If RGB can’t return to work she needs to be replaced!

[Circe]

This spring might be a good time for replacing a Justice. The country is so traumatized by the awful behavior of the Left during the Kavanaugh hearings that even the Dems might rein in their horrified shrieks in the next hearings.

 

[candycorn]

I'm sorry but the litmus test for appropriate and inappropriate behavior isn't the "collapse of our nation". Tomorrow, the Seante could pass a rule that every bill gets passed if it gets one vote OR it could pass a rule that all bills must have unanimous consent to get passed. The House could pass a rule where they are in session for 1 day. They could a

Do you really believe that any President would sign any legislation approved by ONE vote, or that the only bills being sent to him had a unanimous vote?

Yes I do. Do you honestly think that if Trump could get McConnell to pass such a measure in the Senate, that he wouldn't do it? He already wants McConnell to get rid of the filibuster. Reid racheted down the cloture amount to appease Obama.

Frankly, I don't see a problem with the House being in session for one day a year for several years.

Well, if that is true, you're an idiot. It's probably true regardless.

Do YOU think we have a constitution that is built--in it's current verbiage--for 2019 given the political bullshit practiced by both sides? Again, leave your politics out of it. The Senate has shown that the first consideration is who gets to appoint a justice; not if the court is staffed or not. Again, we have the House inviting then dis-inviting the President to give what has commonly become accepted as a yearly state of the union address based on nothing but politics and some bullshit about security. We have a Supreme Court whose justices could keep their seats based on nothing other than their ability to maintain a pulse; meaning that a brain dead justice could still theorhetically hold on to their seat since their heart is being kept going by machines.

Yes, I know there is an amendment process.

The question is; do you think the document we have now is built to with stand the loopholes that are being exploited by all involved?

Yes, the document we have now is "built to withstand the loopholes that are being exploited by all involved".

Specifically, what "loopholes" are being exploited?

Leaving the Supreme Court with a vacancy for the better part of the year.

Do you believe it is a grand idea to open up the can of worms we would have by re-writing our Constitution?

We need to give it a voice so people like Reid are not exercising pocket vetoes of legislation passed by the House.

 

[Markle]

No.

It’s not fine.

Can we just forget the politics for a second?

We have justices who cannot show up for work due to medical issues. And there is next to nothing that can be done to remove her from her seat as long as she maintains a pulse rate. In 100% of the companies, charities, churches, etc..., across the nation, the other members of those groups would be meeting to see how best to address the leadership having this vacancy addressed. And they should….because that is what responsible companies, charities, and churches would do.

As a nation, we’re ignoring the obvious that the silence of the constitution needs to be addressed. It’s the same document that allowed a vacancy on the same court, by the way…for what, 8 months when the Senate simply refused to do it’s duty. How did that happen? Because in 1787 the framers never once considered that the Senate would simply decide that they were not going to go to work. And the nation suffered during those months.

I'm sorry, but I haven't noticed the collapse of our nation.

Bottom line, what is your point.

I'm sorry but the litmus test for appropriate and inappropriate behavior isn't the "collapse of our nation". Tomorrow, the Seante could pass a rule that every bill gets passed if it gets one vote OR it could pass a rule that all bills must have unanimous consent to get passed. The House could pass a rule where they are in session for 1 day. They could a

This is the problem with living under a 230+ year old business plan.

That's what they gave us an amendment process for

Yep. I know.

Do YOU think we have a constitution that is built--in it's current verbiage--for 2019 given the political bullshit practiced by both sides? Again, leave your politics out of it. The Senate has shown that the first consideration is who gets to appoint a justice; not if the court is staffed or not. Again, we have the House inviting then dis-inviting the President to give what has commonly become accepted as a yearly state of the union address based on nothing but politics and some bullshit about security. We have a Supreme Court whose justices could keep their seats based on nothing other than their ability to maintain a pulse; meaning that a brain dead justice could still theorhetically hold on to their seat since their heart is being kept going by machines.

Yes, I know there is an amendment process.

The question is; do you think the document we have now is built to with stand the loopholes that are being exploited by all involved?

The only reason why they get away with some of that stuff is because the American people let them get away with it. Politics have become a team sport now. The vast majority of people don’t seem to care about what’s best for the country as a whole anymore, only what’s best for their team.

Yes, again, I know.

My question to YOU is do you think the document we have now is built to withstand the "team sport" as you have described it?

Once again, YES.

When our Constitution was written, politics weren't a "team sport", it was a blood sport.

 

[Markle]

This spring might be a good time for replacing a Justice. The country is so traumatized by the awful behavior of the Left during the Kavanaugh hearings that even the Dems might rein in their horrified shrieks in the next hearings.

Ha!

The nomination of a replacement for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg by President Donald Trump will make the fiasco created by the Democrats during the Kavanaugh look like a polite Sunday church picnic.

 

[beautress]

Justice Ginsburg Has No Remaining Signs Of Cancer, Will Return To Supreme Court

So, she has survived two of the most aggressive and deadly cancers that are -pancreatic and lung- with no remaining signs.

Really?

Prayers work, Mr. Oddball. Don't worry. It'll all work out okay.

 

[Chuz Life]

I don’t think she’s alive but I think it’s time we find out! We need a new judge!

I have thought for some time now that she is not with us anymore...or that she is already knocking on Heaven's door so to speak.

Would that she might be re-incarnated as an unplanned and unwanted child in the womb.

 

[Chuz Life]

If it turns out she is deceased, I expect that there may be rioting in the streets knowing that Trump will get to replace her.

The next SC Justice is a hottie...

Can you imagine the lengths the leftardz are going through to find some dirt on her?!?

 

[Darkwind]

If it turns out she is deceased, I expect that there may be rioting in the streets knowing that Trump will get to replace her.

I hope not...….I wonder if that might happen? Better get her replaced in the winter, then. Riots are a summertime recreation.

The question is, how long can she be seriously ill and not be replaced? There have been some TV analyses of this, referring to a couple 19th century justices who had bad strokes and were "retired" against their will. But only after it became apparent that they could no longer do the work. Some strokes can be recovered from, of course.

It's been over a month now since RBG's surgery. I would think she'd get another month, anyway, before people would seriously agitate for replacement? What do you all think?

I think that the Justice Dept can send a Marshall around to check on her. Very little cost, and if she is still alive, all well and good. If not, then the question to be asked is who is hiding her demise from us and is it a crime to do so knowing that she will have to be replaced on the SCOTUS.

 

[Darkwind]

If it turns out she is deceased, I expect that there may be rioting in the streets knowing that Trump will get to replace her.

The next SC Justice is a hottie...

Can you imagine the lengths the leftardz are going through to find some dirt on her?!?

Hey, if they say its a hands-on job to find dirt on her, I"ll volunteer.

 

[bullwinkle]

There was no "shabby treatment" of Garland. Traditionally the death of a justice, that close to the election, the nomination has been left to the incoming president.

I appreciate your response, but disagree that there was no "shabby treatment" of Garland.

Democrats trashed the tradition of accepting the fact that when a person wins the Presidency, they also win the right to nominate those who they want for cabinet members, judges, including a person for the Supreme Court.
In regards to Garland, it is Republicans who trashed the tradition of accepting the fact that when a person wins the Presidency, they also win the right to nominate those they want...including a person for the Supreme Court. In case you forgot, Obama also won the Presidency but I can't recall any of the Republicans who wouldn't even meet with Garland (or their supporters) mentioning that right. Matter of fact, seems like those Republicans worked hard and trash talked loud to deny that right to the man who won the Presidency...twice.
That disagreement aside, thanks so much for a civil argument.

 

[Circe]

The nomination of a replacement for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg by President Donald Trump will make the fiasco created by the Democrats during the Kavanaugh look like a polite Sunday church picnic.

You are more pessimistic than I am, I see!

 

[Circe]

I think that the Justice Dept can send a Marshall around to check on her. Very little cost, and if she is still alive, all well and good. If not, then the question to be asked is who is hiding her demise from us and is it a crime to do so knowing that she will have to be replaced on the SCOTUS.

Impossible any Justice could be deceased and it not be public news immediately.

Way too many people know; the docs and nurses, for one bunch. Her whole staff. The entire White House staff, which has to prepare a list of names if she is rapidly failing.

With respect, I'd say the idea that anyone would hide the death of a Supreme Court justice or really any high official is just a conspiracy theory. After all, it could hardly be hidden for long!! Ginsberg is well over a month away from work already and as this thread shows, people are now starting to say, come back or retire.

Also, I can't see any point in hiding the death of a Justice, even for a few days. What would anyone gain from that? No one supposes they could let her be falsely "recuperating" until the next election! Way too big a secret for that to stay a secret.

Now I'm curious, though. Her being incommunicado is a bad sign.

 

[DandyDonovan]

She may not be dead quite yet, and probably isn't, but she's obviously at a point where doing her job just isn't possible, and it's unlikely that that is going to change.

Isn't it funny that we have a law allowing for the removal of a President who is deemed unfit to continue doing his job, but the other two branches, those folks can serve as long as they have a pulse, regardless of other factors?

 

[acludem]

She may not be dead quite yet, and probably isn't, but she's obviously at a point where doing her job just isn't possible, and it's unlikely that that is going to change.

Isn't it funny that we have a law allowing for the removal of a President who is deemed unfit to continue doing his job, but the other two branches, those folks can serve as long as they have a pulse, regardless of other factors?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is capable and is serving. You want to toss anyone off the court, how about Clarence Thomas who has consistently refused to recuse himself from cases where he and his wife profit from the outcome.

 

[DandyDonovan]

She may not be dead quite yet, and probably isn't, but she's obviously at a point where doing her job just isn't possible, and it's unlikely that that is going to change.

Isn't it funny that we have a law allowing for the removal of a President who is deemed unfit to continue doing his job, but the other two branches, those folks can serve as long as they have a pulse, regardless of other factors?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is capable and is serving. You want to toss anyone off the court, how about Clarence Thomas who has consistently refused to recuse himself from cases where he and his wife profit from the outcome.

Don't be stupid, it is quite clear that RBG is not capable and is not serving at this moment. The only question is should we have an amendment that allows for the removal of legislators and judicial members when they are not capable of performing their duties as we have for the POTUS.

Clarence Thomas has NOTHING to do with this topic since he IS serving.

 

[Circe]

Don't be stupid, it is quite clear that RBG is not capable and is not serving at this moment. The only question is should we have an amendment that allows for the removal of legislators and judicial members when they are not capable of performing their duties as we have for the POTUS.

Clarence Thomas has NOTHING to do with this topic since he IS serving.

Huh --- interesting point. We truly do not have a mechanism. Some three-four justices have been removed after strokes and such, but by negotiation and natural deterioration, not really a process.

Although I'd love to see Thomas replaced: I don't like the fact that he can't really talk. I don't think he is capable, hasn't ever been, perhaps, and I'd like to see a smart and able conservative (and younger than Thomas, who is 70) in his place. One without a sex harassment shadow following him around, though that seems too much to ask for these days.

How long do you think she should get, lying out "recovering" or whatever is going on?

 

[Hellbilly]

I don’t think she’s alive but I think it’s time we find out! We need a new judge!

The republicans chomping at the bit for her to die. Sad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DandyDonovan]

Don't be stupid, it is quite clear that RBG is not capable and is not serving at this moment. The only question is should we have an amendment that allows for the removal of legislators and judicial members when they are not capable of performing their duties as we have for the POTUS.

Clarence Thomas has NOTHING to do with this topic since he IS serving.

Huh --- interesting point. We truly do not have a mechanism. Some three-four justices have been removed after strokes and such, but by negotiation and natural deterioration, not really a process.

Although I'd love to see Thomas replaced: I don't like the fact that he can't really talk. I don't think he is capable, hasn't ever been, perhaps, and I'd like to see a smart and able conservative (and younger than Thomas, who is 70) in his place. One without a sex harassment shadow following him around, though that seems too much to ask for these days.

How long do you think she should get, lying out "recovering" or whatever is going on?

Again, what we think is really irrelevant because the ONLY way she can be forcibly removed is by impeachment and the fact that only one Justice has been impeached in our history and wasn't even convicted coupled with the fact that there is no way Nancy Pelosi will impeach RBG means she's in office until she either resigns or fails to fog a mirror that is placed under her nose.

And that is stupid.

As for Thomas, I myself wonder why mandatory retirement age for the military and federal agents is 59 without a special consent from Congress, but again those fucks can serve until they are 140 if they live that long and keep getting reelected, or 1040. Age doesn't matter.

 

[Circe]

Again, what we think is really irrelevant because the ONLY way she can be forcibly removed is by impeachment and the fact that only one Justice has been impeached in our history and wasn't even convicted coupled with the fact that there is no way Nancy Pelosi will impeach RBG means she's in office until she either resigns or fails to fog a mirror that is placed under her nose.

No, there have been several justices removed.....by negotiation. Drawn out until they deteriorated. It's usually bad strokes, but one in the 1800s I read an article about became demented from senility and behaved very inappropriately, embarrassing the Court, and he absolutely refused to resign. They did negotiate it and got him to stay at home for "spells," until finally nature took its course. Nobody wanted to impeach when a Justice clearly had health problems.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Again, what we think is really irrelevant because the ONLY way she can be forcibly removed is by impeachment and the fact that only one Justice has been impeached in our history and wasn't even convicted coupled with the fact that there is no way Nancy Pelosi will impeach RBG means she's in office until she either resigns or fails to fog a mirror that is placed under her nose.

No, there have been several justices removed.....by negotiation. Drawn out until they deteriorated. It's usually bad strokes, but one in the 1800s I read an article about became demented from senility and behaved very inappropriately, embarrassing the Court, and he absolutely refused to resign. They did negotiate it and got him to stay at home for "spells," until finally nature took its course. Nobody wanted to impeach when a Justice clearly had health problems.

Correct, but that was by their own choice, Not by someone saying "look you just aren't capable any more so even if you don't want to go, you are going"

Do you realistically see RBG resigning while Trump is in office? I mean the addled old bird wouldn't even resign when Obama was in office and could have replaced her with a younger doppleganger of herself..