Alledged RBG Last Words PROVE What 'Uncreative, Simplistic Liars' the Democrats Are

[BULLDOG]

Were you there?

/—-/ Were you there?

See #5

 

[SeaGal]

Just got this in an e-mail.

Ginsburg’s Words From 2016 Destroy the Democrat Narrative

The fight in 2016 over whether to take up then-President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee caused many to say things they regret. One of them was the late-Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

According to The Daily Wire:

When the GOP-led Senate used its constitutional powers to block the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland in 2016, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg admitted that the president had the power to nominate a candidate for a Supreme Court vacancy any time during his four-year tenure and that the Senate had every right to confirm the nomination or not.

The vacancy Obama chose Garland to fill was created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016; President Barack Obama nominated Garland in mid-March.
Ginsburg gave a speech at Georgetown Law School on Sept. 7, 2016, after which she took questions. A member of the audience asked, “I was wondering if you thought there were any valid constitutional arguments that would prevent President Obama from filling Justice Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court?”

Ginsburg answered, “As you know, the president has the authority to name appointees to the Supreme Court, but he has to do so with the advice and consent of the Senate. And if the Senate does not act, as this current Senate is not acting, what can be done about it? Even if you could conceive of a testing lawsuit, what would the response be? ‘Well, you want us to vote? So we’ll vote no.’ But I do think that cooler heads will prevail; I hope sooner rather than later. The president is elected for four years not three years, so the powers that he has in year three continue into year four and maybe some members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that’s how it should be.”

Video and Twitter in the link

Ginsburg's Words From 2016 Destroy the Democrat Narrative - Trump Train News

Advertisement Send the Next GOP SUPERSTAR John James to the Senate [ACT NOW]The fight in 2016 over whether to take up then-President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee caused many to say things they regret. One of them was the late-Ruth Bader Ginsburg. According to The Daily Wire: When the GOP-led...

trumptrainnews.com

"The president is elected for four years not three years, so the powers that he has in year three continue into year four and maybe some members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that’s how it should be.” RBG

Well, I guess we can now consider the Senate 'woke'...and just in time too! She should be happy!

 

[Aletheia4u]

Democrats allege that RBG said she wished that her replacement would only be nominated by a new President.

That is an obvious LIE. RBG was a judges judge, and was well aware that the Consitution says the President SHALL make an appointment when a seat on the SCOTUS is vacant.

SHALL is not 'may' or 'can think about it for a while'. 'Shall' is an imperative word that leaves no choice, THE PRESIDENT MUST MAKE AN APPOINTMENT.

Every lawyer should know the difference between 'shall' vrs 'may' or whatever else.

RBG did NOT say that, very obviously, but the 'Deplorable American' people Dimocrats think are too stupid to know the difference, just like they think we are too stupid to know that Trump does not have low regard for the American people.

THE DEMOCRATS DO AND THEY DEMONSTRATE THIS EVERY FOUR YEARS WITH THEIR RIDICULOUS LIES.

I had thought that her last words was "Rosebud".
Everybody knows that it was a lie. Most likely on someone death bed, they always confesses their sins. But she has confessed her sins over a year ago at her real death. And beside, all of the Dems were at home or in their basement for the quarantine. And so how could anyone be at her death bed?
But all of this is just a game to psych out the President. Making him to be in a rush to elect her replacement. Even Fox News is trying to persuade him into electing one of the Deep State's ops for her replacement. That is what Fox news is for. To have everyone's attention that are Republicans. To encourage them to push Pres. Trump to elect a certain candidates of the Deep state.
Pres. Trump need to take his time. Like last time, Fox news was pushing for Pres. Trump to be the fastest president to fill up his administration than any other president in history. And look what has happened. He had a house full of RINO's. These fast talking tactics are what pimps uses to persuade young little teenagers to prostitute for them. They gives the young little teenage girls no time to think about it.

 

[keepitreal]

Democrats allege that RBG said she wished that her replacement would only be nominated by a new President.

That is an obvious LIE. RBG was a judges judge, and was well aware that the Consitution says the President SHALL make an appointment when a seat on the SCOTUS is vacant.

SHALL is not 'may' or 'can think about it for a while'. 'Shall' is an imperative word that leaves no choice, THE PRESIDENT MUST MAKE AN APPOINTMENT.

Every lawyer should know the difference between 'shall' vrs 'may' or whatever else.

RBG did NOT say that, very obviously, but the 'Deplorable American' people Dimocrats think are too stupid to know the difference, just like they think we are too stupid to know that Trump does not have low regard for the American people.

THE DEMOCRATS DO AND THEY DEMONSTRATE THIS EVERY FOUR YEARS WITH THEIR RIDICULOUS LIES.

She may have said something to that effect before her condition deteriorated
but there is no way in hell she made that statement a couple days before her death...
my father died of pancreatic cancer ...they would have had her doped up on morphine at this phase

Yep, my boyfriend at the time called me at work telling me
my dad called him to take him to the VA and he was taking my dad to the hospital
I told him to come get me after he dropped my dad off

I worked close to the VA hospital so I was at the hospital within 30 mins
after my bf dropped my dad off...as I'm walking down the main hallway,
I see my dad in the distance walking towards me down the main hallway

When we meet up I'm like...where are you going...what's going on
He's like, looking for yous...I'm going home
Going home...you just got here...didn't you see your doctor
No, he isn't in today, I saw a different doctor, I'll make an appointment next week
Well, what's wrong
My back has been hurting really bad and my stomach the last few days...
and when I take a shit it's like black tar
I'm like, WHAT...did he take any blood or xrays, any kind of tests
No, he said I have arthritis in my back and my new cholesterol meds
is causing my stomach pain and black poop
I'm like...WTF...you turn around and tell him you want tests...fuck it, I'll tell him
No Lynn Therese...I'll make an appointment with my doctor for next week

3 days later my sister calls me at work telling me she's taking dad to a different VA
A few hours later she calls me back telling me they rushed him into emergency surgery...
his gall bladder was dead and infected and the infection had spread

I WAS FURIOUS...ARTHRITIS, CHANGE IN MEDICATION, NO TESTS

He was in the hospital for a week, later in the day, after he came home
he called me into the front room...Lynn Therese, I have cancer, they said I have maybe 3 months
He died 42 days later, a shell of the man he was...a tarp of skin hanging off his skeletal frame

Pancreatic cancer is aggressive and usually not detected in its earliest stages
when the prognosis is more favorable, only where longevity is concerned
The first thing that came to my mind when I heard she died of pancreatic cancer
and was battling pancreatic cancer for years...since 2009

Public servants receive the best medical care our money can buy
The only color associated with privilege is green...is there a color for power

 

[PoliticalChic]

Democrats allege that RBG said she wished that her replacement would only be nominated by a new President.

That is an obvious LIE. RBG was a judges judge, and was well aware that the Consitution says the President SHALL make an appointment when a seat on the SCOTUS is vacant.

SHALL is not 'may' or 'can think about it for a while'. 'Shall' is an imperative word that leaves no choice, THE PRESIDENT MUST MAKE AN APPOINTMENT.

Every lawyer should know the difference between 'shall' vrs 'may' or whatever else.

RBG did NOT say that, very obviously, but the 'Deplorable American' people Dimocrats think are too stupid to know the difference, just like they think we are too stupid to know that Trump does not have low regard for the American people.

THE DEMOCRATS DO AND THEY DEMONSTRATE THIS EVERY FOUR YEARS WITH THEIR RIDICULOUS LIES.

Simply one more example of rule #1.


Rule #1 Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.

 

[Chuz Life]

Trump and McConnell should inform the leftardz that "hearsay" is in admissable in court and likewise it (hearsay) carries no weight in the nominations proceedings.

 

[Montrovant]

Semantic horse kaka. Shall means immediate and unconditional compliance. The process is nowhere slowed or held up for the deathbed wish from the previous judge, and we have never done it before and RBG knew it.

Where in the statement did RBG say she expected the process to be held up for her wish? Is a person only able to state a wish if they expect it to come true? I'm curious where you're getting your definition of 'shall' from.

Irrelevant as it is not verified and does not match her previous statements, 'The President does not stop being President in an election year.'

Again, the president can nominate and that doesn't mean the judge would have to be confirmed before the election.

Yes, it does. It means do not delay and start whatever process is involved.

Once more, where do you get this definition? I've actually read that legally, shall isn't necessarily even mandatory. What's the only word that means mandatory? Here's what law and policy say about "shall, will, may, and must."

shall

Definition of shall in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

In fact, it appears that RBG herself may have commented on the changeable meaning of 'shall' in a ruling: Shall We Abandon Shall?
This is the opinion from which the quote comes: Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 U.S. 417 (1995).
And this is the quote:

9 Though "shall" generally means "must," legal writers sometimes use, or misuse, "shall" to mean "should," "will," or even "may." See D. Mellinkoff, Mellinkoff's Dictionary of American Legal Usage 402-403 (1992) ("shall" and "may" are "frequently treated as synonyms" and their meaning depends on context); B. Garner, Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage ___ (to be published, 2d ed. 1995) ("[C]ourts in virtually every English speaking jurisdiction have held--by necessity--that shall may mean may in some contexts, and vice versa."). For example, certain of the Federal Rules use the word "shall" to authorize, but not to require, judicial action. See, e.g., Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 16(e) ("The order following a final pretrial conference shall be modified only to prevent manifest injustice.") (emphasis added); Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 11(b) (A nolo contendere plea "shall be accepted by the court only after due consideration of the views of the parties and the interest of the public in the effective administration of justice.") (emphasis added).

I think your focus on the word shall is a mistake.

You said it was several days prior to her death, so which is it. Get your Dimocrat lies straight.

1. I am not a Democrat
2. A person can be dying several days before their death. Were you not aware of this?

Not at all. It is far more believable that Dimocrats are lying yet again (Charlottesvile Hoax Lie, Biden wont stop Fracking lie, etc) than to believe that a fine judge like RBG who respected and loved the Constitution would suddenly abandon it and wish for people to ignore it, understanding the Constitutional Crisis that could emerge with a 4-4 split on the court.

You should seriously reconsider if you are as honest as you seem to imply you are.

As I've already pointed out, Ginsberg's wish, if she did say it, in no way requires any sort of abandonment of the Constitution. There have been plenty of Supreme Court justice nomination processes which took longer than the 40 or so days remaining until the election. Trump could nominate someone as I type this and the Senate would not have to vote to confirm before the election. As we saw when Obama nominated Garland, the Senate doesn't have to vote at all. So to wish that she would not be replaced until a new president is in office would not require abandoning the Constitution. All that would be required is for the process to take a bit of time, which it already often does.

I find it odd that you can focus so strongly on what you believe to be the mandatory and time-constrained meaning of the word shall, but at the same time call the difference between being replaced and having someone nominated nothing but semantics. Your argument here is weak.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Semantic horse kaka. Shall means immediate and unconditional compliance. The process is nowhere slowed or held up for the deathbed wish from the previous judge, and we have never done it before and RBG knew it.

Where in the statement did RBG say she expected the process to be held up for her wish? Is a person only able to state a wish if they expect it to come true? I'm curious where you're getting your definition of 'shall' from.

Irrelevant as it is not verified and does not match her previous statements, 'The President does not stop being President in an election year.'

Again, the president can nominate and that doesn't mean the judge would have to be confirmed before the election.

Yes, it does. It means do not delay and start whatever process is involved.

Once more, where do you get this definition? I've actually read that legally, shall isn't necessarily even mandatory. What's the only word that means mandatory? Here's what law and policy say about "shall, will, may, and must."

shall

Definition of shall in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

In fact, it appears that RBG herself may have commented on the changeable meaning of 'shall' in a ruling: Shall We Abandon Shall?
This is the opinion from which the quote comes: Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 U.S. 417 (1995).
And this is the quote:

9 Though "shall" generally means "must," legal writers sometimes use, or misuse, "shall" to mean "should," "will," or even "may." See D. Mellinkoff, Mellinkoff's Dictionary of American Legal Usage 402-403 (1992) ("shall" and "may" are "frequently treated as synonyms" and their meaning depends on context); B. Garner, Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage ___ (to be published, 2d ed. 1995) ("[C]ourts in virtually every English speaking jurisdiction have held--by necessity--that shall may mean may in some contexts, and vice versa."). For example, certain of the Federal Rules use the word "shall" to authorize, but not to require, judicial action. See, e.g., Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 16(e) ("The order following a final pretrial conference shall be modified only to prevent manifest injustice.") (emphasis added); Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 11(b) (A nolo contendere plea "shall be accepted by the court only after due consideration of the views of the parties and the interest of the public in the effective administration of justice.") (emphasis added).

I think your focus on the word shall is a mistake.

You said it was several days prior to her death, so which is it. Get your Dimocrat lies straight.

1. I am not a Democrat
2. A person can be dying several days before their death. Were you not aware of this?

Not at all. It is far more believable that Dimocrats are lying yet again (Charlottesvile Hoax Lie, Biden wont stop Fracking lie, etc) than to believe that a fine judge like RBG who respected and loved the Constitution would suddenly abandon it and wish for people to ignore it, understanding the Constitutional Crisis that could emerge with a 4-4 split on the court.

You should seriously reconsider if you are as honest as you seem to imply you are.

As I've already pointed out, Ginsberg's wish, if she did say it, in no way requires any sort of abandonment of the Constitution. There have been plenty of Supreme Court justice nomination processes which took longer than the 40 or so days remaining until the election. Trump could nominate someone as I type this and the Senate would not have to vote to confirm before the election. As we saw when Obama nominated Garland, the Senate doesn't have to vote at all. So to wish that she would not be replaced until a new president is in office would not require abandoning the Constitution. All that would be required is for the process to take a bit of time, which it already often does.

I find it odd that you can focus so strongly on what you believe to be the mandatory and time-constrained meaning of the word shall, but at the same time call the difference between being replaced and having someone nominated nothing but semantics. Your argument here is weak.

I just dont have the time to engage in semantic pretzle logic debate.

There are plenty here who will do so gladly.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Trump and McConnell should inform the leftardz that "hearsay" is in admissable in court and likewise it (hearsay) carries no weight in the nominations proceedings.

/-----/ Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin.

Trump: Supreme Court pick to be announced Saturday at White House

President Trump tweeted Tuesday morning that he'll announce his choice for the Supreme Court this coming Saturday at the White House.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Desperado]

Were you there?

Were you?

 

[miketx]

Democrats are NOTHING if not liars.

 

[Orangecat]

But then why doesnt anyone besides her daughter make that claim as well?

I believe she maintained her dignity and integrity and never said it.
The democrats are up to their typical emotion-triggering manipulative lying.
Just look at all the deceit and foul play they've done over the last 3.5 years as precedence.

 

[Orangecat]

You know Democrats will take the White House, Senate and House. Republicans know it. That is why the rush is on. I have never seen a party rush to commit suicide.

If you're correct about the election results, why wouldn't the repubs appoint and confirm a justice while they are still legally empowered by the people to do so?
Logic trumps dingbat emotion every time.

 

[Orangecat]

RBG did say that the new President should make the choice of a new SCOTUS pick.

You're claiming she jettisoned her life-long integrity to make a toothless wish upon her deathbed?
With a clear mind?
Torpedoing her legacy for a cheap political stunt that had no legal weight behind it?
If you say so, Stankey.

 

[Orangecat]

It is really irrelevant what she said

Not to psychotically desperate and emotionally manipulated useful idiots.

 

[John T. Ford]

No, but I'm not the one who quoted her. Those who did were there. You weren't though.

Even if RBG actually did say that it''s still Utter Bullshit.

It's not RBG's seat.

It never was.

It's the People's seat.

And, the Constitution clearly states the President shall appoint it's replacement.

Besides .... if RBG was really that concerned about which President replaced her she would have retired under B. Hussein.

But, she didn't did she?

This whole scenario is just more LIES and Bullshit from the Left.

 

[JakeStarkey]

RBG was so full of morphine for weeks that she would not have had the lucidity or acuity to say those words...

Oh, but we are supposed to disregard the Constitution in order to obey the supposed inverified last words of a person dying of a very painful disease.

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most painful forms of cancer around.

Where did that happen? Show us that

 

[bigrebnc1775]

RBG was so full of morphine for weeks that she would not have had the lucidity or acuity to say those words...

Oh, but we are supposed to disregard the Constitution in order to obey the supposed inverified last words of a person dying of a very painful disease.

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most painful forms of cancer around.

Where did that happen? Show us that

It's all moot Romney said yes to a vote

 

[BULLDOG]

Democrats allege that RBG said she wished that her replacement would only be nominated by a new President.

That is an obvious LIE. RBG was a judges judge, and was well aware that the Consitution says the President SHALL make an appointment when a seat on the SCOTUS is vacant.

SHALL is not 'may' or 'can think about it for a while'. 'Shall' is an imperative word that leaves no choice, THE PRESIDENT MUST MAKE AN APPOINTMENT.

Every lawyer should know the difference between 'shall' vrs 'may' or whatever else.

RBG did NOT say that, very obviously, but the 'Deplorable American' people Dimocrats think are too stupid to know the difference, just like they think we are too stupid to know that Trump does not have low regard for the American people.

THE DEMOCRATS DO AND THEY DEMONSTRATE THIS EVERY FOUR YEARS WITH THEIR RIDICULOUS LIES.

Just got this in an e-mail.


Ginsburg’s Words From 2016 Destroy the Democrat Narrative

The fight in 2016 over whether to take up then-President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee caused many to say things they regret. One of them was the late-Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

According to The Daily Wire:

When the GOP-led Senate used its constitutional powers to block the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland in 2016, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg admitted that the president had the power to nominate a candidate for a Supreme Court vacancy any time during his four-year tenure and that the Senate had every right to confirm the nomination or not.
The vacancy Obama chose Garland to fill was created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016; President Barack Obama nominated Garland in mid-March.

Ginsburg gave a speech at Georgetown Law School on Sept. 7, 2016, after which she took questions. A member of the audience asked, “I was wondering if you thought there were any valid constitutional arguments that would prevent President Obama from filling Justice Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court?”

Ginsburg answered, “As you know, the president has the authority to name appointees to the Supreme Court, but he has to do so with the advice and consent of the Senate. And if the Senate does not act, as this current Senate is not acting, what can be done about it? Even if you could conceive of a testing lawsuit, what would the response be? ‘Well, you want us to vote? So we’ll vote no.’ But I do think that cooler heads will prevail; I hope sooner rather than later. The president is elected for four years not three years, so the powers that he has in year three continue into year four and maybe some members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that’s how it should be.”

Video and Twitter in the link

Ginsburg's Words From 2016 Destroy the Democrat Narrative - Trump Train News

Advertisement Send the Next GOP SUPERSTAR John James to the Senate [ACT NOW]The fight in 2016 over whether to take up then-President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee caused many to say things they regret. One of them was the late-Ruth Bader Ginsburg. According to The Daily Wire: When the GOP-led...

trumptrainnews.com

The repubs blocking the appointment was constitutionally allowable, but like so many other things that are technically allowable, it was a shitty thing to do.

 

[Desperado]

Just remember the GOP is not the "Make a Wish" organization