn’t keep her another day. You never know with older people; they can go downhill extremely fast.
NP - it will happen again and its sad she is only staying alive for the left to exploit.
Anonymous
11/24/2019 15:08
Subject: Re:Ruth Bader Ginsburg Misses Court
Anonymous wrote:Released and “doing well.”. That’s fantastic.
So glad she’s doing better. I’m surprised they didn’t keep her another day. You never know with older people; they can go downhill extremely fast.
Anonymous
11/24/2019 14:36
Subject: Re:Ruth Bader Ginsburg Misses Court
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:A millennial President will come along and upend the boomer legacy and we’ll have 13.
Court packing is a really terrible idea. If Dems do it to get to 13 when they have the power, the Republicans will just up it next time they can.
when would that be? Texas is a-flipping soon and the GOP will NEVER hold the presidency again.
Even if Clinton had won Texas in 2016, she still would have lost.
Packing might be perceived as legitimate by a younger generation attempting to correct problems left by an illegitimate president that was a member of a generation that did a lot of damage to society, the planet, etc., etc. (That's not saying they didn't do some good, but it was a big generation with a big footprint, both positive and negative.)
Anonymous
11/24/2019 14:17
Subject: Re:Ruth Bader Ginsburg Misses Court
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:A millennial President will come along and upend the boomer legacy and we’ll have 13.
Court packing is a really terrible idea. If Dems do it to get to 13 when they have the power, the Republicans will just up it next time they can.
when would that be? Texas is a-flipping soon and the GOP will NEVER hold the presidency again.
Even if Clinton had won Texas in 2016, she still would have lost.
Anonymous
11/24/2019 14:13
Subject: Re:Ruth Bader Ginsburg Misses Court
Released and “doing well.”. That’s fantastic.
Anonymous
11/24/2019 14:12
Subject: Re:Ruth Bader Ginsburg Misses Court
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:A millennial President will come along and upend the boomer legacy and we’ll have 13.
Court packing is a really terrible idea. If Dems do it to get to 13 when they have the power, the Republicans will just up it next time they can.
when would that be? Texas is a-flipping soon and the GOP will NEVER hold the presidency again.
Anonymous
11/24/2019 14:11
Subject: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Misses Court
Anonymous wrote: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”?
1937.
Wrong.