"Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg hospitalized after fall in her office"

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is in the hospital after falling in her office Wednesday night, the court announced in a statement on Thursday.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 928409002/

Could have been worse. Hope she gets well soon.
But what would have been the consequence had she not survived the ordeal? An ultra-conservative SCOTUS?

Well I don't see the current Senate leadership rushing to invoke the Scalia principle of "Replace Her with an Ideological Equal."

I'm just eager to see what happens if in 2020 she (or Breyer) passes away...will the Senate keep the seat open because it's up to the people to choose the president who will fill the seat, thereby invoking the so called "Biden Rule"?

My money is on "not a chance".

She should have retired 4 years ago instead of being selfish and just thinking about herself

Dieuwer wrote:

But what would have been the consequence had she not survived the ordeal? An ultra-conservative SCOTUS?

Kegger at Kavanaugh's!

dmg626 wrote:

She should have retired 4 years ago instead of being selfish and just thinking about herself

Why is she being selfish? It's a lifetime appointment. And she's got a fully functioning mind, possibly the greatest mind currently on SCOTUS.

So why is she being selfish?

Dieuwer wrote:

Could have been worse. Hope she gets well soon.
But what would have been the consequence had she not survived the ordeal? An ultra-conservative SCOTUS?

In order of priority for the new GOP and SCOTUS majority:

1. Return to slavery
2. Making abortion illegal, especially in cases of underaged rape by white men (and a congressional citation of honor if the victim is not white)
3. Erasing the militia clause in the 2nd Amendment and legalizing full auto machine guns open carry and no permit required
4. Revoking healthcare for anyone that doesn't earn $250K per year or is a registered Democrat

I guarantee at least 10 regular forum members just read that list and probably jerked themselves into unconsciousness.

I find this to be fairly pre-mature. Her health is not ailing. She took a spill and broke some ribs, which is not an uncommon occurrence for folks her age. In fact, she had a similar problem in 2012. Broke 2 ribs then and recovered just fine. Sure it's 6 years later and there can always be complications with injuries like this leading to infection etc. But she will be just fine.

Asking "what would have happened if she didn't survive the ordeal" is a bit sensationalist.

Edit to add: I think it's kind of gross that people only hope she lives long enough to outlast a Trump presidency. It's never enough to just bless her with good health. It always seems to be paired with, until we can get someone else in to replace her. (though not directly stated as such, simply implied)

https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation- ... 43550.html

Also apparently #ribsforruth is a thing

Last edit: My guess is she just wanted to avoid the kegger that night for Kavanaugh's party.

mbmbos wrote:

dmg626 wrote:

She should have retired 4 years ago instead of being selfish and just thinking about herself

Why is she being selfish? It's a lifetime appointment. And she's got a fully functioning mind, possibly the greatest mind currently on SCOTUS.

So why is she being selfish?

Contrary to politely speaking about the aged, once people get in that age bracket they are not sharp anymore, thank u for your service now move on and let someone who’s more with it handle the job. She could have had Obama appoint a liberal replacement a few years ago but wants her legacy to be one of dying on the bench, purely selfish. I’m sure she’s surrounded by the some sharp aides that help her on a daily basis get the job done.

trpmb6 wrote:

I find this to be fairly pre-mature. Her health is not ailing. She took a spill and broke some ribs, which is not an uncommon occurrence for folks her age. In fact, she had a similar problem in 2012. Broke 2 ribs then and recovered just fine. Sure it's 6 years later and there can always be complications with injuries like this leading to infection etc. But she will be just fine.

Asking "what would have happened if she didn't survive the ordeal" is a bit sensationalist.

Edit to add: I think it's kind of gross that people only hope she lives long enough to outlast a Trump presidency. It's never enough to just bless her with good health. It always seems to be paired with, until we can get someone else in to replace her. (though not directly stated as such, simply implied)

https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation- ... 43550.html

Also apparently #ribsforruth is a thing

Last edit: My guess is she just wanted to avoid the kegger that night for Kavanaugh's party.

I agree with this. Its much ado about nothing, but its getting media attention because of her age, and what would happen if she were no longer able to do her job.

That being said I saw a very disgusting meme about this on my FB feed today. The meme was Donald Trump dressed as the Grim reaper standing behind RBG. Totally gross and uncalled for, and this guy is one of New York's finest as well.

apodino wrote:

That being said I saw a very disgusting meme about this on my FB feed today. The meme was Donald Trump dressed as the Grim reaper standing behind RBG. Totally gross and uncalled for, and this guy is one of New York's finest as well.

Agreed, no place for that imo.

I have a lot of respect for RBG. While I disagree with many of her rulings, she is a great legal scholar and produces very compelling arguments in her opinions.

dmg626 wrote:

mbmbos wrote:

dmg626 wrote:

She should have retired 4 years ago instead of being selfish and just thinking about herself

Why is she being selfish? It's a lifetime appointment. And she's got a fully functioning mind, possibly the greatest mind currently on SCOTUS.

So why is she being selfish?

Contrary to politely speaking about the aged, once people get in that age bracket they are not sharp anymore, thank u for your service now move on and let someone who’s more with it handle the job. She could have had Obama appoint a liberal replacement a few years ago but wants her legacy to be one of dying on the bench, purely selfish. I’m sure she’s surrounded by the some sharp aides that help her on a daily basis get the job done.

"...once people get in that age bracket they are not sharp anymore..."

That's a generalization, not an argument. And it's one that is untrue. It is clear from her public speaking engagements her mind is sharp as a tack.

Your critical thinking skills on the other hand leave much to be desired.

You know it’s bad when she falls and the first thing everyone on the left thinks is “ I hope she can hold on”.

dmg626 wrote:

She should have retired 4 years ago instead of being selfish and just thinking about herself

She was encouraged to do so as well and now she will probably hand Trump another victory.

mbmbos wrote:

dmg626 wrote:

mbmbos wrote:

Why is she being selfish? It's a lifetime appointment. And she's got a fully functioning mind, possibly the greatest mind currently on SCOTUS.

So why is she being selfish?

Contrary to politely speaking about the aged, once people get in that age bracket they are not sharp anymore, thank u for your service now move on and let someone who’s more with it handle the job. She could have had Obama appoint a liberal replacement a few years ago but wants her legacy to be one of dying on the bench, purely selfish. I’m sure she’s surrounded by the some sharp aides that help her on a daily basis get the job done.

"...once people get in that age bracket they are not sharp anymore..."

That's a generalization, not an argument. And it's one that is untrue. It is clear from her public speaking engagements her mind is sharp as a tack.

Your critical thinking skills on the other hand leave much to be desired.

Whatever makes you feel better about your RBG fantasy world. She can get some really good naps in now while she’s recovering

trpmb6 wrote:

I find this to be fairly pre-mature. Her health is not ailing. She took a spill and broke some ribs, which is not an uncommon occurrence for folks her age. In fact, she had a similar problem in 2012. Broke 2 ribs then and recovered just fine. Sure it's 6 years later and there can always be complications with injuries like this leading to infection etc. But she will be just fine.

Asking "what would have happened if she didn't survive the ordeal" is a bit sensationalist.

Edit to add: I think it's kind of gross that people only hope she lives long enough to outlast a Trump presidency. It's never enough to just bless her with good health. It always seems to be paired with, until we can get someone else in to replace her. (though not directly stated as such, simply implied)

https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation- ... 43550.html

Also apparently #ribsforruth is a thing

Last edit: My guess is she just wanted to avoid the kegger that night for Kavanaugh's party.

I don't agree. When you are 85, your good health - if you have it - is fragile. One bad episode can upset your good health and it is gone forever. Your ability to heal and recover is weak. My high school buddy is a vascular surgeon. His job is really tough because they are often working on 85-90 year old people. Mechanical failure happens to us all.

Any hospital stay or surgery is a strong risk of death. It is normal to consider if a person 85 or over may die. At 90 or over, we ought to consider this with full acceptance of anything that may come at any time.

QEII and Prince Philip are exceptional in that they had fair to good health well into their nineties. A person cannot reasonably "expect" this. For RBG to have important things riding on her survival is ludicrous. It shows that she doesn't care. Which is fine - her right.

Are there any reports of any health problems that caused the fall? (Sorry, I'm not great at medical stuff lol.)

I only ask because it seems much ado about nothing, but if some underlying health problem lead to the fall, then that changes everything.

She is pretty healthy at 85..... But she's 85...

dmg626 wrote:

mbmbos wrote:

dmg626 wrote:

Contrary to politely speaking about the aged, once people get in that age bracket they are not sharp anymore, thank u for your service now move on and let someone who’s more with it handle the job. She could have had Obama appoint a liberal replacement a few years ago but wants her legacy to be one of dying on the bench, purely selfish. I’m sure she’s surrounded by the some sharp aides that help her on a daily basis get the job done.

"...once people get in that age bracket they are not sharp anymore..."

That's a generalization, not an argument. And it's one that is untrue. It is clear from her public speaking engagements her mind is sharp as a tack.

Your critical thinking skills on the other hand leave much to be desired.

Whatever makes you feel better about your RBG fantasy world. She can get some really good naps in now while she’s recovering

In other words, there is absolutely no substance to your thoughts. You're just trolling. And being hateful.

Flighty wrote:

I don't agree. When you are 85, your good health - if you have it - is fragile. One bad episode can upset your good health and it is gone forever. Your ability to heal and recover is weak. My high school buddy is a vascular surgeon. His job is really tough because they are often working on 85-90 year old people. Mechanical failure happens to us all.

Any hospital stay or surgery is a strong risk of death. It is normal to consider if a person 85 or over may die. At 90 or over, we ought to consider this with full acceptance of anything that may come at any time.

Unfortunately it is true. My grandmother was super-independent and living by herself into her early 90s. And then one fall in the shower, some cracked ribs and everything went downhill from there, fast.

wingman wrote:

Well, good thing everyone is acting rationally and not exaggerating. I for one clearly remember the "return to slavery" part in the Republican platform these midterms... In fact, I heard Kavanaugh has some Philippine orphans trapped in his basement already, he is just waiting for RBG to kick the bucket so he can finally open his sweatshop.

Pyrex wrote:

wingman wrote:

Well, good thing everyone is acting rationally and not exaggerating. I for one clearly remember the "return to slavery" part in the Republican platform these midterms... In fact, I heard Kavanaugh has some Philippine orphans trapped in his basement already, he is just waiting for RBG to kick the bucket so he can finally open his sweatshop.

I guess it took awhile to stir yourself out of unconsciousness. I should apologize. I did exaggerate there but looking at your base I'm not all that far off the mark. Go listen to the robocalls made in your party's name, support for Judge Moore, where you stand on back shooting when the blacks start running..you guys are getting there. Or should say getting back (to the gool ol days).

So, I'm just trying to figure this all out.

So Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85 and apparently that means she's unfit and unhealthy to continue serving as a Supreme Court Justice.

Meanwhile, she gets up every day and does a full exercise routine, while those saying she's too unfit and unhealthy to continue serving can't even look down and see their own penis.

*GOT IT*.

mbmbos wrote:

dmg626 wrote:

mbmbos wrote:

"...once people get in that age bracket they are not sharp anymore..."

That's a generalization, not an argument. And it's one that is untrue. It is clear from her public speaking engagements her mind is sharp as a tack.

Your critical thinking skills on the other hand leave much to be desired.

Whatever makes you feel better about your RBG fantasy world. She can get some really good naps in now while she’s recovering

In other words, there is absolutely no substance to your thoughts. You're just trolling. And being hateful.

No just being realistic.

RBG's mind is fit, although I don't agree with her stance on many issues. It's RBG's body that's failing her. I don't think they let you hear cases and ask questions remotely from a hospital bed though. Maybe we're requiring too much to expect SCOTUS judges, as they age, to have to be there in person vs. skype, or something equivalent to hear a case.

Apparently she's up and around today and reviewing cases.

I dont think she will last for the next 6 years that Trump will be in office. So I would not worry at all, Trump will get another SCOTUS pick. #MAGA!

dmg626 wrote:

She should have retired 4 years ago instead of being selfish and just thinking about herself

That has pissed me off every time I think about it and even when my wife watched the program about her. RBG. I could not watch.

Wouldn't RBG strategically retiring under a Democrat president be a political move, politicizing the Supreme Court, something that I hear is really bad?

Gotta hand it to her, she put politics aside and continued to serve regardless of the political environment because she was fit and able to. If old conservative Supreme Court justices strategically retired before a Republican left office, I'm sure there would be a lot of squawking from the same people mad at RBG for not retiring under President Obama. Heck, look at how mad people were at Kennedy for retiring when he did...

How much more civil and enriching our debates would be if people simply took their arguments, replaced "Democrat" with "Republican" and vice versa, see how they feel about the switch, and pondered it. Instead it's unadulterated partisan rage every minute of every day

DeltaMD90 wrote:

Wouldn't RBG strategically retiring under a Democrat president be a political move, politicizing the Supreme Court, something that I hear is really bad?

The Supreme court is a political court. Always has been, always will be.

DeltaMD90 wrote:

Gotta hand it to her, she put politics aside and continued to serve regardless of the political environment because she was fit and able to. If old conservative Supreme Court justices strategically retired before a Republican left office, I'm sure there would be a lot of squawking from the same people mad at RBG for not retiring under President Obama. Heck, look at how mad people were at Kennedy for retiring when he did...

They did when Scalia died under Obama. They held the seat open for more than a year.

DeltaMD90 wrote:

How much more civil and enriching our debates would be if people simply took their arguments, replaced "Democrat" with "Republican" and vice versa, see how they feel about the switch, and pondered it. Instead it's unadulterated partisan rage every minute of every day

Their argument (aka decisions) are political. We can pretty much predict every single argument and position of the court's members before arguments are heard because we know the political, ethical, moral, religious, and personal opinions of the justices. That's why virtually none of the courts decisions are surprising.

MassAppeal wrote:

DeltaMD90 wrote:

Wouldn't RBG strategically retiring under a Democrat president be a political move, politicizing the Supreme Court, something that I hear is really bad?

The Supreme court is a political court. Always has been, always will be.

So shouldn't we cheer on refreshing, non political decisions such as this?

MassAppeal wrote:

They did when Scalia died under Obama. They held the seat open for more than a year.

That was probably, IMO, the most outrageous and slimy political debacle I've seen in my life. I can't believe Mitch McConnell did that (seemed low even for his standards) and worst of all, it worked out for him.

I liked how little shame he had when Kennedy retired. "Well, for Scalia is was "right before" a presidential election where the Senate was in control by the opposite party of the term-limited president." Oh, thanks for clearing that up Mitch, makes perfect sense now

So sorry to hear of her injuries. Here is to a speedy ...................................RETIREMENT

DeltaMD90 wrote:

MassAppeal wrote:

DeltaMD90 wrote:

Wouldn't RBG strategically retiring under a Democrat president be a political move, politicizing the Supreme Court, something that I hear is really bad?

The Supreme court is a political court. Always has been, always will be.

So shouldn't we cheer on refreshing, non political decisions such as this?

MassAppeal wrote:

They did when Scalia died under Obama. They held the seat open for more than a year.

That was probably, IMO, the most outrageous and slimy political debacle I've seen in my life. I can't believe Mitch McConnell did that (seemed low even for his standards) and worst of all, it worked out for him.

I liked how little shame he had when Kennedy retired. "Well, for Scalia is was "right before" a presidential election where the Senate was in control by the opposite party of the term-limited president." Oh, thanks for clearing that up Mitch, makes perfect sense now

The problem is that the Supreme Court by nature is the only part of our democracy that results in an end game. When they make a decision that's pretty much it. There are methods to overturn parts of their decisions through other challenges but it often takes decades. With the current and most likely imminent future of the court its going to be an uphill battle for progressive ideas because we're concentrating on being the morally superior party while the republicans actually do shit while we just scoff at how backwards they are.

This is one thing I think Democrats need to realize. I often find myself shaking my head at people I support wasting their time talking about "doing the right thing" or being "a true politician" or whatever. That's over now. We have to get down and fight. The republicans are playing on emotions which isn't really the "right thing to do for democracy" but they are winning because most people at the end of the day are emotional people. Democrats need to forget being the superior or more rational thinkers and come up with a way to beat the republicans. Start supporting the white, lower and middle class and stop talking about the terrible racism and sexism as the big issue. Of course it still is but as a white, lower class guy its annoying always being part of the problem when all I want to do is make this work.

Knowing this site I'm sure I'll be attacked endlessly for this regressive terrible opinion and therefore nothing will happen but more conservative judges changing the nation for the next generation while we fight over who's less racist.

DeltaMD90 wrote:

MassAppeal wrote:

DeltaMD90 wrote:

Wouldn't RBG strategically retiring under a Democrat president be a political move, politicizing the Supreme Court, something that I hear is really bad?

The Supreme court is a political court. Always has been, always will be.

So shouldn't we cheer on refreshing, non political decisions such as this?

MassAppeal wrote:

They did when Scalia died under Obama. They held the seat open for more than a year.

That was probably, IMO, the most outrageous and slimy political debacle I've seen in my life. I can't believe Mitch McConnell did that (seemed low even for his standards) and worst of all, it worked out for him.

I liked how little shame he had when Kennedy retired. "Well, for Scalia is was "right before" a presidential election where the Senate was in control by the opposite party of the term-limited president." Oh, thanks for clearing that up Mitch, makes perfect sense now

Joe Biden proposed it first.

GF

MassAppeal wrote:

This is one thing I think Democrats need to realize. I often find myself shaking my head at people I support wasting their time talking about "doing the right thing" or being "a true politician" or whatever. That's over now. We have to get down and fight.

That is the Michael Avenatti wing of the party I hope dies out. Idk, call me crazy, but I'd rather do the right thing than be the lesser of two evils. Maybe people would reward the party that starts acting sane again, maybe not...

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Joe Biden proposed it first.

GF

Ah, Joe Biden, the great conservative scholar of our time. What he does, any good Republican should follow.

I'm not a fan of "well, that side started it so we should do it too!" routine. What happened to "I can't believe how slimy X was when this situation came up years ago, I definitely don't want to stoop to that level"?



Look at the two people I replied to, coming from different ends of the spectrum. This polarization we are experiencing is really tearing the country aprart

DeltaMD90 wrote:

MassAppeal wrote:

They did when Scalia died under Obama. They held the seat open for more than a year.

That was probably, IMO, the most outrageous and slimy political debacle I've seen in my life. I can't believe Mitch McConnell did that (seemed low even for his standards) and worst of all, it worked out for him.

I liked how little shame he had when Kennedy retired. "Well, for Scalia is was "right before" a presidential election where the Senate was in control by the opposite party of the term-limited president." Oh, thanks for clearing that up Mitch, makes perfect sense now

I totally agree that the GOP refusal to give Obama a SC nomination was AFAIK unprecedented anti-American behavior and it was 100% because Obama was black. That really stands out. That is civil war type behavior. The bones of the country were shaken. I find that worse than anything in the Trump era so far.

DeltaMD90 wrote:

Wouldn't RBG strategically retiring under a Democrat president be a political move, politicizing the Supreme Court, something that I hear is really bad?

Gotta hand it to her, she put politics aside and continued to serve regardless of the political environment because she was fit and able to. If old conservative Supreme Court justices strategically retired before a Republican left office, I'm sure there would be a lot of squawking from the same people mad at RBG for not retiring under President Obama. Heck, look at how mad people were at Kennedy for retiring when he did...

Another astute comment IMO. Yes, it would be Against the best ideals of her office to retire as a transparently partisan effort to hold onto a SC seat for the Democratic Party. It is possible she thought about this. This would make all SC seats officially partisan. That idea poisons the institution. So we should not be that quick to say she was wrong. The presidents should not pick partisan judges. If you heard Senator Whitehouse opening monologue in the Kavanaugh hearings, it was blistering as to the obvious partisan illegitimacy going on in this process.

As I have often brought up, there should be a maximum age for one to serve in the Federal Judiciary including the Supreme Court as many states have at age 70 to 75. For the Federal Judiciary it should be a max of 75, with a minimum age of 45 for the District Courts, 50 for Circuit Courts and 55 for SCOTUS, so to effectively be a max term limit of 20 years on the SCOTUS. On the District and Circuit courts, one can take 'senior status' at age 65 with a lower case load. A reasonable max age would acknowledge physical and mental health issues, very few are effective in life in general or in the Judiciary beyond age 75 as well as prevent political games with when a Judge/Justice leaves the bench.

Flighty wrote:

I totally agree that the GOP refusal to give Obama a SC nomination was AFAIK unprecedented anti-American behavior and it was 100% because Obama was black. That really stands out. That is civil war type behavior. The bones of the country were shaken. I find that worse than anything in the Trump era so far.

But when Biden felt it was the right thing to do it was patriotic? Jeez read your history before you post. Not to mention the GOP didn't do it because he was black they did it because they wanted a conservative court. You think if Kerry was president they would not have done it? You have to stop this racebaiting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/p ... -1992.html

ltbewr wrote:

As I have often brought up, there should be a maximum age for one to serve in the Federal Judiciary including the Supreme Court as many states have at age 70 to 75. For the Federal Judiciary it should be a max of 75, with a minimum age of 45 for the District Courts, 50 for Circuit Courts and 55 for SCOTUS, so to effectively be a max term limit of 20 years on the SCOTUS. On the District and Circuit courts, one can take 'senior status' at age 65 with a lower case load. A reasonable max age would acknowledge physical and mental health issues, very few are effective in life in general or in the Judiciary beyond age 75 as well as prevent political games with when a Judge/Justice leaves the bench.

I think that rule should apply to society as well.

Those ages sound good. Another indicator would be if you use a check to pay for groceries in the year 2018. If you do it should be straight to the nursing home and put behind lock and key.

Flighty wrote:

DeltaMD90 wrote:

MassAppeal wrote:

They did when Scalia died under Obama. They held the seat open for more than a year.

That was probably, IMO, the most outrageous and slimy political debacle I've seen in my life. I can't believe Mitch McConnell did that (seemed low even for his standards) and worst of all, it worked out for him.

I liked how little shame he had when Kennedy retired. "Well, for Scalia is was "right before" a presidential election where the Senate was in control by the opposite party of the term-limited president." Oh, thanks for clearing that up Mitch, makes perfect sense now

I totally agree that the GOP refusal to give Obama a SC nomination was AFAIK unprecedented anti-American behavior and it was 100% because Obama was black. That really stands out. That is civil war type behavior. The bones of the country were shaken. I find that worse than anything in the Trump era so far.

no it wasnt because he was black it was because scalia was a very conservative justice. why did obamas other nominations make it through with little fight and decent bipartisan support? did obama turn black half way through his presidency

NIKV69 wrote:

But when Biden felt it was the right thing to do it was patriotic?

NO

Come on NIK, this is akin to the Tucker Carlson thread (that might've been deleted?) People are, rightly, outraged at protesters camping outside his house (mob mentality at best) and scaring the **** out of his family and banging on doors... And what is the response? "Well I don't see you all complaining about death threats against Dr. Ford!" What?

Can't we please argue if something is right or wrong, even if decades ago a single person on the other side unsuccessfully aruged for it? Or even if he was successful, was it right for McConnell to do it? I mean I guess if you're saying Biden was right and correct to do it back then and you supported that decision, and you support Mitch McConnell's decision now, it would at least be consistent...


Edit: I won't say race had anything to do with it. We can make a whole thread on race during the President Obama years. To me, it seems like political greed to get a SCOTUS seat filled (and not have a conservative one flip liberal) which is motive enough

I actually see no issue with how Scalia's seat was handled. It's part of the advise and consent role of the Senate. They determined they did not want to confirm another supreme court justice at that time. There is no directive in the constitution that says we must have 9 supreme court judges. We've had as few as 6 in the past, and as many as 11.

Should be thankful Trump hasn't decided to just nominate a few more judges while he is at it. Nothing is really there to stop that except public opinion. And well, we know how he feels about that don't we...

trpmb6 wrote:

I actually see no issue with how Scalia's seat was handled. It's part of the advise and consent role of the Senate. They determined they did not want to confirm another supreme court justice at that time.

I guess I'd consider "advise and consent" to at least meet with the guy and vote, even if it was a vote no.

But you're right I suppose, the "could" do what the did. "Should" they is another matter.

I did see a lot of complaining about how Kavanaugh was treated before the sexual assault allegations popped up. "He is qualified and should be approved, ideology never played a role before as long as the candidate is qualified." Not saying you are in that group, maybe you were, but there were plenty of people holding these two contradictory views on Merrick Garland and Brett Kavanaugh.

Not surprised, hypocrisy and incivility has been a part of our politics for forever and is just getting worse. Hoping some inciteful douche like Michael Avenatti doesn't win the 2020 nominations or else it's gonna get even worse, if that's even possible

DeltaMD90 wrote:

Wouldn't RBG strategically retiring under a Democrat president be a political move, politicizing the Supreme Court, something that I hear is really bad?

Actually Ruth Bader bought into the Hillary coronation and idea Trump had no chance to win. Thinking she could retire on her own terms and Hillary would nominate another far left activist.

Boy was she wrong and now she has the Dems very worried if she can't make it till they have the WH.

DeltaMD90 wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

I actually see no issue with how Scalia's seat was handled. It's part of the advise and consent role of the Senate. They determined they did not want to confirm another supreme court justice at that time.

I guess I'd consider "advise and consent" to at least meet with the guy and vote, even if it was a vote no.

But you're right I suppose, the "could" do what the did. "Should" they is another matter.

I did see a lot of complaining about how Kavanaugh was treated before the sexual assault allegations popped up. "He is qualified and should be approved, ideology never played a role before as long as the candidate is qualified." Not saying you are in that group, maybe you were, but there were plenty of people holding these two contradictory views on Merrick Garland and Brett Kavanaugh.

Not surprised, hypocrisy and incivility has been a part of our politics for forever and is just getting worse. Hoping some inciteful douche like Michael Avenatti doesn't win the 2020 nominations or else it's gonna get even worse, if that's even possible

While I wanted to see someone who was more a mold for Scalia, I was not really opposed to Garland. The main reason? Because once Hillary was going to be in office she was going to nominate someone further to the left. Garland was a good choice by Obama, his only short coming (in my view) is one particular issue. The rest, as I've noted on this forum before, was very in line with Kavanaugh. The two voted together in something like 93% of rulings or something like that.

That being said, the main reason people are upset about the Garland thing is because Hillary didn't win. Had Hillary won, you guys would have gotten a Garland or someone further to the left, as I said above. The voters decided, and that is that.

The way I see it. 2020 is going to be no different. You want someone in the mold of RBG to replace her? Better vote Trump out then.

trpmb6 wrote:

That being said, the main reason people are upset about the Garland thing is because Hillary didn't win. Had Hillary won, you guys would have gotten a Garland or someone further to the left, as I said above. The voters decided, and that is that.

I wouldn't say that because this guy was upset at the blatant partisanism and the unprecedented* disharmony of it all and was not upset Hilary lost (voted for her and wasn't happy about Trump winning, but wasn't sad she lost, if that makes sense.)

The "voters made their choice" line is kinda a load of Scheisse IMO because the voters already made their choice and elected Obama. What, do we just need to obstruct everything the day after an election and say "the NEXT election is what counts, let the voters choose!"

But yeah, nothing they did, while slimy, was illegal, which is why McConnell is not in jail and Garland is not on the Supreme Court. I guess in a way you're right, the voters in 2014 and before "chose" and obstructionist Senate. I know so many millennials my age that didn't vote in 2016 (in swing states) and they're whining about SCOTUS super hard now. Shut up, you have no right to whine about it. Wonder how many of them voted last week...

*If I hear Biden brought up one more time I'm gonna, idk, look at the screen angrily. Just because he did it (well, tried to do it) doesn't make it right, and since when are conservatives all on board with what Joe Biden does? Biden 2020 landslide??

trpmb6 wrote:

I find this to be fairly pre-mature. Her health is not ailing. She took a spill and broke some ribs, which is not an uncommon occurrence for folks her age. In fact, she had a similar problem in 2012. Broke 2 ribs then and recovered just fine. Sure it's 6 years later and there can always be complications with injuries like this leading to infection etc. But she will be just fine.

Asking "what would have happened if she didn't survive the ordeal" is a bit sensationalist.

Edit to add: I think it's kind of gross that people only hope she lives long enough to outlast a Trump presidency. It's never enough to just bless her with good health. It always seems to be paired with, until we can get someone else in to replace her. (though not directly stated as such, simply implied)

https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation- ... 43550.html

Also apparently #ribsforruth is a thing

Last edit: My guess is she just wanted to avoid the kegger that night for Kavanaugh's party.

My grandpa unfortunately fell two months ago and broke 5 ribs. He was 85 and his funeral was last week. When the news broke that she fell, I couldn’t help but think of him. I certainly hope her fate is different, but at that age, a fall is often times a death sentence due to complications that arise afterwards.

A little rain and Donnie boy refuses to go out. Three broken ribs and RBG still shows up to work.

seb146 wrote:

A little rain and Donnie boy refuses to go out. Three broken ribs and RBG still shows up to work.

He's due for a heart attack soon so fingers crossed.

Berevoff wrote:

seb146 wrote:

A little rain and Donnie boy refuses to go out. Three broken ribs and RBG still shows up to work.

He's due for a heart attack soon so fingers crossed.

I will delight in him leaving office. I will blow off fireworks and dance a jig for hours on end. He is a disgusting and depraved man devoid of morals, but this is not cool.

CitizenJustin wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

I find this to be fairly pre-mature. Her health is not ailing. She took a spill and broke some ribs, which is not an uncommon occurrence for folks her age. In fact, she had a similar problem in 2012. Broke 2 ribs then and recovered just fine. Sure it's 6 years later and there can always be complications with injuries like this leading to infection etc. But she will be just fine.

Asking "what would have happened if she didn't survive the ordeal" is a bit sensationalist.

Edit to add: I think it's kind of gross that people only hope she lives long enough to outlast a Trump presidency. It's never enough to just bless her with good health. It always seems to be paired with, until we can get someone else in to replace her. (though not directly stated as such, simply implied)

https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation- ... 43550.html

Also apparently #ribsforruth is a thing

Last edit: My guess is she just wanted to avoid the kegger that night for Kavanaugh's party.

My grandpa unfortunately fell two months ago and broke 5 ribs. He was 85 and his funeral was last week. When the news broke that she fell, I couldn’t help but think of him. I certainly hope her fate is different, but at that age, a fall is often times a death sentence due to complications that arise afterwards.

Similar thing happened to my grandfather. Slipped in the shower at 85 and fractured a vertebrate. He was too frail for them to fuse it. Died about six months later and it was a miserable six months for him living in a brace being unable to move on his own.