I realize term limits for politicians is a pipe dream, but a 25 year limit on scotus judges should be enacted, this lifetime appointment is madness.

quote:

Originally posted by tanksoldier:

quote:

confuses Lindsey Graham for a woman

How dare we assume his gender?

HA! That was good.

quote:

Originally posted by Neel:
I realize term limits for politicians is a pipe dream, but a 25 year limit on scotus judges should be enacted, this lifetime appointment is madness.

Yep... it was discussed in the Gorsuch thread:
https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...35/m/5290073124/p/17

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
She needs to go...

Both of them!

she got something right...even being a leftist

touching bit of irony there

The thing that’s disturbing about this incident isn’t that Ginsberg didn’t know who the “women of the Senate” were, but what her statement demonstrated about her opinions and thought processes. Here we have a justice on the highest court in the land who evidently believes that someone whom she obviously knows nothing about will vote a certain way merely because of her sex. Clearly nothing else matters to Ginsberg except that, and therefore she exhibits no more fair and impartial thinking than the worst radical campus hooligan or BLMer. Whatever happened to the idea that women could be just as rational as men, make decisions based on fact and logic, and what matters is what’s in their heads, not between their legs?

(Yes, that is of course a rhetorical question whose answer is obvious. But when I hear someone accuse men of being inherently sexist, I don’t know whether to laugh, cry, scream, or sit in mute astonishment.)

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
The thing that’s disturbing about this incident isn’t that Ginsberg didn’t know who the “women of the Senate” were, but what her statement demonstrated about her opinions and thought processes. Here we have a justice on the highest court in the land who evidently believes that someone whom she obviously knows nothing about will vote a certain way merely because of her sex. Clearly nothing else matters to Ginsberg except that, and therefore she exhibits no more fair and impartial thinking than the worst radical campus hooligan or BLMer. Whatever happened to the idea that women could be just as rational as men, make decisions based on fact and logic, and what matters is what’s in their heads, not between their legs?

(Yes, that is of course a rhetorical question whose answer is obvious. But when I hear someone accuse men of being inherently sexist, I don’t know whether to laugh, cry, scream, or sit in mute astonishment.)

We've always been able to use this kind of leverage to contest older judges, system-wide, on both sides of the isle. But it is NOW time to cut bait, and if we can get new blood on the courts, lets get it done ASAP. The political winds are on our side, right now. That may not be the case in a year or two.

You have to take advantage of the direction of the political winds. RUN with it. Things can change Very quickly.

Anyone looked at the originally linked article lately, some minor editing going on here:

quote:

EDITOR’S NOTE: The original version of this story has been updated.

UPDATE (2:55 p.m.): Steve Aaron, a spokesman representing Allegheny College, told the Washington Examiner that Ginsburg was not referring to Lindsey Graham as one of the "women of the Senate." Instead, Aaron said Ginsburg was using mutually exclusive terms — referring to Graham and Feinstein as award winners from 2013 and the phrase "women of the Senate" to refer to the award winners of 2014.

The originally posted quote doesn't look at all like that, hmmm... Guess it depends on where you put a coma/comma.

My money is on Ginsburg's spot for the 2nd Trump SCOTUS appointment.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
My money is on Ginsburg's spot for the 2nd Trump SCOTUS appointment.

May not be a sure thing, but it's the way to bet.

quote:

Originally posted by TMats:

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
My money is on Ginsburg's spot for the 2nd Trump SCOTUS appointment.

May not be a sure thing, but it's the way to bet.

I'd be just as happy if she was either his 3rd or 4th appointment too.

I agree, Ginsberg will hopefully be Trump's second SCOTUS pick. She fucked up and didn't retire when Zero held office and I am sure the Dems are hating her for that now.

This woman makes decisions that affect all of us. God help us.

Of course I'm not a fan of hers and she's shown her age to be perhaps almost as much of a liability as her liberalism at this point. However, Allegheney College honored Biden and McCain in 2016, all 20 female senators in 2014, and Feinstein and Graham in 2013. Pretty much what Ginsberg said.

Fox news has updated the story to reflect this, as stoic-one pointed out above. The reporter or editor could have figured out what she meant had they spent 5 minutes on Google before jumping to a conclusion.

I suspect that Dr. Als Heimer is treating dear Ruth.

Oh, she woke up. How nice.

Ginsburg gambled to stay and now she may may lose her legacy

The Hill
Jonathan Turley
4/10/2017

The confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court represents a huge political victory for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who gambled on blocking the nomination of Merrick Garland in the hopes of a GOP electoral victory.

It may also have been an equally huge loss for the of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who ignored increasing calls for her retirement during the Obama administration to avoid the prospect of the flipping of her seat from a liberal to a conservative member. That gamble — whatever calculation — could now cost a sweeping number of key cases hanging by a 5-4 margin, including much of the precedent built around Roe v. Wade, if not an outright overturning of that decision.


Some of the smartest people can stay too long in a game on the assumption that they can gain more with time. Even Sir Isaac Newton was virtually wiped out by such a gamble. Newton invested heavily in the South Sea Company, which was granted a monopoly on trade in the South Seas. The payoff was initially huge as shares continued to rise. Newton made a lot of money and cashed out.


However, with shares still rising, he then tripled down — buying even more stock at three times the original costs. He stayed too long when some were questioning whether the rise was illusory and unsustainable. Then came the crash and Newton’s stock fell faster than his proverbial apple. He lost a fortune for the time £20,000 — virtually the entirety of his estate.

Various advocates suggested for years that Ginsburg might be staying too long on the Court. Those suggestions became more and more blunt as Obama’s second term progressed. What began as polite suggestions that it “might be time to leave” became more and more pointed, if not panicked, in the last two years of the Obama term. Recently, CNN’s Chris Cuomo put it in the most vivid terms and asked a senator, now that Trump is president, “What if Ruth Bader Ginsburg runs out of gas?”

At 84, “running out of gas” was obviously not a reference to the danger of creeping fatigue. For Ginsburg, of course, it was always a difficult decision. After all, she remains intellectually active and fully engaged on the Court. Her opinions continue to be powerful and probing treatments of the law. The precedent at risk is in no small degree precedent of her making. Yet, many justices time their retirements with an eye to who would appoint their replacements. Some have admitted that they try to engineer an appointment by one party or the other to preserve the balance of the Court.

Had Ginsburg retired early in the second Obama term, it is likely that her seat would have been filled even by a Republican-controlled Senate. Any resistance would likely have been further reduced with the second vacancy left by the death of Antonin Scalia. While Scalia’s seat may have stayed open, it is likely that Ginsburg’s would have been filled by an Obama nominee.

Now Ginsburg’s gamble on Hillary Clinton being elected could have sweeping impact on precedent that she played a major role in creating. With the elimination of the filibuster, the next nominee is hardly likely to be nuanced. Without the filibuster, Republicans have no excuse to compromise on a moderate. There is nothing standing in the way to appointing someone who is openly opposed to cases like Roe v. Wade. There is no plausible deniability based on the need to get to 60. In other words, the market has changed and the stock went bust.

The future could not be more evident than one of the first cases to be heard by Gorsuch. In Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Pauley, the Court could render a sweeping new protection for religious organizations. The church was denied funds to resurfacing its playground because of its religious purpose while giving the money to non-religious organizations. It is a case built for Gorsuch who has always interpreted the religious clauses broadly. While he will likely vote similar to Scalia on such issues, the replacement of Ginsburg by the Trump administration could herald in an era of greater entanglements between church and state.

Gorsuch will also hear Weaver v. Massachusetts and Davila v. Davis, which could define the outer limits of Sixth Amendment rights to counsel. He will also hear Maslenjak v. U.S., which will deal with the power of the government to strip someone of U.S. citizenship over immaterial but false statements made in her naturalization as a Serbian immigrant.

From the use of race in college admissions to abortion to police powers, the GOP could achieve objectives in this administration that have eluded Republican presidents for over six decades. It is not clear if Ginsberg was betting more heavily on herself or Hillary, but many may conclude that the bet was reckless given the stakes on the table. For a few years on the Court, Ginsburg risked Trump “running the table” and the odds now favor precisely such a result.

For Ginsburg, she may reach the same conclusion as Newton who reportedly (and perhaps apocryphally) said, “I can calculate the movement of stars, but not the madness of men.”

What a queer observation, and here I thought she was just a crazy ole loon. I guess I was wrong...

Karma

sweet, sweet Karma

Just checking in. You still with us, Buzzy?