Dear Ruth Bader Ginsburg
- Thread starter WashU-Horn
- Start date
I wish her well
I also wish she would accept that while she is trying to recover she is not capable of giving her full attention to the court and issues. Anyone who thinks she can is not being realistic.
IF this mean she is relying on her staff too much then we are not getting what we elect supremes for but getting opinions from unelected interns.
While she is recovering he should recuse herself .she does not have to step down but right now she is not putting the country and SCOTUS first.
I also wish she would accept that while she is trying to recover she is not capable of giving her full attention to the court and issues. Anyone who thinks she can is not being realistic.
IF this mean she is relying on her staff too much then we are not getting what we elect supremes for but getting opinions from unelected interns.
While she is recovering he should recuse herself .she does not have to step down but right now she is not putting the country and SCOTUS first.
Last edited:
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
They're lifetime appointments per the Constitution. Hinging vacated seats on POTUS elections is a terrible development that has encouraged justices to hang on longer than effective, reinforced by the Merrick Garland fiasco.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Section 1 of Article 3 of the Constitution says:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
The Constitution does leave open the possibility of impeachment and removal by the Congress. One justice was impeached, but not convicted, and another was essentially forced out under the threat of impeachment.
"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior"
That is pretty vague but it could mean we have the right to see she is exhibiting " good behavior">
Of course she has a right to privacy as she recuperates but we also have the right to have confidence she is aware enough to make her own decisions.
That is pretty vague but it could mean we have the right to see she is exhibiting " good behavior">
Of course she has a right to privacy as she recuperates but we also have the right to have confidence she is aware enough to make her own decisions.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
This whole "Is Ruth Bader Ginsberg alive" discussion is eerily reminiscent of "Hillary is hiding a health problem" that we now know in retrospect was an invention of Roger Stone.
Let the woman recuperate in peace.
Let the woman recuperate in peace.
Except she's had health problems that she's been hiding.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
"The judiciary does not assess the competence of its senior judges. The courts have no formal policy requiring, or even recommending, that judges receive medical checkups or consult with geriatricians. Instead, the institution relies on other judges to monitor colleagues, and, working discreetly behind the scenes, to push out enfeebled judges gently."
And Rehnquist used to argue for the use of a writ of scire facias, which would allow for federal judge removal without impeachment
And Rehnquist used to argue for the use of a writ of scire facias, which would allow for federal judge removal without impeachment
Last edited:
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
She's been hiding health problems?
Let's see Ginsburg is 85 has had cancer 3 times, has heart problems,
fell and fractured ribs in late fall
Dec. She announced she was fine and ribs were healing
A week later it was announced a subsequent exam revealed cancerous nodes in her lung which were removed during a pulmonary lobectomy.
That operation is pretty serious for anyone but for an 85 y o recovering from that fall even more so.
There is no invention here, FACTS
Was the cancer in her lung primary or mestastic?
She has not appeared in public even during a video.
SH based on facts and that she is a Supreme why would you think it is intrusive to want to be sure she is capable of discharging her duties?
fell and fractured ribs in late fall
Dec. She announced she was fine and ribs were healing
A week later it was announced a subsequent exam revealed cancerous nodes in her lung which were removed during a pulmonary lobectomy.
That operation is pretty serious for anyone but for an 85 y o recovering from that fall even more so.
There is no invention here, FACTS
Was the cancer in her lung primary or mestastic?
She has not appeared in public even during a video.
SH based on facts and that she is a Supreme why would you think it is intrusive to want to be sure she is capable of discharging her duties?
@Horn6721, same reason McConnell doing the same thing in an election year and waiting to see the election result, which has been done many times throughout US history, is a "fiasco". Because it's BS. Oh, remember, when it was a mere formality that Hillary would be President? Wasn't a big deal that the hearings were delayed until her sorry *** lost.
Last edited:
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
As long as you advocated filling Scallia's seat as soon as possible then your argument is consistent. If not, then you shouldn't worry about Ginsberg for a least a year.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Where is your concern? That the "seat" can't operate (e.g. "capable of fulfilling her duties as a Supreme)? You've already established that the SCOTUS can operate just fine with 8 justices. In turn, if you weren't concerned in 2016 and are concerned now then I'd argue your intentions are born of a partisan nature.
But that's my point. They are hinged on POTUS elections now because certain SCOTUS justices time their retirement to coincide with their POTUS of choice. If the seat stayed vacant until after the next POTUS election then ideological justices like Ginsburg could not time their retirement as they do not know who will nominate their replacement. Also, voters will be more informed about the influence that the next President will have on the courts. The only downside is that there will be less than 9 SCOTUS justices from time to time. I don't see that as a huge disadvantage. I actually think 8 justices are better than 9 as it would require a margin of at least 2 votes for a victory.
Last edited:
8 justices is better than 9 where one of the 9 might be a vegetable being spoon fed by their interns.
If one of the 9 is incapable of carrying out their duties without the influence of others, then lets just go down to 8 until after the next election. However, her trying to just have a pulse for as long as possible to prevent Trump from getting another nomination, when she cant do her job, is plain wrong. We dont know how incapacitated she really is though and we need to know.
I35
5,000+ Posts
No she wasn’t hiding health problem. She was “trying” to hide those health problems and she failed. She almost died three times leading up to the election.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Let's go back. Did you support McConnell's desire to hold any nominations to replace Scalia until after the election? If so, they you were fine operating with 8 justices for a year.
SH
That was not an important topic for me. But let's say I did
OK so 8 Justices can do the job
That is even more reason to verify RBG is lucid and capable of the job. IF she is not then let her take a leave of absence while she recuperates.
What no one should want is to have an unelected staff making decisions for a Supreme. right?
That was not an important topic for me. But let's say I did
OK so 8 Justices can do the job
That is even more reason to verify RBG is lucid and capable of the job. IF she is not then let her take a leave of absence while she recuperates.
What no one should want is to have an unelected staff making decisions for a Supreme. right?
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
I don't know why this has become such a discussion. Both sides are playing political games with Supreme Court Justice openings and appointments. Both sides are going to ruthlessly bend the rules in their favor and scream when the other side does it. There is no principle here that both sides should follow but "win". It is the principle they care about and the one we care about.
@Monahorns ”ruthlessly”. Ha good one!
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Trump? Is that you?
You mean like the Paul is dead discussions?
This is a symptom of a bigger problem which is that the Supreme Court is far, far too powerful and important. The founding fathers never intended for it to be so. Hell, the first Chief Justice quit to become Governor of New York after only presiding over a four cases in six years, only one of which had any significance (and that was overturned by constitutional amendment). That's how insignificant the Court was. It wasn't that there weren't big legal disputes back then. There were, but the Court's subject matter jurisdiction was so narrow back then that very few cases would be properly before the Court.
Can anybody imagine John Roberts deciding that he'd like a promotion to governor of any state or frankly to take any job in government? Hell no. When he wants to be, he's the most powerful man in the United States. He has unlimited and arbitrary veto power over every federal, state, and local law or court decision, and he doesn't have it because the Constitution gives it to him. He has it because every other branch chooses to yield to him. That isn't how it's supposed to work.
Last edited:
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Oh, I understand that aspect of it. I just don't understand why anyone expects either side to play fair when there is an appointment to be made.
If the Senate is controlled by the Democrats they are going to use their power to influence the appointment how they want. Same with the Republicans. Holding off appointment hearings or propping up retirement age Justices is going to happen. There is no influence to keep it from happening. Not even voters.
If the Senate is controlled by the Democrats they are going to use their power to influence the appointment how they want. Same with the Republicans. Holding off appointment hearings or propping up retirement age Justices is going to happen. There is no influence to keep it from happening. Not even voters.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
