Ruth Bader Ginsberg Just Rushed to Hospital

[idhawkman]

News is reporting that she broke 3 ribs last night when she fell in her office. I wish NO ill will on anyone and truly hope she heals quickly.

[RiverDog]

I wish NO ill will on anyone and truly hope she heals quickly.

Why do you feel the need to flash your humanitarian credentials? Guilty conscience?

[idhawkman]

Why do you feel the need to flash your humanitarian credentials? Guilty conscience?

Why do you question my reasoning? Guilty conscience yourself?

[idhawkman]

Actually the reason I wanted to post this is because it is very important with the cases in front of the Supreme Court this year. Those cases could also include an immigration issue and presidential order issue on the 14th amendment.

Because of my positions on such issues, I didn't want anyone thinking that I posted it because I was gleeful or anything else. So maybe my conscience does play into it but not because it is true. I often post in game threads and other articles about he Seahawks that I never wish for anyone to be hurt. I would rather beat a team at full strength first of all and second of all I just can't wish for someone to befall injury for any reason whether it is good for my team or not.

So bottom line is, I don't wish her ill but it does have a huge impact on the court if it hampers her abilities in any way. She is 85 years old and 85 year olds don't heal as fast as us younger 50 somethings. I also may have a conscience which seems weird that I would run from having one.

[Aseahawkfan]

Actually the reason I wanted to post this is because it is very important with the cases in front of the Supreme Court this year. Those cases could also include an immigration issue and presidential order issue on the 14th amendment.

Because of my positions on such issues, I didn't want anyone thinking that I posted it because I was gleeful or anything else. So maybe my conscience does play into it but not because it is true. I often post in game threads and other articles about he Seahawks that I never wish for anyone to be hurt. I would rather beat a team at full strength first of all and second of all I just can't wish for someone to befall injury for any reason whether it is good for my team or not.

So bottom line is, I don't wish her ill but it does have a huge impact on the court if it hampers her abilities in any way. She is 85 years old and 85 year olds don't heal as fast as us younger 50 somethings. I also may have a conscience which seems weird that I would run from having one.

You think because a Supreme Court Justice is conservative they're going to violate established law to change The 14th Amendment for a president? You think that isn't tampering with the Constitution? That's about as partisan and unlawful as it gets.
I don't think Justices will vote along party lines myself. I think Trump will be surprised how the Justices stick to the long history of application of the 14th Amendment.

[burrrton]

I think Trump will be surprised how the Justices stick to the long history of application of the 14th Amendment.

This. It's pretty clear what the 14th means.

[edit]

And c'mon, RD- someone who wears their conservative badge as proudly as ID is going to assume everyone will assign the worst intentions to him saying anything about RBG's injury. It's not unreasonable that he might feel inclined to preemptively defend himself.

And FTR, if RBG steps down, I hope Trump replaces her with Garland.

[idhawkman]

You think because a Supreme Court Justice is conservative they're going to violate established law to change The 14th Amendment for a president?

Nope, but I do think they will not try to "Interpret" what they think the amendment should say but what it actually does say. It won't be the first nor the last time that they've relooked at what was ruled before and change it.

You think that isn't tampering with the Constitution?

Nope, wrong again on putting words or thoughts in my mouth/head. It is the pure definition of being a strict constitutionalist instead of a constructionist. That's what the American people voted for in the 2016 election for so many issues. Once the court rules, the congress can go to work to modify or make additional laws but they won't be able to use this one.

That's about as partisan and unlawful as it gets.

In actuality it is neither. It is the American system. Its very unfortunate to have you say such a sad statement that many Americans like you share this sentiment shows just how far adrift we've become from the American way.

I don't think Justices will vote along party lines myself. I think Trump will be surprised how the Justices stick to the long history of application of the 14th Amendment.

TBD.

[idhawkman]

And FTR, if RBG steps down, I hope Trump replaces her with Garland.

There was a Democrat strategist on Fox News this morning that made a very interesting observation. I'll try to summarize it here but I may not get all of the points so give me a little slack if I mess something up - FTR River, it won't be a LIE it is a mistake.

Here's his take:

The dems won back the house but the house has very little to do with governing or power in governing since Obama. The process now is to have exutive orders or regulations written that are then either accepted without challenge or are stayed by a district court judge. The courts will rule on it if it is legal or not. If legal then it is enacted and run until the next president comes to power and "tries" to repeal the executive order (think about the DACA EO that Obama signed and Trump has been prevented from repealing).

Now his next point is very important. Who is responsible for confirming district and supreme court judges? The Senate - which the republicans gained more seats with this mid term election. This is also why you will see Trump pivot from congressional actions requiring the house to international issues, EOs and regulations that only require the courts and thus the senate.

He further explains that with the democrats controlling only the largest states like NY, CA, Illinois (he even threw in Texas in the near future) there would be about 15 states under Democrat influence. That's only 30 senators and even if you add in a few other stragglers, the balance of power in the Senate seems to be firmly gripped in the hands of the center (RED) of the country.

He said that the more the blue states pull the democratic party to the left like Occassio Cortez, that FL governor candidate Guillome, etc move toward socialism the more red the rest of the states will become. The end result will be the blue states won't have any moderate middle ground repubs to give an alternative vote to and the Red states won't have any valid alternative to give their vote to.

I'll be watching to see how right he is on this while eating my popcorn.

[burrrton]

Will be interesting to watch, ID.

And rethinking my statement on replacing RBG with Garland, I shouldn't say "hope", but rather "wouldn't mind". Also, as I sit here watching the "magically appearing boxes of ballots" debacle surfacing wherever a Dem lost a close election, and reflecting again on the Kavanaugh embarrassment, I have to admit I also wouldn't mind Trump replacing RBG with Ted Cruz just to watch the Progressive Left lose its sh*t again.

[idhawkman]

I found the video that he had on the Fox News station this morning explaining the issue I just posted.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5859829415001/?#sp=show-clips

[idhawkman]

Will be interesting to watch, ID.

And rethinking my statement on replacing RBG with Garland, I shouldn't say "hope", but rather "wouldn't mind". Also, as I sit here watching the "magically appearing boxes of ballots" debacle surfacing wherever a Dem lost a close election, and reflecting again on the Kavanaugh embarrassment, I have to admit I also wouldn't mind Trump replacing RBG with Ted Cruz just to watch the Progressive Left lose its sh*t again.

RBG is the only SCOTUS from a school other than Yale or Harvard. If she is to step down, I'd love to see Trump nominate Amy Coney Barrett. Her degree is from Notre Dame and George Washington Univ. She's a hard conservative and female. If Trump nominates another white male you could already hear the screams from the left about Mysogony, Racism, etc.

I like to think that if he nominated Barrett it will be like the scene in Total Recall when Schwartzenager returns to mars and his female head come off and says "Get ready for a surprise". That's what each Dems head will be like as soon as he announces her.

I might have to splurge for a corn dog and fries on that one instead of just popcorn.

[RiverDog]

Actually the reason I wanted to post this is because it is very important with the cases in front of the Supreme Court this year. Those cases could also include an immigration issue and presidential order issue on the 14th amendment.

Then why didn't you just start a thread title like "Upcoming SCOTUS cases" or something? Your thread title seemed really odd, like Ginsberg was on her death bed and that we were supposed to start discussing a potential SCOTUS opening.[/quote]

Because of my positions on such issues, I didn't want anyone thinking that I posted it because I was gleeful or anything else. So maybe my conscience does play into it but not because it is true. I often post in game threads and other articles about he Seahawks that I never wish for anyone to be hurt. I would rather beat a team at full strength first of all and second of all I just can't wish for someone to befall injury for any reason whether it is good for my team or not.

I haven't accused you of being insensitive to the plight of others, nor can I recall ASF, burrton, Hawktalk, Cbob, or any of the regulars in this OT section doing so, which is why your defensiveness didn't make sense to me. I have no doubt that you are a decent guy.

So bottom line is, I don't wish her ill but it does have a huge impact on the court if it hampers her abilities in any way. She is 85 years old and 85 year olds don't heal as fast as us younger 50 somethings. I also may have a conscience which seems weird that I would run from having one.

Ginsberg is a tough old lady. She's had a bout with cancer, was hospitalized due to an adverse reaction to meds, broke her ribs in 2012, had a stent implanted to relive a blocked artery, yet despite all that, she has yet to miss a SCOTUS argument.

[RiverDog]

I think Trump will be surprised how the Justices stick to the long history of application of the 14th Amendment.

This. It's pretty clear what the 14th means.

Agreed. Conservative judges hold to a creed, that they not try to "read into" a law something that's not there, ie activists judges legislating from the bench. The 14th is perhaps the most clearly written of all the amendments. I can't imagine how anyone could interpret it to allow for a EO that says something to the contrary unless they were asked to temporarily suspend it during a war or something.

[edit]

And c'mon, RD- someone who wears their conservative badge as proudly as ID is going to assume everyone will assign the worst intentions to him saying anything about RBG's injury. It's not unreasonable that he might feel inclined to preemptively defend himself.

The only person in this forum that is a professed liberal is Cbob. Hawktalk will criticize anything Trump says or does, but he doesn't trash talk other posters. There was no reason for him to get defensive. As I said above, it was a really weird topic, like a thread discussing what a President Pence might do if Trump were assassinated.

And FTR, if RBG steps down, I hope Trump replaces her with Garland.

Well, I wouldn't hold my breath on the proposition that Ginsberg will step down before 2021. If any 85 year old that's still working at anything, there's a pretty good chance that they'll die before they retire.

Nevertheless, I'm fully comfortable with the way Trump handles his judicial appointments. I just wish he'd conduct all his business that way.

[Hawktawk]

If ginsberg steps down or croaks we will wind up with a court for decades that is 1 million miles juxtaposed to the direction of the people which is increasingly progressive. America held hostage if you will. Elections really do matter.

It's one of the great tragedies of the ascendancy of crazy orange witch.

[idhawkman]

Then why didn't you just start a thread title like "Upcoming SCOTUS cases" or something? Your thread title seemed really odd, like Ginsberg was on her death bed and that we were supposed to start discussing a potential SCOTUS opening.

Because I'm me and not you. No further explaination is needed.

I haven't accused you of being insensitive to the plight of others, nor can I recall ASF, burrton, Hawktalk, Cbob, or any of the regulars in this OT section doing so, which is why your defensiveness didn't make sense to me. I have no doubt that you are a decent guy.

Actually you did! When you questioned my guilty conscience you actually did accuse me. Just because it was after I made the disclosure doesn't mean I didn't expect it from you and maybe HawkTalk and possibly Bob.

Ginsberg is a tough old lady. She's had a bout with cancer, was hospitalized due to an adverse reaction to meds, broke her ribs in 2012, had a stent implanted to relive a blocked artery, yet despite all that, she has yet to miss a SCOTUS argument.

She is tough, no doubt. But father time never stops ticking and in the end will overcome. My dad turned 85 this year and I've seen him decline from a once very strong warrior who was the top graduate of his Ranger class to a weakened senior citizen that quite frankly scares me to leave him alone now.

[RiverDog]

Because I'm me and not you. No further explaination is needed.

So given that thread title, what was it that we were supposed to discuss?

I haven't accused you of being insensitive to the plight of others, nor can I recall ASF, burrton, Hawktalk, Cbob, or any of the regulars in this OT section doing so, which is why your defensiveness didn't make sense to me. I have no doubt that you are a decent guy.

Actually you did! When you questioned my guilty conscience you actually did accuse me. Just because it was after I made the disclosure doesn't mean I didn't expect it from you and maybe HawkTalk and possibly Bob.

Then you must not have read the last sentence from my quote above.

Ginsberg is a tough old lady. She's had a bout with cancer, was hospitalized due to an adverse reaction to meds, broke her ribs in 2012, had a stent implanted to relive a blocked artery, yet despite all that, she has yet to miss a SCOTUS argument.

She is tough, no doubt. But father time never stops ticking and in the end will overcome. My dad turned 85 this year and I've seen him decline from a once very strong warrior who was the top graduate of his Ranger class to a weakened senior citizen that quite frankly scares me to leave him alone now.

Absouletly true, and I wouldn't want to leave any 85 year old alone for very long. Her age and health would indicate that she's likely not going to serve much longer, but at this point, she's still on the court and I expect her to at least attempt to serve until Trump is out of office in 2021.

[RiverDog]

Then why didn't you just start a thread title like "Upcoming SCOTUS cases" or something? Your thread title seemed really odd, like Ginsberg was on her death bed and that we were supposed to start discussing a potential SCOTUS opening.

Because I'm me and not you. No further explaination is needed.

So given your thread title, what was it that we were supposed to discuss?

I haven't accused you of being insensitive to the plight of others, nor can I recall ASF, burrton, Hawktalk, Cbob, or any of the regulars in this OT section doing so, which is why your defensiveness didn't make sense to me. I have no doubt that you are a decent guy.

Actually you did! When you questioned my guilty conscience you actually did accuse me. Just because it was after I made the disclosure doesn't mean I didn't expect it from you and maybe HawkTalk and possibly Bob.

Then I take it that you did not read my last sentence from my quote.

Ginsberg is a tough old lady. She's had a bout with cancer, was hospitalized due to an adverse reaction to meds, broke her ribs in 2012, had a stent implanted to relive a blocked artery, yet despite all that, she has yet to miss a SCOTUS argument.

She is tough, no doubt. But father time never stops ticking and in the end will overcome. My dad turned 85 this year and I've seen him decline from a once very strong warrior who was the top graduate of his Ranger class to a weakened senior citizen that quite frankly scares me to leave him alone now.

I wouldn't trust any 85 year old to be by themselves for very long. But Ginsberg seems to be an exception, and I fully expect her to at least attempt to serve until Trump is out of office in 2021.

[idhawkman]

So given that thread title, what was it that we were supposed to discuss?

Well since I didn't ask you to discuss anything specific I left that up to you. You showed your colors right off the bat in your response.

Then you must not have read the last sentence from my quote above.

Of course I read it but I know how torqued you get when I point out your TDS so I just chose not to mention it.

Absouletly true, and I wouldn't want to leave any 85 year old alone for very long. Her age and health would indicate that she's likely not going to serve much longer, but at this point, she's still on the court and I expect her to at least attempt to serve until Trump is out of office in 2021.

Yeah, you only 4 years short though.

[burrrton]

If Trump nominates another white male you could already hear the screams from the left about Mysogony, Racism, etc.

They just spent a month calling a sitting DC circuit court judge a serial gang rapist. It doesn't matter who he nominates- there is no longer any "should I say this", any "do I really believe this", any "is this really fair or even realistic" in their internal dialogue. They're going to scream literally everything regardless.

I just wish he'd conduct all his business that way.

Hear hear.

[Aseahawkfan]

RD,

I believe IDHawkman is insensitive to the plight of others. I don't think he cares. All he cares about is supporting Trump no matter what he does. I don't see even the slightest questioning of the man from Idhawkman. I see nearly total disregard for Trump's rude, crass, insulting, misogynistic, and generally low class behavior. Trump is a proven adulterer. Like most businessmen he's walked the line on legality with his businesses. He hasn't released his tax returns after haranguing the living crap out of Obama to release his birth certificate. I think IDhawkman seems to think all Trump's behavior is just fine. If that is the case, then how can any of say he is sensitive to the plight of others when he supports so vehemently a president that seems to just not give a flying crap.

At least that's how I see it.

This post no matter how IDhawkman tries to spin it was a subconscious show of his attitude of "not caring about the plight of others." He wants to see another justice appointed by Trump, even if it means Ginsberg dying. He doesn't care. It's all about supporting his conservative agenda by supporting Trump. If that means overlooking the lack of action for murder by an "ally", a Supreme Court judge dying, immigrants being vilified, lies about adultery and payoffs to women to keep silence, and general rude, crass, and low class behavior, so be it.

[idhawkman]

RD,

I believe IDHawkman is insensitive to the plight of others. I don't think he cares. All he cares about is supporting Trump no matter what he does. I don't see even the slightest questioning of the man from Idhawkman. I see nearly total disregard for Trump's rude, crass, insulting, misogynistic, and generally low class behavior. Trump is a proven adulterer. Like most businessmen he's walked the line on legality with his businesses. He hasn't released his tax returns after haranguing the living crap out of Obama to release his birth certificate. I think IDhawkman seems to think all Trump's behavior is just fine. If that is the case, then how can any of say he is sensitive to the plight of others when he supports so vehemently a president that seems to just not give a flying crap.

At least that's how I see it.

This post no matter how IDhawkman tries to spin it was a subconscious show of his attitude of "not caring about the plight of others." He wants to see another justice appointed by Trump, even if it means Ginsberg dying. He doesn't care. It's all about supporting his conservative agenda by supporting Trump. If that means overlooking the lack of action for murder by an "ally", a Supreme Court judge dying, immigrants being vilified, lies about adultery and payoffs to women to keep silence, and general rude, crass, and low class behavior, so be it.

You are laughable Asea. "As I see it" you are the insensitive one about the plight of people with faith, in poverty and being subjugated to government. You would sentence millions of poeple to poverty, subjugation, persecution and much more because you don't like the way one man talks. Get over yourself already and come down from you high throne of snobbery.

[RiverDog]

They (Dems, liberals) just spent a month calling a sitting DC circuit court judge (Kavanaugh) a serial gang rapist. It doesn't matter who he nominates- there is no longer any "should I say this", any "do I really believe this", any "is this really fair or even realistic" in their internal dialogue. They're going to scream literally everything regardless.

No doubt that the Dems deserve the lion's share of the blame for the current climate. They want to mine the potential votes that the #Metoo movement might yield them. The R's have played politics with SCOTUS nominations, holding open an appointment until after the election, doing away with the 60% filibuster requirement for confirmation (yea, I know Idahawk, Harry Reid gave them cover by breaking that precedent), so I suppose this is a reaction to that, but it's still no excuse for the tarring and feathering of a law abiding citizen based on the flimsy evidence they had on Kavanaugh.

[burrrton]

The R's have played politics with SCOTUS nominations, holding open an appointment until after the election, doing away with the 60% filibuster requirement for confirmation

It was certainly playing politics, but a couple things to note:

1. Denying consent on a nominee is hardly unprecedented in a Presidential election year, having been advocated in the past in one form or another by Democrats in fact, and after watching the Kavanaugh hearings, Garland should be on his knees thanking McConnell for doing so in the manner he did (unless he thinks, as I tend to, that Rs wouldn't have lowered themselves to the level the Ds did).

2. Nuking the filibuster for Federal judicial appointments was entirely Reid's doing- that little 'it wasn't for SCOTUS nominees' tap dance was CYA claptrap. Everybody watching knew he only said that because he didn't have a SCOTUS nominee to confirm, and regardless, it's insulting to imply those appointments are somehow irrelevant. SCOTUS is ultimately more important, but it's not hard to argue the lower appointments do more to shape society.

it's still no excuse for the tarring and feathering of a law abiding citizen based on the flimsy evidence they had on Kavanaugh.

Agree, of course, but to reiterate, they didn't even have flimsy evidence. They literally had nothing but an uncorroborated, non-falsifiable accusation. Appalling.

[RiverDog]

The R's have played politics with SCOTUS nominations, holding open an appointment until after the election, doing away with the 60% filibuster requirement for confirmation

It was certainly playing politics, but a couple things to note:

1. Denying consent on a nominee is hardly unprecedented in a Presidential election year, having been advocated in the past in one form or another by Democrats in fact, and after watching the Kavanaugh hearings, Garland should be on his knees thanking McConnell for doing so in the manner he did (unless he thinks, as I tend to, that Rs wouldn't have lowered themselves to the level the Ds did).

2. Nuking the filibuster for Federal judicial appointments was entirely Reid's doing- that little 'it wasn't for SCOTUS nominees' tap dance was CYA claptrap. Everybody watching knew he only said that because he didn't have a SCOTUS nominee to confirm, and regardless, it's insulting to imply those appointments are somehow irrelevant. SCOTUS is ultimately more important, but it's not hard to argue the lower appointments do more to shape society.

it's still no excuse for the tarring and feathering of a law abiding citizen based on the flimsy evidence they had on Kavanaugh.

Agree, of course, but to reiterate, they didn't even have flimsy evidence. They literally had nothing but an uncorroborated, non-falsifiable accusation. Appalling.

My only real disagreement is over the terminology in what's underlined. Eyewitness testimony given under oath and in front of committee members, even if it is uncorroborated and full of more holes than a screen door, is evidence.

The Senate should come up with a set of rules and procedures for handling judicial nominations, particularily for SCOTUS. They should have a time frame between when a nomination is given to them and when they have a confirmation vote. They should also have a clause requiring the sharing of information between committee members, which was my biggest beef with the Dems.

[idhawkman]

Again, I disagree with you River. When the testimony is from the accuser it is an accusation not evidence. For someone who is literal with words I'm surprised you called her accusation evidence.

At best you could call it testimony but not evidence.

[burrrton]

Eyewitness testimony given under oath and in front of committee members, even if it is uncorroborated and full of more holes than a screen door, is evidence.

Maybe technically. However, if she could remember every detail of the encounter, but all her named witnesses said they didn't know what she was talking, *that* would be flimsy.

In this case, though, all her named witnesses said they didn't know what she was talking about AND she couldn't remember a thing about it- that's not the same zip code as flimsy.

[RiverDog]

Eyewitness testimony given under oath and in front of committee members, even if it is uncorroborated and full of more holes than a screen door, is evidence.

Maybe technically. However, if she could remember every detail of the encounter, but all of her named witnesses said they didn't know what she was talking, *that* would be flimsy.

In this case, though, she couldn't remember a thing about it AND all her named witnesses said they didn't know what she was talking about- that's not the same zip code as flimsy.

I guess it depends on how we define "flimsy." Once again, we're arguing about semantics.

[burrrton]

I guess it depends on how we define "flimsy." Once again, we're arguing about semantics.

True. I know we don't disagree- I just can't get to "flimsy evidence" when it was literally nothing more than the accusation itself.

[RiverDog]

I guess it depends on how we define "flimsy." Once again, we're arguing about semantics.

True. I know we don't disagree- I just can't get to "flimsy evidence" when it was literally nothing more than the accusation itself...

...given under oath and directly to the committee for their consideration. IMO that elevates it above just some random accusation. Not that doing so makes it anymore credible.

[burrrton]

IMO that elevates it above just some random accusation.

Not IMO. Non-falsifiable accusations don't carry any risk of perjury charges, and her claim was blatantly crafted to be such.

[idhawkman]

She's out of surgery and they say they got all of the cancer. Good thing too since Lung cancer is very fast moving. A friend of my wife's family who worked out every day and never smoked or anything like that (He was actually a health nut IMO) was diagnosed with lung cancer and was dead 4 months later. Very sad.

I am wishing her a fast recovery over these holidays. SCOTUS has a lot of issues coming at them and they'll need everyone there to give their perspectives.

[politicalfootball]

SCOTUS is composed of 9 justice's the Congress and the President of the United States can do what they can to override the Supreme court's decision but the SCOTUS has the final word.

[RiverDog]

SCOTUS is composed of 9 justice's the Congress and the President of the United States can do what they can to override the Supreme court's decision but the SCOTUS has the final word.

Actually they don't. Congress, with the support of 2/3's of the states, can pass a Constitutional amendment and over ride a SCOTUS decision. SCOTUS can only interpet the Constitution.

But I get your point. Constitutional amendments are very rare, so for all intents and purposes, you are correct.

[Aseahawkfan]

Cancer at her age likely means she's done and soon. You just don't recover from cancer well at her age. She's likely hopped up on medications. If she is trying to hang on to block Trump that is pathetic. She's 85. Time to move on.

[RiverDog]

Cancer at her age likely means she's done and soon. You just don't recover from cancer well at her age. She's likely hopped up on medications. If she is trying to hang on to block Trump that is pathetic. She's 85. Time to move on.

Ginsberg has been fighting cancer and other health issues for 20 years. The doctors claim that they have removed all of the cancerous tumors. So long as she appears to have her wits about her, I have no problem with her continuing to serve. Even at 85, she's still 5 years short of the oldest serving SCOTUS justice. Having been beaten into submission from my former employment and retiring at age 63, my hat is off to her for possessing the kind of work ethic that has allowed her to continue in such a stressful environment.

[Aseahawkfan]

Ginsberg has been fighting cancer and other health issues for 20 years. The doctors claim that they have removed all of the cancerous tumors. So long as she appears to have her wits about her, I have no problem with her continuing to serve. Even at 85, she's still 5 years short of the oldest serving SCOTUS justice. Having been beaten into submission from my former employment and retiring at age 63, my hat is off to her for possessing the kind of work ethic that has allowed her to continue in such a stressful environment.

What do you mean beaten into submission? Your employer forced you out?

[idhawkman]

Actually they don't. Congress, with the support of 2/3's of the states, can pass a Constitutional amendment and over ride a SCOTUS decision. SCOTUS can only interpet the Constitution.

But I get your point. Constitutional amendments are very rare, so for all intents and purposes, you are correct.

Technically, that statement is true but as you point out, in today's activist judge environment its far from True.

[idhawkman]

Ginsberg has been fighting cancer and other health issues for 20 years. The doctors claim that they have removed all of the cancerous tumors. So long as she appears to have her wits about her, I have no problem with her continuing to serve. Even at 85, she's still 5 years short of the oldest serving SCOTUS justice. Having been beaten into submission from my former employment and retiring at age 63, my hat is off to her for possessing the kind of work ethic that has allowed her to continue in such a stressful environment.

I'm okay with her serving if she has her wits AND her medical requirements allow her enough time to use those wits. If the treatments infringe on her ability to hear arguments, do the research (mostly done by interns) and write opinions then it is time for her to go. In other words, I don't want a rubber stamp Pro or Con to any issue.

[RiverDog]

What do you mean beaten into submission? Your employer forced you out?

No, of course not. It was a figure of speech. I left work on very good terms with my employer and fellow employees. I worked in a very stressful environment, 100+ employees and all their problems, lots of odd shifts/days off. Had the working conditions been better, I would have worked another 2 years until I was eligible for Medicare (I'm 64), but I'd rather pay $1k/month for my own benefits rather than continue working under the conditions that were present when I retired.

[RiverDog]

Ginsberg has been fighting cancer and other health issues for 20 years. The doctors claim that they have removed all of the cancerous tumors. So long as she appears to have her wits about her, I have no problem with her continuing to serve. Even at 85, she's still 5 years short of the oldest serving SCOTUS justice. Having been beaten into submission from my former employment and retiring at age 63, my hat is off to her for possessing the kind of work ethic that has allowed her to continue in such a stressful environment.

I'm okay with her serving if she has her wits AND her medical requirements allow her enough time to use those wits. If the treatments infringe on her ability to hear arguments, do the research (mostly done by interns) and write opinions then it is time for her to go. In other words, I don't want a rubber stamp Pro or Con to any issue.

Ginsberg still hasn't missed a single argument in the 25 years she's been on SCOTUS. At this point, it's a non issue. We're getting ahead of ourselves.