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

[rightwinger]

If you can't attend SCOTUS you should be forced to resign.

The same SCOTUS that Republicans kept at eight judges for a year?
Now, you want to kick someone off for missing two weeks

 

[kyzr]

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.

She embodies why we need to pop the hood open on the Constitution and tinker with it.

20 year term? I don't think we can get away with age discrimination by putting an age limit on the term.

i don't think we should.

the new rage is to jack with the constitution and tweak it to how we "feel" and this is the worst state of mind to be in when making said changes. both sides would do it for THEIR side, not the collective whole that it was written for.

ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!
why? cause they think it will make their side win more often and more easily. however doing so negates the voice of many americans, both right and left minded but hey - the vocal juvenile leadership must have *their* way and the other side just needs to learn to deal with it. at least that how it comes across to me.

as for popping the hood of what has gotten us 243 years and "tinkering" - we're not collectively smart enough to do that right now as again, people who want to do this want to do it for selfish reasons, not collective.

The Electoral College negates the voice of Americans who clearly wanted Al Gore and Hillary to be President

You mean the Constitution.

 

[kyzr]

If you can't attend SCOTUS you should be forced to resign.

The same SCOTUS that Republicans kept at eight judges for a year?
Now, you want to kick someone off for missing two weeks

Yep. That's how the game is played....

 

[Votto]

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.

She could die tomorrow but there would be no need for her to show up.

Just ask yourself, how would Karl Marx rule and that is how she would vote.

 

[Lesh]

Yep. That's how the game is played....

So you admit that this is just a game..

Ok.

You can be safely ignored

 

[iceberg]

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.

She embodies why we need to pop the hood open on the Constitution and tinker with it.

20 year term? I don't think we can get away with age discrimination by putting an age limit on the term.

i don't think we should.

the new rage is to jack with the constitution and tweak it to how we "feel" and this is the worst state of mind to be in when making said changes. both sides would do it for THEIR side, not the collective whole that it was written for.

ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!
why? cause they think it will make their side win more often and more easily. however doing so negates the voice of many americans, both right and left minded but hey - the vocal juvenile leadership must have *their* way and the other side just needs to learn to deal with it. at least that how it comes across to me.

as for popping the hood of what has gotten us 243 years and "tinkering" - we're not collectively smart enough to do that right now as again, people who want to do this want to do it for selfish reasons, not collective.

The Electoral College negates the voice of Americans who clearly wanted Al Gore and Hillary to be President

it negates mob rules.

pros and cons were heavily discussed when writing the constitution. not like your pre-filled out que cards are going to say something on this topic our founding fathers didn't already cover. so when you show you can comprehend WHY they made it this way, then you'd be qualified to discuss potential changes.

going WAH WE DIDN'T WIN isn't a valid reason to change the system.

 

[iceberg]

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.

She embodies why we need to pop the hood open on the Constitution and tinker with it.

20 year term? I don't think we can get away with age discrimination by putting an age limit on the term.

i don't think we should.

the new rage is to jack with the constitution and tweak it to how we "feel" and this is the worst state of mind to be in when making said changes. both sides would do it for THEIR side, not the collective whole that it was written for.

ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!
why? cause they think it will make their side win more often and more easily. however doing so negates the voice of many americans, both right and left minded but hey - the vocal juvenile leadership must have *their* way and the other side just needs to learn to deal with it. at least that how it comes across to me.

as for popping the hood of what has gotten us 243 years and "tinkering" - we're not collectively smart enough to do that right now as again, people who want to do this want to do it for selfish reasons, not collective.

I don't really agree with defining term or age limits for the SC justices. It seems to have worked well over the years, for the most part. Nothing is perfect. But the only rush for change now is because some people want to stack the court with "their side" even though the justices do their level best to focus on the law, not the politics.

100% agree. this isn't about getting how *I* feel through but working to understand *we* are a collective and are far better off when we act as such. we're always going to disagree on things and that's a given.

we just used to be so much better at doing it.

 

[Rustic]

What will Ginsburg in 2021 if Trump is still President?

She will stay around till 2025.

 

[hadit]

Again. Scalia was actually DEAD for a year before anyone was even voted on to fill his seat.

Save your bullshit

Moot point. If Buzzy dies any time before the 2020 election, Trump picks her replacement. That's politics.

I know full well the left will be in complete shriek and meltdown mode and that they will accuse whoever is nominated of every crime they can imagine, including improper relations with office furniture and wearing white after Labor Day, but he'll get to replace her.

 

[candycorn]

If you can't attend SCOTUS you should be forced to resign.

If you have a chronic condition that forces absence, yes. If you fall down a flight of stairs and injure yourself or 6 weeks but are otherwise healthy? No.

 

[candycorn]

20 year term? I don't think we can get away with age discrimination by putting an age limit on the term.

i don't think we should.

the new rage is to jack with the constitution and tweak it to how we "feel" and this is the worst state of mind to be in when making said changes. both sides would do it for THEIR side, not the collective whole that it was written for.

ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!
why? cause they think it will make their side win more often and more easily. however doing so negates the voice of many americans, both right and left minded but hey - the vocal juvenile leadership must have *their* way and the other side just needs to learn to deal with it. at least that how it comes across to me.

as for popping the hood of what has gotten us 243 years and "tinkering" - we're not collectively smart enough to do that right now as again, people who want to do this want to do it for selfish reasons, not collective.

I don't really agree with defining term or age limits for the SC justices. It seems to have worked well over the years, for the most part. Nothing is perfect. But the only rush for change now is because some people want to stack the court with "their side" even though the justices do their level best to focus on the law, not the politics.

It doesn’t.

Putting an 18 year term limit limits you to 18 years. You get on when you’re 50, you stay until you’re 68. You get on when you’re 68, you stay until you’re 76. You get on when you’re 76, you can stay until you’re 94. No age limit. Just a prevention of remaining on the bench while you’re no longer able to eat solid food so to speak.

Not a bad idea

Yeah as long as we get somebody that knows how to do addition to put it together, otherwise all the 68 year olds are going to sue for discrimination.

Putting an 18 year term limit limits you to 18 years. You get on when you’re 50, you stay until you’re 68. You get on when you’re 68, you stay until you’re 76.

oops

 

[DOTR]

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.

She embodies why we need to pop the hood open on the Constitution and tinker with it.

20 year term? I don't think we can get away with age discrimination by putting an age limit on the term.

i don't think we should.

the new rage is to jack with the constitution and tweak it to how we "feel" and this is the worst state of mind to be in when making said changes. both sides would do it for THEIR side, not the collective whole that it was written for.

ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!
why? cause they think it will make their side win more often and more easily. however doing so negates the voice of many americans, both right and left minded but hey - the vocal juvenile leadership must have *their* way and the other side just needs to learn to deal with it. at least that how it comes across to me.

as for popping the hood of what has gotten us 243 years and "tinkering" - we're not collectively smart enough to do that right now as again, people who want to do this want to do it for selfish reasons, not collective.

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! And it isnt tearing us apart decades later like impositions such as Rove V Wade.

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!".

 

[hadit]

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.

She embodies why we need to pop the hood open on the Constitution and tinker with it.

20 year term? I don't think we can get away with age discrimination by putting an age limit on the term.

i don't think we should.

the new rage is to jack with the constitution and tweak it to how we "feel" and this is the worst state of mind to be in when making said changes. both sides would do it for THEIR side, not the collective whole that it was written for.

ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!
why? cause they think it will make their side win more often and more easily. however doing so negates the voice of many americans, both right and left minded but hey - the vocal juvenile leadership must have *their* way and the other side just needs to learn to deal with it. at least that how it comes across to me.

as for popping the hood of what has gotten us 243 years and "tinkering" - we're not collectively smart enough to do that right now as again, people who want to do this want to do it for selfish reasons, not collective.

The Electoral College negates the voice of Americans who clearly wanted Al Gore and Hillary to be President

Cleetus McSneetus stood right there and yelled at his TV. "I wanted that there Bore fellow that sounds like Forrest Gump to win. Why isn't my will bring honored, just because I didn't actually go down and vote?"

Like it or not, all the candidates know the rules before they start their campaigns and they craft their campaigns accordingly.

 

[dannyboys]

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.

People miss periods of work all the time. A co-worker had breast cancer and missed more than a month of work during recovery.

You people act like this is something that never happens.

Was your 'co-worker' in their mid eighties?????????? HAAAAAA HAAAAAA!
You make it too easy asshole!
I give Ruth about four months.
I bet the DEMs are PISSED OFF the old ***** didn't resign when BONOBO was President.

 

[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.

She embodies why we need to pop the hood open on the Constitution and tinker with it.

20 year term? I don't think we can get away with age discrimination by putting an age limit on the term.

i don't think we should.

the new rage is to jack with the constitution and tweak it to how we "feel" and this is the worst state of mind to be in when making said changes. both sides would do it for THEIR side, not the collective whole that it was written for.

ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!
why? cause they think it will make their side win more often and more easily. however doing so negates the voice of many americans, both right and left minded but hey - the vocal juvenile leadership must have *their* way and the other side just needs to learn to deal with it. at least that how it comes across to me.

as for popping the hood of what has gotten us 243 years and "tinkering" - we're not collectively smart enough to do that right now as again, people who want to do this want to do it for selfish reasons, not collective.

The Electoral College negates the voice of Americans who clearly wanted Al Gore and Hillary to be President

it negates mob rules.

pros and cons were heavily discussed when writing the constitution. not like your pre-filled out que cards are going to say something on this topic our founding fathers didn't already cover. so when you show you can comprehend WHY they made it this way, then you'd be qualified to discuss potential changes.

going WAH WE DIDN'T WIN isn't a valid reason to change the system.

It negates one man, one vote
Some votes count more than others and it encourages minority rule

 

[candycorn]

If you can't attend SCOTUS you should be forced to resign.

The same SCOTUS that Republicans kept at eight judges for a year?
Now, you want to kick someone off for missing two weeks

Different thing all together.

 

[mamooth]

There's a reason the Trump wimps hate Ginsberg. She's been kicking their Stalinist butts for years. If it wasn't for her, they might have been able to destroy Democracy in the USA and implement their Stalinist utopia.

The funny thing is that they think it isn't obvious. Raging butthurt is almost always what motivates Trumpflakes on every issue.

 

[rightwinger]

If you can't attend SCOTUS you should be forced to resign.

The same SCOTUS that Republicans kept at eight judges for a year?
Now, you want to kick someone off for missing two weeks

Different thing all together.

How so?

 

[candycorn]

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.

She embodies why we need to pop the hood open on the Constitution and tinker with it.

20 year term? I don't think we can get away with age discrimination by putting an age limit on the term.

i don't think we should.

the new rage is to jack with the constitution and tweak it to how we "feel" and this is the worst state of mind to be in when making said changes. both sides would do it for THEIR side, not the collective whole that it was written for.

ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!
why? cause they think it will make their side win more often and more easily. however doing so negates the voice of many americans, both right and left minded but hey - the vocal juvenile leadership must have *their* way and the other side just needs to learn to deal with it. at least that how it comes across to me.

as for popping the hood of what has gotten us 243 years and "tinkering" - we're not collectively smart enough to do that right now as again, people who want to do this want to do it for selfish reasons, not collective.

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’d like to see an organized movement to put this up for an amendment. I think it should have broad based support. Today it’s Ginsberg but soon it will be Thomas, Alito, etc…

 

[candycorn]

If you can't attend SCOTUS you should be forced to resign.

The same SCOTUS that Republicans kept at eight judges for a year?
Now, you want to kick someone off for missing two weeks

Different thing all together.

How so?

Setting aside motives of the OP; you’re talking about political maneuvering.

I’m talking about coming to terms that the 230+ y/o business model doesn’t always serve us well. This is one of the areas where it doesn’t.