Ginsburg will sit out of court arguments

[nortatoga]

He was just as wrong as rbg to stay on when he was not up to the job.

Maybe but it is a lifetime appointment. And there is the precedent. Don't get me wrong I want to see Trump get another appointment to the Court, As I am unsure of Roberts as of late.

 

[Blimey]

He was just as wrong as rbg to stay on when he was not up to the job.

He was. Before any of this happened I don't think RBG should have been on the court due to age and slowing mental faculties.

Not to say I blame her. If there were a republican-appointed justice doing the same thing I suspect we'd cheer him or her for it in hope that the current dem president wouldn't be reelected, and the justice could stay in their seat until a repubilcan could appoint a replacement.

This is because the court is thoroughly, probably irreparably partisan now.

 

[Blimey]

There is a SCOTUS schedule online including oral arguments for January 9 (today). I see no mention as to whether ginsburg showed up or did not show up. Arguments start at 10:00 AM.

 

[Truebeliever]

Oh. Boy. I don't want to get into this again. Read the founder's quotes themselves like I told you a hundred times already if you want to know their intent. There are available for everyone including Supreme Court justices.

I understand you feel that they are wrong, but throwing the word corrupt is the problem. They don’t believe what you believe doesn’t make them corrupt. Just wrong.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I understand you feel that they are wrong, but throwing the word corrupt is the problem. They don’t believe what you believe doesn’t make them corrupt. Just wrong.

Corrupt because they willingly skew the Constitution for their purposes. It's not what they believe it says. It's what they want it to say. They know what it says.

 

[pjzwtl]

Supreme Court gives no indication when Ruth Bader Ginsburg might return


Supreme Court gives no indication when Ruth Bader Ginsburg might return

 

[Steal2B]

And the beat goes on.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will miss a third day of oral arguments Wednesday.

Would it be in bad taste to keep counting the days on something like an Advent calendar or maybe a Days Without a Lost Time Accident board? Like the rest of working America, after 48 hours will she need a doctors note to prove she is not just slacking off or is capable to return to work?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Misses Third Day of SCOTUS Arguments

 

[Robin]

I don't think she should have been approved for a seat on the Supremes in the first place with her views of our Constitution. When she made her anti-American Constitution speech in South Africa she should have been impeached and removed.
I wish she would announce her retirement this week, but I have no realistic hope that that will ever happen.
Robin

 

[Blimey]

Chief Justice John Roberts announced from the bench that Ginsburg is continuing to participate from home.

Color me skeptical. I suspect she is napping a lot, probably extremely exhausted and on pain medication. Listening to people yap on a phone is likely low on her list of interests.

Top cancer doctors expect Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg back on the bench by February

He said the best way to project a typical recovery period is to take the number of days the patient spent in the hospital and multiply by about eight to 10.

Ginsburg spent four days recovering at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, the Supreme Court has said. Given her four-day hospital stay, Murthy’s arithmetic puts the upper end of her recovery at the end of January.

Sounds like wild-ass guessing to me.

In addition to recovering from the loss of much of her left lung, she will also have to bounce back from being bedridden for days.

 

[livingston]

Maybe but it is a lifetime appointment. And there is the precedent. Don't get me wrong I want to see Trump get another appointment to the Court, As I am unsure of Roberts as of late.

When you see what the FBI and CIA did to trump do you think the swamp has a file on every member of SCOTUS.. ?
Roberts caved on the Obama care is or is not a tax deal... Someone had the goods on him ...

 

[Truebeliever]

It doesn't need to be interpreted. It's written in plain English. It goes like this.

New York passes a law saying that you can't put up a Christmas tree in plain view on your property. It later passes a law that you can't wear religious artifacts in schools.

It goes to the Supreme Court and they find it Unconstitutional based on what is written in the 1st Amendment. They read the law, read the Amendment that they should have memorized and either find the law Constitutional or not.

The Constitution is written in plain English. We all know it is.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" means exactly that.

The practice of Supreme Court Justices playing with words or commas to get their desired result isn't what is supposed to happen.

The only Amendment they do this to is the Second.

Now, go back and read your post above and your example.

CONGRESS shall not... Your example of New York makes a law by your strict interpretation would not be stopped from doing so.

The incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states comes from what? The 14th admendment? But where does it say that

“Privileges and immunities” part? So the 2nd admendment is a privilege?

The immunities might be it but remember this was not recognized until McDonald . And it was this clause that applied it to the states in McDonald.

But where does it say a local government can’t pay for a Muslim place of worship . It’s it a privilege? Is it an immunity? Again it says “Congress shall not “. It didn’t say local government could not, but the court interpretation established it

What about attorney client privilege or marriage privilege of privacy. Nothing in the constitution about that other than “right to council”

Or parents allowed to make decisions for their children. It’s not in the constitution so if you “ground” your 10 year old for a night, is it unlawful imprisonment. Or the government takes your children away without due process, are they property?


Again, if someone disagrees with you, it doesn’t mean they are corrupt. They can just be honestly wrong.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Now, go back and read your post above and your example.

CONGRESS shall not... Your example of New York makes a law by your strict interpretation would not be stopped from doing so.

The incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states comes from what? The 14th admendment? But where does it say that

“Privileges and immunities” part? So the 2nd admendment is a privilege?

The immunities might be it but remember this was not recognized until McDonald . And it was this clause that applied it to the states in McDonald.

But where does it say a local government can’t pay for a Muslim place of worship . It’s it a privilege? Is it an immunity? Again it says “Congress shall not “. It didn’t say local government could not, but the court interpretation established it

What about attorney client privilege or marriage privilege of privacy. Nothing in the constitution about that other than “right to council”

Or parents allowed to make decisions for their children. It’s not in the constitution so if you “ground” your 10 year old for a night, is it unlawful imprisonment. Or the government takes your children away without due process, are they property?


Again, if someone disagrees with you, it doesn’t mean they are corrupt. They can just be honestly wrong.

I guess you aren't aware of the 14th Amendment born in July 28, 1868.

And if you really think that the Founders intended only for the federal government to have limitations but it okay for state governments to limit free speech, arms and all that, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Truebeliever]

I guess you aren't aware of the 14th Amendment born in July 28, 1868.

And if you really think that the Founders intended only for the federal government to have limitations but it okay for state governments to limit free speech, arms and all that, then I don't know what to tell you.

Again, go look at what was written. “Congress shall not”. It did only apply to the federal government and each state had its own constitution.

And yes, it did mean states could do things that violated the federal standard until Mapp v Ohio.( 1961).

Search and seizure was different for states than the federal government up until then.

And this included cases when the founders were still alive and in power.

You don’t know as such as you think you do about this subject

 

[Marine Cpl]

So you think that the founders wanted limited free speech and arms by the states? Is that what you're telling me?

Read Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution. I believe it is you that do not know much about the subject.

 

[Truebeliever]

So you think that the founders wanted limited free speech and arms by the states? Is that what you're telling me?

Read Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution. I believe it is you that do not know much about the subject.

I am telling you that the bill of rights was a limit on the federal government and not the states until much later. And yes, in their mind, states had much more power than they do now. If you asked a founding father were they were from, they would say the “state” they were from rather than the United States. And each state made its own constitution to illustrate those rights. Most mirrored the US bill of rights.But the right of free speech if arrested under a state law would be covered by the state constitution until the incorporation by the 14th.

And there were cases during the founders lifetime and while they were in political power on this point.

You don’t know as much as you think on this subject. They did not think of the United States as one country but rather their individual state as their country. It is similar to how the European Union is today.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I am telling you that the bill of rights was a limit on the federal government and not the states until much later. And yes, in their mind, states had much more power than they do now. If you asked a founding father were they were from, they would say the “state” they were from rather than the United States. And each state made its own constitution to illustrate those rights. Most mirrored the US bill of rights.But the right of free speech if arrested under a state law would be covered by the state constitution until the incorporation by the 14th.

And there were cases during the founders lifetime and while they were in political power on this point.

You don’t know as much as you think on this subject. They did not think of the United States as one country but rather their individual state as their country. It is similar to how the European Union is today.

No wonder you defend those judges. Your methods of ignoring things are the same ones that they use to further their own arguments.

I guess you refuse to read article 6 of the United States Constitution that says that the states have to abide by it so that you can continue pushing this point.

And to further the point that states have to abide by the US Constitution, the 14th Amendment was passed legally as required when adding or changing a constitutional amendment.

 

[Shadow2]

The bird is reaching dementia age ..

 

[CaseHardened]

I see your point. But then again, if you can't do your job....

Where I work, if I'm out of work for too long or have a certain type of illness, they let me go. If I fracture something that takes more than a year to heal, I'm out.

She clearly can't do her job because of age and illness. She can't even stay awake for more than an hour at a State of the Union Address. How can she possibly be able to read cases?

Her interns are ruling in her stead.

SHE CAN'T STAY AWAKE AT ANY SOTU BECAUSE SHE IS CONSTANTLY DRUNK !!!

By her own admission.

 

[CaseHardened]

The bird is reaching dementia age ..

That ship sailed a long time ago.

 

[CaseHardened]

THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO READ ON THE HEADLINE - SOON

RGB DIES

6 BILLION WALL PASSES

 

[CaseHardened]

"Ginsburg is not reporting to work in support of the TSA "sick out" to protest the goverment shutdown. "

Oh Yeah, that's it.

You missed your calling.

If only you were a foreigner and not white.

 

[Truebeliever]

No wonder you defend those judges. Your methods of ignoring things are the same ones that they use to further their own arguments.

I guess you refuse to read article 6 of the United States Constitution that says that the states have to abide by it so that you can continue pushing this point.

And to further the point that states have to abide by the US Constitution, the 14th Amendment was passed legally as required when adding or changing a constitutional amendment.

Please go read the article 6 then the first admendment again. There is a reason it said “congress shall make no law” as opposed to “there will be no law”. The anti gun people hold their hat on the “well regulated militia “ part. Some of actually believe that it means states can make firearms laws. They do believe that it is what that means. Wrong doesn’t mean corrupt.

There is a reason Scilica could show them that it is an individual right. He explained what a militia meant at that time, and the syntax of the phasing of the words. They still believe it means the state can regulate it.

The second admendment was not pressed upon the states until McDonald. The bill of rights was seen even by the founders as a limit on the federal government only. Go learn when the 4th admendment applied to state prosecutions. Are you going to tell me that no one was prosecuted in a state court until 1961 where they claim the police did not get a search warrant? Or no one was prosecuted in state court when George a Washington was President?

Go read about why Mapp v Ohio was groundbreaking then get back to us.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I'm tired of those that play with words.

 

[Marine Cpl]

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

[Truebeliever]

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Again, you really need to learn more.

One, an admendment would override something in the original articles in most cases. Go read the 10th.

They tried to sneak in gun control by a U.N. Treaty remember?

The court would mostly likely rule in our favor as a result.

Two, the federal government would be the surpreme law in the areas it was limited to. But the constitution limited those areas of where the feds could interfere with.

That’s why the feds use the interstate commerce clause to make laws that effect states such as the school gun free laws. It has to be a gun that it or in its construction components crosses state lines .

You need to learn more otherwise if you read the orginal texts, you might believe some one is still counted as 3/5s a person.

Again, originally ,the bill of rights applied to the federal government and did not limit state and local governments.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I give up man. Okay. George Washington was okay with the state infringing on the right to keep and bear arms to dispose of a government as long as the federal government didn't do it.

You win.

 

[nortatoga]

@Truebeliever great posts!!!

 

[Blimey]

Evidently she's going to be out until they kick off the February session. If she fails to make that, then we're definitely going to see an awful lot of talk about it in the media. I can't really see her voluntarily retiring, ever, as long as Trump can name a replacement. It's somewhat plausible however that Trump could actually meet with her and give her a specific list of nominees he's considering, which would be middle of the line, then she'd retire and confirmation could go through. I don't think I've read this as a scenario anywhere else.

 

[Robin]

She has said many times in the past that she will retire when she can no longer do the job at full steam. But when faced with that reality she will probably ignore her own statement of conviction, typical liberal, progressive, commie.
Robin

 

[Steal2B]

Tick Tock