Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Swamp Donkey, Nov 7, 2018.
She's been missing them for years.
It's sad really. Why? Why keep doing this? When SS was implimented most people never saw age 61.
That's more weight than Obama was using in his workout video!
Yes,I'm aware that was a comedian impersonating Obama. Obama's arms are half this guys.
Can Trump Force Ginsberg out because of health issues?
lol Obama looks like you let a special needs child in the gym for the first time. Straining with a 35 pound clean and jerk. His real workouts use about the same weight.
Theoretically, Trump could appoint another justice before Ginsberg leaves the court. This would be reminiscent of FDR's court-packing scheme and would be extremely unpopular. It is unlikely that appointment could be confirmed. Unfortunately, Ginsberg's scheme to remain on the court for years even after she ceases to function will not be stopped. It's unfortunate the 25th amendment which allows the replacement of an unfit President did not also include Supreme Court members.
Trump has to roll the dice and try to replace her or get her on the disabled list or something where she can't perform at her Supreme Court duties because she's not physically able to. He may not be able to name a successor to her while she's alive but if she can't do her Supreme Court Duty she can't do her Supreme Court duty.
They aren't going to give that seat up unless she is literally in hospice care though she might retire just after the 2020 election if she can't function then. If the Dems were able to get both branches after the 2024 election I have no doubt they would add 1 or 2 seats to the court also to speed up trying to get control back.
Is she out again today?
My guess is she does not make Nov 2020. She has fooled us before but not many 85 year olds do well after surgery.
Neither of these will ever happen. The Senate would not back the Prez on replacing her before she retires or died. Too awful a precedent to set. As for adding more justices, even FDR (probably one of the most powerful presidents we ever had) backed down on his court packing plan (after he got some of what he wanted). This is not a road the Senators of either party want to go down either.
You are being naive imo if you dont think the Dems might add Justices if they were to gain all 3 branches after the 2024 election like they did with Obama's election. They would claim it was morally justified with the 6-3 conservative split. I think they would even run on that with their donors.
Yes TMZ filmed her leaving her residence and she was in a wheelchair needing some assistance to get in the vehicle.
RBG should do the moral thing and retire from the court because she is not able to meet the demands of the job. She is not going to do that because the court has become so politicized. So she will try to hold on until the 2020 Presidential election to see if a Democrat will occupy the Oval Office. The situation is sad for Justice Ginsberg and it's sad for our country.
The Merrick Garland precedent would mean that if she retired or died after January 2020 the Senate could hold up a replacement appointment until 2021 when the President and new Senate are sworn in. Of course, would a REPUBLICAN Senate do that, especially if they were concerned that Trump might lose or that Rs might lose the Senate? Maybe do it in the lame duck session? Alex.
They might try, but to what end? The Republicans would then do the same when they eventually took power. The end result would be completely diminished Supreme Court. Never forget why the SC decisions carry the weight of law. (After all, they can't enforce a thing.) A packed SC would become a diminished SC and a diminished SC would become an ignored SC. I am well aware there are many on the radical left (and maybe on the radical right for all I know, they just haven't vocalized it that I have seen) who favor packing the court should they get the opportunity and face the need. (See some of the drivel from groups like the Jacobins and publications like Vox and the New Republic) IMO, it would be a political disaster and quite possibly an actual one like the violence in the streets kind (after all, a Dem packed court would not be able to resist going after the 2nd amendment). I seriously doubt you'd get 60 senators to go for it even if the dems had a super majority. Oh, and I may be many things, but I assure you, naive ain't one of them - seen way too much bad $het.
Modern Dems unlike Reps don't hesitate as much when it comes to using power gained. I think it would be a simple discussion that the chance of the Reps ever getting all 3 again anytime soon are low with how demographics are changing and to use the power why you have it. They see the Courts as their main way to push their perverted agenda on America.
Whelp, assuming we live long enough, I guess we will find out, because I guarantee you at some point, the Dems will have both houses and the WH and at some point after the GOP will - no matter what the demographics are. (or we may possibly have some sort of violent revolution.) On the other hand if you are correct about the demographics, it won't matter if they pack the court or not. It would just hasten them achieving their inevitable agenda. (part of me has often wondered if history is just one long defeat, punctuated by occasional temporary victories.)
You don't have the necessary permissions to use the chat.