quote:

I have often said I would remain a member of the Court as long as I can do the job full steam. I remain fully able to do that.

Never has there been a bigger lie than that. Its readily apparent her staff has done all of her work for the past several years and continues to due so. A person with even a measure of integrity would resign from a position they collect a paycheck on but that they can no longer perform. She's the worst of the worst and will not be missed when he throws off this mortal coil.

https://threadreaderapp.com/th...209558840152064.html

Interesting observations.

You know if you ARE a cancer like RBG, having 20 years of cancer diagnoses is like looking into a mirror.

quote:

Interesting observations.

Given all this available info, I would re-mention my previous prediction that she wouldn't be back to the bench in the fall, one way or another. Most likely, she would be forced to retire by her illness before the next USSC term. Bless her heart.

I don't wish ill health on anyone (even an enemy), but I would enjoy seeing a new Originalist Justice on the Court.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
I don't wish ill health on anyone (even an enemy)

How very noble

During time of war, do you know what they call people with such an attitude? "Defeated" or "Loser". Take your pick.

...or maybe you have a different definition of the word "enemy"

I prefer enemies be killed or wounded in battle, not downed by horrible diseases.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
I prefer enemies be killed or wounded in battle, not downed by horrible diseases.

flashguy

Dead is dead, does it really matter which route Death takes in this instance?

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
I prefer enemies be killed or wounded in battle, not downed by horrible diseases.

Oh, horse fucking shit, man. Snap out of it. Good grief. You are blind as a bat.

Stop qualifying your remarks with this "I don't wish such-and-such on anybody" junk. If cancer had killed Hitler in 1940, that would have been soooooo horrible, huh? Just cut the virtue-signalling.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
I prefer enemies be killed or wounded in battle, not downed by horrible diseases.

Oh, horse fucking shit, man. Snap out of it. Good grief. You are blind as a bat.

Stop qualifying your remarks with this "I don't wish such-and-such on anybody" junk. If cancer had killed Hitler in 1940, that would have been soooooo horrible, huh? Just cut the virtue-signalling.

THANK YOU!

Haha...I don't care how an enemy is dispatched. This person is hanging on for horrible political reasons...nothing laudatory in her behavior.

quote:

Originally posted by bdylan:
This person is hanging on for horrible political reasons...nothing laudatory in her behavior.

100% agree.

I don't think ol' Ruthie is gonna be leading any charges into battle, so I guess we're just gonna have to be okay with her getting taken out by being older than dirt.

Is the fucking bitch dead yet?

Gawd, this is taking too long.

Kind of grotesque, her hanging on to her SC seat as she is. Why?

quote:

Originally posted by roberth:
Is the fucking bitch dead yet?

Gawd, this is taking too long.

My thoughts, exactly!!!

I wouldn't go with an age limit, but (in an ideal world) I could see a mandatory health check every year for members of the SC to keep their positions. The problem would then be crooked doctors, so that idea is DOA.

So if I oppose age limits as a matter of principle and medical tests as a matter of trust, that leaves term limits. Make it 21 years, so they can be there long enough for continuity, and an odd number so their turnover doesn't become tidal-locked with election years.

quote:

So if I oppose age limits as a matter of principle and medical tests as a matter of trust, that leaves term limits. Make it 21 years, so they can be there long enough for continuity, and an odd number so their turnover doesn't become tidal-locked with election years.

“The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour…”

– U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section I

When our founding fathers gave Supreme Court justices life tenure on the bench, the goal was to shield those serving on the court from the political pressures of the day. Today’s justices, however, are polarized along partisan lines in a way that mirrors our other broken and gridlocked political institutions.

Though the court’s most contentious decisions used to be unanimous, or nearly so, due to months or even years of consensus building, the percentage of 5-4 rulings under Chief Justice Roberts is at or near an all-time high. From health care to religious liberties to gun rights to business regulations, these one-vote margin decisions tend to be on the toughest and most divisive issues facing the nation.

The justices wield an enormous amount of power, and with lifelong appointments, they are free to push their personal politics in irreversible ways that affect the everyday lives of millions of Americans. So how can we hold the court accountable to the Constitution and ensure that the justices remain both independent from political pressures and responsive to the will of the people?

One compelling answer is 18-year term limits. Right now, life tenure is doing little to ensure the justices remain above politics. If anything, the longer justices stay on the court, the more they pursue their own political agendas. Limiting Supreme Court justices to 18-year terms would solve two key problems with the court that have led to the extreme partisanship and harmful polarization we see today:

Supreme Court justices now serve longer on average than at any point in American history. When the Constitution was written, life expectancy was much less than it is today, and life tenure gives justices the perverse incentive to stay on the court until a President with whom they tend to agree is in the Oval Office – meaning some justices keep their seat until the “right” person is elected to the White House.
Life tenure has turned Supreme Court nominations into a political circus. It’s no longer a priority to find the best candidate for the job – a candidate who will serve with integrity and who has experience outside of an appellate courtroom. Instead, the party in charge scrambles to find the youngest, often most ideological nominee (who, at the same time, knows to say the right things at a confirmation hearing) in order to control the seat for decades to come.

A single, standard 18-year term at the high court would restore limits to the most powerful, least accountable branch of American government, increase the rotation of justices serving and broaden the pool of potential nominees – all positive outcomes no matter where you see yourself on the political spectrum.

Now let’s address possible concerns over constitutionality. First, recall that the Constitution does not expressly grant “life tenure” to Supreme Court justices. Rather, this idea has been derived from the language that judges and justices, as noted above, “shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.”

Our proposal does not contravene these requirements as it would keep justices on the bench, as fully compensated senior justices, after having served 18 years at the Supreme Court. Senior justices could sit on lower federal courts, as many retired justices have done, or fill in if there’s a prolonged vacancy.

Some may still feel that pushing justices into senior status would be too similar to forcing them into retirement. However, senior status in the judiciary is a statutory creation, and one that has been almost universally accepted as a constitutionally valid interpretation of Article III. We do take seriously the charge that this could be seen as a diminution of the position, and so our proposal would not affect the current justices – that is, only future justices would be subject to this new regulation on service.

Read our term limits proposal here.
https://fixthecourt.com/fix/term-limits/

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
Kind of grotesque, her hanging on to her SC seat as she is. Why?

She may well be in denial. Think about it....she is in her 80s, and has had multiple cancers over the years, and has survived them all. Perhaps in her mind/heart she believes that she can win this time also. She is not going to win this time.

Tick-tick-tick. Imagine if she exits before the election.