Ginsberg says she will stay till 2020...despite not able to show up.

[Intolerant]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg will stay on Supreme Court until after 2020 election and people are delighted

There is the source.
There needs to be able to be a change where someone who ages passed the point of ability.

According to the article she maintains a healthy life style and exercises on a regular basis.
So much for the validity of the article.

She's probably a drooling vegetable and bed ridden. We will never know her real condition.

 

[rightwinger]

That is why it is so hard to amend the constitution. And why the left now amends it by court fiat. It was designed to remain as it was written unless there was a huge and clear desire for a change that had been well thought out. For the left they know they are completely at odds with the country and New York and Kalifornia alone cant amend the constitution.
For instance the Founders, in their wisdom, did not provide for women voting. The nutty progressives of the early 20th century didnt like that. But give them this....they presented it to the people and changed the Constitution legally. So there you go. No sneaky court rulings (in fact the Supreme Court had already ruled that the Constitution did not provide for female suffrage Minor vs Happersett ). No end runs. Voila a new constitution!

I think this really started changing in the 1970's. The people rejected Equal Rights and defeated an amendment. So the liberals went to court and pretended that we had passed the amendment. And they said "hey this works better than facing the citizens in a vote!".

I think everyone realizes the only way to change or abolish the electoral college is through constitutional amendment. However how each state determines the allocation of its electoral vote is up that individual state. A state could divide it proportionately or winner take all, for example. All fifty states could, theoretically, agree that all their votes go to the winner of the popular vote. Whatever method the state chooses will ultimately be decided by the electorate in that state by whom they choose to put into office. I do not see any changes occurring in the system in the near future. I do not rule out that if we have a series of presidents losing the popular vote by 3 to 4 million but winning the presidency, public opinion may change.

well the rules for voting change from state to state in how it's done and counted. if we do 1 man 1 vote or try to "popularize" it, the problems you run into are not insignificant. you'd be creating a brand new system of complexities and compensations. you simply can't say "popular vote, you won" cause it's nowhere near that simple but so many on the left have not thought it through from stem to stern.

Our country was designed to elect Representatives by popular vote, Senators by state legislatures and the President by appointees of each state. Its called "Federalism". And it was exquisitely designed.
So what do we do when some liberal says "the people never voted for Gorsuch in a popular vote..he is illegitimate"? Do you try and explain that Supreme Court justices..like Presidents..are not subject to popular votes? Or do you just exterminate liberals?

Gorsuch is doubly not legitimate

1 He filled a seat that a previous President was denied the right to fill
2. He was nominated by a President who was not popularly elected

More false statements.

Gorsuch will forever be viewed as filling Garlands seat

 

[rightwinger]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg will stay on Supreme Court until after 2020 election and people are delighted

There is the source.
There needs to be able to be a change where someone who ages passed the point of ability.

According to the article she maintains a healthy life style and exercises on a regular basis.
So much for the validity of the article.

She's probably a drooling vegetable and bed ridden. We will never know her real condition.

Still better than any conservative on the bench

 

[whitehall]

Will democrats pass a law that Justices can serve even though they are dead?

 

[rightwinger]

That is why it is so hard to amend the constitution. And why the left now amends it by court fiat. It was designed to remain as it was written unless there was a huge and clear desire for a change that had been well thought out. For the left they know they are completely at odds with the country and New York and Kalifornia alone cant amend the constitution.
For instance the Founders, in their wisdom, did not provide for women voting. The nutty progressives of the early 20th century didnt like that. But give them this....they presented it to the people and changed the Constitution legally. So there you go. No sneaky court rulings (in fact the Supreme Court had already ruled that the Constitution did not provide for female suffrage Minor vs Happersett ). No end runs. Voila a new constitution!

I think this really started changing in the 1970's. The people rejected Equal Rights and defeated an amendment. So the liberals went to court and pretended that we had passed the amendment. And they said "hey this works better than facing the citizens in a vote!".

I think everyone realizes the only way to change or abolish the electoral college is through constitutional amendment. However how each state determines the allocation of its electoral vote is up that individual state. A state could divide it proportionately or winner take all, for example. All fifty states could, theoretically, agree that all their votes go to the winner of the popular vote. Whatever method the state chooses will ultimately be decided by the electorate in that state by whom they choose to put into office. I do not see any changes occurring in the system in the near future. I do not rule out that if we have a series of presidents losing the popular vote by 3 to 4 million but winning the presidency, public opinion may change.

well the rules for voting change from state to state in how it's done and counted. if we do 1 man 1 vote or try to "popularize" it, the problems you run into are not insignificant. you'd be creating a brand new system of complexities and compensations. you simply can't say "popular vote, you won" cause it's nowhere near that simple but so many on the left have not thought it through from stem to stern.

Our country was designed to elect Representatives by popular vote, Senators by state legislatures and the President by appointees of each state. Its called "Federalism". And it was exquisitely designed.
So what do we do when some liberal says "the people never voted for Gorsuch in a popular vote..he is illegitimate"? Do you try and explain that Supreme Court justices..like Presidents..are not subject to popular votes? Or do you just exterminate liberals?

Gorsuch is doubly not legitimate

1 He filled a seat that a previous President was denied the right to fill
2. He was nominated by a President who was not popularly elected

please show me when popular vote determined a legitimate presidency.

ps - i don't give a shit how you "feelz".

Let’s see

In all of history, only three presidents have not won the popular vote
All Republicans and all horrible presidents

 

[rightwinger]

Will democrats pass a law that Justices can serve even though they are dead?

Will republicans pass a law that if you are recovering from illness you must resign

 

[Intolerant]

Will democrats pass a law that Justices can serve even though they are dead?

They Probably would try something like that. I could see a medium on the supreme court channeling Ruth ginsburg.

 

[iceberg]

I think everyone realizes the only way to change or abolish the electoral college is through constitutional amendment. However how each state determines the allocation of its electoral vote is up that individual state. A state could divide it proportionately or winner take all, for example. All fifty states could, theoretically, agree that all their votes go to the winner of the popular vote. Whatever method the state chooses will ultimately be decided by the electorate in that state by whom they choose to put into office. I do not see any changes occurring in the system in the near future. I do not rule out that if we have a series of presidents losing the popular vote by 3 to 4 million but winning the presidency, public opinion may change.

well the rules for voting change from state to state in how it's done and counted. if we do 1 man 1 vote or try to "popularize" it, the problems you run into are not insignificant. you'd be creating a brand new system of complexities and compensations. you simply can't say "popular vote, you won" cause it's nowhere near that simple but so many on the left have not thought it through from stem to stern.

Our country was designed to elect Representatives by popular vote, Senators by state legislatures and the President by appointees of each state. Its called "Federalism". And it was exquisitely designed.
So what do we do when some liberal says "the people never voted for Gorsuch in a popular vote..he is illegitimate"? Do you try and explain that Supreme Court justices..like Presidents..are not subject to popular votes? Or do you just exterminate liberals?

Gorsuch is doubly not legitimate

1 He filled a seat that a previous President was denied the right to fill
2. He was nominated by a President who was not popularly elected

please show me when popular vote determined a legitimate presidency.

ps - i don't give a shit how you "feelz".

Let’s see

In all of history, only three presidents have not won the popular vote
All Republicans and all horrible presidents

and all according to our laws in place. OF WHICH the only time the left bitches is when it means they didn't get what they wanted.

emotionally, you're 4 years old dude.

 

[ph3iron]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg will stay on Supreme Court until after 2020 election and people are delighted

There is the source.
There needs to be able to be a change where someone who ages passed the point of ability.

Missed one in years?
How about our black guy whose wife is a right wing lobbyist?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

What will Ginsburg in 2021 if Trump is still President?

She will stay around till 2025.

so you think trump will win again.

This question is totally non sequitur to my response.

My response was to a hypothetical.

well she's staying til 2020 so hopefully another president will be elected and will appoint a liberal judge. that's the prayer at this point.

your saying 2025 is merely allowing 4 more years of trump.

so - totally "sequitur" but just having some fun with it. i was hypotheticalaling your hypothetical.

Linear thought is not your forte, is it?

 

[iceberg]

What will Ginsburg in 2021 if Trump is still President?

She will stay around till 2025.

so you think trump will win again.

This question is totally non sequitur to my response.

My response was to a hypothetical.

well she's staying til 2020 so hopefully another president will be elected and will appoint a liberal judge. that's the prayer at this point.

your saying 2025 is merely allowing 4 more years of trump.

so - totally "sequitur" but just having some fun with it. i was hypotheticalaling your hypothetical.

Linear thought is not your forte, is it?

maybe not. but hey, i love chatting with idiots and fools and hearing about their day.

so, how was your day?

 

[DOTR]

That is why it is so hard to amend the constitution. And why the left now amends it by court fiat. It was designed to remain as it was written unless there was a huge and clear desire for a change that had been well thought out. For the left they know they are completely at odds with the country and New York and Kalifornia alone cant amend the constitution.
For instance the Founders, in their wisdom, did not provide for women voting. The nutty progressives of the early 20th century didnt like that. But give them this....they presented it to the people and changed the Constitution legally. So there you go. No sneaky court rulings (in fact the Supreme Court had already ruled that the Constitution did not provide for female suffrage Minor vs Happersett ). No end runs. Voila a new constitution!

I think this really started changing in the 1970's. The people rejected Equal Rights and defeated an amendment. So the liberals went to court and pretended that we had passed the amendment. And they said "hey this works better than facing the citizens in a vote!".

I think everyone realizes the only way to change or abolish the electoral college is through constitutional amendment. However how each state determines the allocation of its electoral vote is up that individual state. A state could divide it proportionately or winner take all, for example. All fifty states could, theoretically, agree that all their votes go to the winner of the popular vote. Whatever method the state chooses will ultimately be decided by the electorate in that state by whom they choose to put into office. I do not see any changes occurring in the system in the near future. I do not rule out that if we have a series of presidents losing the popular vote by 3 to 4 million but winning the presidency, public opinion may change.

well the rules for voting change from state to state in how it's done and counted. if we do 1 man 1 vote or try to "popularize" it, the problems you run into are not insignificant. you'd be creating a brand new system of complexities and compensations. you simply can't say "popular vote, you won" cause it's nowhere near that simple but so many on the left have not thought it through from stem to stern.

Our country was designed to elect Representatives by popular vote, Senators by state legislatures and the President by appointees of each state. Its called "Federalism". And it was exquisitely designed.
So what do we do when some liberal says "the people never voted for Gorsuch in a popular vote..he is illegitimate"? Do you try and explain that Supreme Court justices..like Presidents..are not subject to popular votes? Or do you just exterminate liberals?

Gorsuch is doubly not legitimate

1 He filled a seat that a previous President was denied the right to fill
2. He was nominated by a President who was not popularly elected

please show me when popular vote determined a legitimate presidency.

ps - i don't give a shit how you "feelz".

No president in history was popularly elected. Any such president would not be legitimate.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I think everyone realizes the only way to change or abolish the electoral college is through constitutional amendment. However how each state determines the allocation of its electoral vote is up that individual state. A state could divide it proportionately or winner take all, for example. All fifty states could, theoretically, agree that all their votes go to the winner of the popular vote. Whatever method the state chooses will ultimately be decided by the electorate in that state by whom they choose to put into office. I do not see any changes occurring in the system in the near future. I do not rule out that if we have a series of presidents losing the popular vote by 3 to 4 million but winning the presidency, public opinion may change.

well the rules for voting change from state to state in how it's done and counted. if we do 1 man 1 vote or try to "popularize" it, the problems you run into are not insignificant. you'd be creating a brand new system of complexities and compensations. you simply can't say "popular vote, you won" cause it's nowhere near that simple but so many on the left have not thought it through from stem to stern.

Our country was designed to elect Representatives by popular vote, Senators by state legislatures and the President by appointees of each state. Its called "Federalism". And it was exquisitely designed.
So what do we do when some liberal says "the people never voted for Gorsuch in a popular vote..he is illegitimate"? Do you try and explain that Supreme Court justices..like Presidents..are not subject to popular votes? Or do you just exterminate liberals?

Gorsuch is doubly not legitimate

1 He filled a seat that a previous President was denied the right to fill
2. He was nominated by a President who was not popularly elected

More false statements.

Gorsuch will forever be viewed as filling Garlands seat

In lib fantasyland.

 

[hadit]

57% of voters will not be voting for Trump in 2020.

Sorry but we’ll be building a wall. Those voters are never going to show up.

The wall isn't going to happen

Trump is getting ready to be indicted

Congress regulates the court

If necessary more Justices will be appointed to end conservative rule

This issue is a loser for right tard America

If Trump leaves, President Pence appoints Buzzy's replacement. That's how it works. Think he would pick a raging liberal when he has a chance to put an actual Constitution respecting justice on the bench?

If Buzzy leaves for any reason before 2020, a Republican picks her replacement. That's why the democrats panic every time she sneezes.

They will do full retard if Trump gets to replace her.

I would guess Pence's pick would be much worse than Trump's Pence is a true hardcore right wing fundamentalist. Trump just plays one to get votes.

Then you'd better hope nothing shortens Trump's time in office.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Will republicans pass a law that if you are recovering from illness you must resign

Note: I am not a republican.

If she is recovering from an illness, I do not support any action to force her resignation.

BUT, if there is legitimate concern that people are hiding her death for the sole purpose of holding open a SCOTUS seat, it is not unreasonable to ask for proof that she is still alive. And, because proving that a person in hiding is alive is much easier than proving someone who is in hiding is actually dead, the burden of such proof should be on RBG to prove she is living.

If it goes on long enough without proof, the president should assume she is dead and appoint a new justice, with that appointment being rescinded if and when RBG reappears.

That should apply in all situations.

That's all I am saying.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Then you'd better hope nothing shortens Trump's time in office.

It's comical how some people live in a perpetual state of short-sightedness. Some people want to impeach and remove so bad that their hatred keeps them from thinking about the consequences of their actions.

It's pure childishness.

.

 

[hadit]

Then you'd better hope nothing shortens Trump's time in office.

It's comical how some people live in a perpetual state of short-sightedness. Some people want to impeach and remove so bad that their hatred keeps them from thinking about the consequences of their actions.

It's pure childishness.

.

Some thought of Joe Biden as Obama's life insurance.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

BUT, if there is legitimate concern that people are hiding her death for the sole purpose of holding open a SCOTUS seat, it is not unreasonable to ask for proof that she is still alive.

You know, vital records are public. If someone wants to claim she is dead, then they should pony up a death certificate.

 

[Silhouette]

You know, vital records are public. If someone wants to claim she is dead, then they should pony up a death certificate.

They don’t have to go that far. There are rules regarding judicial fitness to sit at a bench. From the 9th circuit federal court. Rule 3(e) Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

They don’t have to go that far. There are rules regarding judicial fitness to sit at a bench. From the 9th circuit federal court. Rule 3(e) Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings

Rules?

RULES?

do you know who were talking about here?