Well, technically Supreme Court Justices weren't supposed to be technically calculating political animals. Technically. Then John Marshall promptly put the kibosh on that idea just because he thought Thomas Jefferson was an asshole.

Some of you might find the "Switch in Time that Saved Nine" story interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..._Reform_Bill_of_1937

It may become a future hot topic.

They knew what they were doing when they made them life appointments and I’m glad they did. There is a lot of material written on alternatives and they all stink.

Bottom line, it’s human life, everything has flaws. There is no perfect system and the framers knew that. The decided, and rightly so imo, that life appointments were the best of imperfect ideas.

They also couldn't have imagined the state of medical care 240 years later. Back in them days, you died rather quickly from pancreatic, colon, and lung cancer. Folks didn't hang on by their fingertips. They croaked.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
Back in them days, you died rather quickly from pancreatic, colon, and lung cancer.

From what I know of the subject, cancer in general was an uncommon cause of death then. Lung cancer in particular was rare until cigarettes became popular in the twentieth century. Other forms of cancer were not unknown, but most deaths resulted from other diseases that are now preventable or treatable to some degree. You’re right, though, that it was uncommon for people suffering from serious diseases to hang on for long periods.

Added: And part of the reason people with serious diseases didn’t survive for long 200+ years ago was because of the horrible health care available. George Washington, for example, was essentially bled to death by his doctors. It’s also not necessary to go back that far. President McKinley was another victim of horrendous medical practices in 1901. One medical analysis I read said he would have probably survived if he’d just been left alone.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,

Website Lucianne, which is generally very reliable-- and is citing Fox-- is reporting that Ginsberg has contracted pneumonia and will retire this month.

quote:

They knew what they were doing when they made them life appointments and I’m glad they did. There is a lot of material written on alternatives and they all stink.

Bottom line, it’s human life, everything has flaws. There is no perfect system and the framers knew that. The decided, and rightly so imo, that life appointments were the best of imperfect ideas.

Yeah, well... I favor term limits.
For President: (2) 4 year terms
For Congress: 12 years, which would be 2 Senate terms or 6 House terms
For SCOTUS: 20 or maybe 25 years. It's long enough.

Just a matter of time really.

quote:

Fox & Friends Apologizes for Accidental Graphic Saying Ruth Bader Ginsburg is Dead

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fo...er-ginsburg-is-dead/

^^^^

It's not like the caption is going to be proven wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:
^^^^

It's not like the caption is going to be proven wrong.

True, but one can catch all kinds of hell for jumping the gun.

Monty Python did it best

I'm not dead yet

Even if Trump is a one term President, three SCOTUS justices in one term will set the left back more than 50 years on pushing their agenda.

It truly is the worst thing that could have happened to them. Trump is just living at an address. Constitutional Justice appointments live in their head for the rest of their lives.

They were just trying to avoid having to rush to prepare it at the last minute! ;-)

Fox: "OK, we're ready on our end."

quote:

Originally posted by braillediver:
Just a matter of time really.

quote:

Fox & Friends Apologizes for Accidental Graphic Saying Ruth Bader Ginsburg is Dead

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fo...er-ginsburg-is-dead/

Instead of apologizing, they should demand that the DC Medical Examiner's office prove them wrong.



.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Well, technically Supreme Court Justices weren't supposed to be technically calculating political animals. Technically. Then John Marshall promptly put the kibosh on that idea just because he thought Thomas Jefferson was an asshole.

RBG and her ilk are no John Marshalls. He was a hard-line defender of property rights and during his tenure on the court the whole concept of "judicial review" was largely applied to disputes involving individual rights.

He and Jefferson were at frequent odds even before he was appointed to the court, but the "political" aspect of his decisions were basically nil compared to the judicial activism seen in recent years.

Liberals don't try to be like anyone, their bread and butter is "capturing institutions". Did someone once do something for what may have been the right reason? Then for liberals it's just another paragraph that should've been in Saul Alinsky's book because it teaches them about what they see as another loophole they can use to trip up the system. Did someone do the right thing once? For liberals that gives them a grain of truth to wrap lies around so they can seize an opportunity to foster and forward their ideology.

Remember Obama working overtime over the course of months (if not years) to compare himself to Lincoln and to compare his liberal goals to the founding principles of the Republican Party?

Don't get sidetracked by shallow arguments that blow right past the point of what was said - you're doing what the liberals do, and liberals will usually beat you at their own game.

The left was willing to groom and prop up a liar in an effort to keep one man out of the Supreme Court; does anyone here believe they wouldn't lie about Ginsburg being alive if she were in fact deceased? I count nothing as out of the question where these traitors are involved.

We joke about "weekend at Ruthies" but after the last several years, the leftists are capable of anything imo.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

They knew what they were doing when they made them life appointments and I’m glad they did. There is a lot of material written on alternatives and they all stink.

Bottom line, it’s human life, everything has flaws. There is no perfect system and the framers knew that. The decided, and rightly so imo, that life appointments were the best of imperfect ideas.

Yeah, well... I favor term limits.
For President: (2) 4 year terms
For Congress: 12 years, which would be 2 Senate terms or 6 House terms
For SCOTUS: 20 or maybe 25 years. It's long enough.

I am also in favor of term limits. But, 1 term for senate, 3 terms for representatives, 2 for prez, and 20 years for SCOTUS.

Look at all those, what amount to, life time appointments currently sitting in DC! 30-40 years? Not counting SCOTUS. Saw one senator (I think) the other day that has been there for more than 30 years!!!

Actually, I would prefer that senators be appointed by state gubbernments! That way, they would have more interest in looking out for their states, and less looking out for their pockets.
====================================================================
Richard Shelby Alabama 23 years in the Senate
John McCain Arizona 23 years in the Senate
Christopher Dodd Connecticut 29 years
Joe Lieberman Connecticut 21 years
Daniel Inouye Hawaii 47 years
Richard Lugar Indiana 33 years
Tom Harkin Iowa 25 years
Chuck Grassley Iowa 29 years
Mitch McConnell Kentucky 25 years
Barbara Mikulski Maryland 23 years
John Kerry Massachusetts 25 years
Carl Levin Michigan 31 years
Thad Cochran Mississippi 32 years
Kit Bond Missouri 23 years
Max Baucus Montana 32 years
Harry Reid Nevada 23 years
Jeff Bingaman New Mexico 27 years
Kent Conrad North Dakota 23 years
Robert Byrd West Virginia 51 years
Jay Rockefeller West Virginia 25 years
Schumer, 21 years

These people make a career out of it! If they ever had any semblance of service to the country and their constituents, they lost it pretty quickly once they got their seats at the trough.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
Monty Python did it best

I'm not dead yet

"I'm happy!"