Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg fractures 3 ribs in fall

[Dashinka 23,234]

23 minutes ago, Marty Byrde said:

From what I am reading, even if RBG became incapacitated she would still have to retire or be impeached

Agreed, there is no way to force a Justice out similar to the 25th Amendment.  Read the story of Justice William O. Douglas, it is interesting.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

8 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Biden said in June that if a vacancy opened in summer or later, it should not be filled or it should be a moderate.

 

    Again, McConnell is the only one who ever did this in practice, so he should own it. I'm not sure why he would try to use Biden's opinion to justify his own decision. They are both wrong.

 

  For the record, there's no convincing reason to leave a supreme court justice vacant any longer than the time required to fill the position. It's a political move, as you said, that could backfire in several ways. Biden was wrong when he said it, and McConnell was wrong when he did it.

Makes me wonder... will the US cease to exist if a vacant slot is not filled post haste?  I know MY company would continue to run if I left tomorrow...

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

13 hours ago, yuna628 said:

We laugh at elderly ladies falling and injuring themselves now?

 

Good grief, I hope you hold onto your grandma tightly.

Would you want to face her in a car in traffic?  Think she is a safe driver?  

 

Sometimes, it is better to stay at home and let your family cater to your needs.  No one is laughing from what I see, but facts is facts.

[Mansini77 100]

Ginsburg wishes to stay on the SC till she turns 90.  And with Trump in the White House, she won't be stepping down any time soon.  Not of fan or her, but she's not going to let a few broken ribs change her mind.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Satisfied said:

Makes me wonder... will the US cease to exist if a vacant slot is not filled post haste?  I know MY company would continue to run if I left tomorrow...

 

   No. No one said it would. Care to guess which fallacy of logic you used this time?

Edited November 9, 2018 by Steeleballz

[Steeleballz 7,550]

8 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

There is no convincing reason?  Did SCOTUS fail to function with only eight justices?  Why is nine the magic number?  Didn’t FDR want more?  Sure what McConnell did was a political stunt, and if the situation was reversed, I am sure the Dems would have done the same thing, but it is well within the Senate’s prerogative under our system of checks and balances.  SCOTUS operates just fine with eight or less justices which I believe happens often when a justice recuse themselves for whatever reason.  Heck, Ruth Bader Ginsberg should recuse herself on any case involving Trump given her public statements against the president.  

 

  If they want to permanently reduce it to 8 when the next vacancy comes up, I'm fine with that. If it's at 9 and there is a position open, it should be filled. 

[TBoneTX 43,043]

What's really hilarious is the flood of offers from people around the country who want to donate their ribs and organs to her.  Will try to find a link.

[TBoneTX 43,043]

2 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

Will try to find a link.

Great observations from Rush here, with link to newspaper story at bottom:

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/11/08/panicked-liberals-offer-to-donate-ribs-and-organs-to-keep-ruth-buzzi-ginsburg-alive/

[Dashinka 23,234]

52 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  If they want to permanently reduce it to 8 when the next vacancy comes up, I'm fine with that. If it's at 9 and there is a position open, it should be filled. 

Where in the Constitution does it say a vacancy has to be filled within a certain amount of time?  There are multiple federal judicial vacancies all over the country that end up going infilled for extended periods for whatever reason, the country will survive.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   No. No one said it would. Care to guess which fallacy of logic you used this time?

Bravo, nice try.  So since it’s not truly a big deal in the overall scheme of things, why the rush to fill any vacancy?

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

Where in the Constitution does it say a vacancy has to be filled within a certain amount of time?  There are multiple federal judicial vacancies all over the country that end up going infilled for extended periods for whatever reason, the country will survive.

Methinks we are on the same page.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

6 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Where in the Constitution does it say a vacancy has to be filled within a certain amount of time?  There are multiple federal judicial vacancies all over the country that end up going infilled for extended periods for whatever reason, the country will survive.

 

    The country would survive without any supreme court. That's not really the point. Why would you want to leave a SC position open arbitrarily? 

[JimandChristy 1,689]

The solution is obvious. Increase the number of Supreme Court Justices. We could end up with a Supreme Court that is not a fair reflection/representation of the entire country. Laws will be passed in the future by majorities in Congress and very favorable with the public that'll be knocked down because of the very conservative beliefs with some on the court.

[Boiler 43,425]

I did not realise the Supreme Court was a representative body.

 

But if you want to start the average age is c38.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

3 minutes ago, JimandChristy said:

The solution is obvious. Increase the number of Supreme Court Justices. We could end up with a Supreme Court that is not a fair reflection/representation of the entire country. Laws will be passed in the future by majorities in Congress and very favorable with the public that'll be knocked down because of the very conservative beliefs with some on the court.

to what level, every 3-4 elections there is a shift in the majority party, potentially the SC could grow to obscene levels as it grows to reflect the nature of the majority party coupled with the lifetime appointment.

[yuna628 9,528]

10 hours ago, Satisfied said:

Would you want to face her in a car in traffic?  Think she is a safe driver?  

 

Sometimes, it is better to stay at home and let your family cater to your needs.  No one is laughing from what I see, but facts is facts.

I think that  if she can still churn out court opinions as she does with plenty of vigor, and has a rather intense fitness program for her advanced age I'd have no problem. My grandfather drove well beyond her age... until his mind went. And I see no evidence of that in her. My dad on the other hand... hoooboy.... he scares me to death driving sometimes. But there are tons of younger people driving out there (my sister comes to mind) that you wouldn't want to face in a car in a million years.