Ginsberg's Dying Wish . . .
doctorevil
Evil Lair
“My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”
As accomplished as she was in her early career, this is proof positive that she devolved into nothing more than a political hack.
As accomplished as she was in her early career, this is proof positive that she devolved into nothing more than a political hack.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
112 comments
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
--Mitch McConnell, February 2016
Chuck Schumer Tweeted on 2/22/16
Attn GOP: Senate has confirmed 17 #SCOTUS justices presidential election years. #DoYourJob
--Mitch McConnell, February 2016
Chuck Schumer
I'm a conservative, I like conservative justices, but I hope for a compromise solution that won't inflame this election further.
Somebody send him a stripper stat!
You don't compromise with terrorists that threaten violence - nor do you compromise with those that support the terrorists ("the "protesters" are peaceful"; "the Federal troops are stormtroopers"; etc)
The Dems have been trying to overthrow Trump since January 2016
Now your turn - why do you fuck dogs?
The Dems have been trying to overthrow Trump since January 2016
^ This. They want power/control by any means. It's unfortunate that it's come to this but the leftists have to be stopped and short of an actual war the best way is to control the Supreme Court.
They're going to scream and offer up more threats whenever they don't get their way.
I say fuck them!
That's a silly narrative that baby killers and their supporters have been peddling for years. The country is evenly split on the abortion issue and those who oppose it are most certainly not all religious nuts. I'm not - I'm just against killing babies just because they haven't come out of the womb yet.
"I don't know that she said that, or was that written out by Adam Schiff, Schumer and Pelosi," @realDonaldTrump said of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's "fervent" last wish.
Yet another fallacy that baby killers use to justify the extermination. As a Dad who has listened to the heartbeats and seen the ultrasounds for all three of my children through each stage of fetal development, I know different. Their hearts start beating a mere 5-6 weeks into the pregnancy.
So true and how could you forget Biden? A presidential candidate who is likely seriously ill. He was unavailable for comments yesterday after 8:30 AM.
->Papi: "w.r.t. Ginsberg's dying wish - a Justice doesn't get to pick who their successor is"
^This. Well, both of these.
Lines from Unforgiven:
Little Bill Daggett (Gene Hackman): I'll see you in hell, William Munny.
William Munny (Clint Eastwood): Yeah.
I don't think that's gonna go over well on CNN & MSNBC
😊
LOL
It would be like a geriatric version of "Make a Wish".
But instead of offering some comfort and joy to the life of someone destined to die a premature death, you could allow people who led a full life to control others from beyond the grave.
What could possibly be wrong about a concept like that?
Even if it isn't, it's not a man's place or anyone other than the woman who is pregnant's right to tell her what to do.
The other thing that always has me baffled is that these folk who yell about pro-life aren't stepping up to take these children and raise them if the pregnant woman doesn't or can't care for the child. This hypocrisy has always bothered me.
Do you have anything that supports this? It seems to be totally untrue as from what I have heard is there is more people that want to adopt than can, and that is why lots of babies get adopted from other countries.
I never bought this argument - IMO it's a way to take the focus away from the fetus as if it doesn't count nor have any rights (again, if that was the case then someone killing a pregnant woman wouldn't be charged with double-homicide) - it's not about "the woman's body" bc she's not doing it to herself, she's doing to someone else and choosing life or death for someone else, not herself - it's a selfish self-serving way to frame it.
This goes beyond medical care and includes care for the woman during pregnancy and even after pregnancy.
Sorry to say this, but I feel perfectly justified in telling a woman not to kill a baby just because it is still in her womb.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/honor-her…
https://mobile.twitter.com/ITGuy1959/sta…
Packing a Supreme Court seems to me like an attempt by the Legislative and/or Executive branches to nullify the third branch in our system of checks and balances.
I would very much like to see an amendment to the Constitution that the number of SCOTUS judges be locked in at nine.
The Republicans should have brought Merrick Garland to the floor and voted him down. Had they done that, the democrat party would look even dumber than they do now.
That ignorant, partisan, hack, Don Lemon, last night suggested that the court should be packed so that the democrat party can pass an amendment to remove the Electoral College from the elections. The states have to ratify any amendments, and I do not see this passing. More importantly, the Electoral College is another important tool in the system of checks and balances. Without it, we would have the tyranny of the majority. I would like to see a return to government (in the Senate) where a bipartisan consensus is necessary to perform several legislative acts, such as 60% to confirm judges.
Abortion is not an election issue for me. How can you be pro-life and support the death penalty? How can you call the death penalty "state murder", but favor taxpayer funds being used in late-term or post-birth abortion? The Christian argument for innocent babies is self-defeating, due to original sin and the inability of a fetus to accept Christ and be baptized.
Trump needs to push this through and see if the Dems follow up with threats and another impeachment round - the public will not want more impeachment hearings right now.
Abortion is the killing of an innocent baby. The decision is based on the whims of a single person.
Execution is the killing of an individual who knowingly and maliciously committed specific crimes against society. It only occurs after numerous trials and is a collective decision.
Also, if you look at the numbers, somewhere around 1,000,000 babies are killed in this country every year. Given current restrictions, I doubt we hit one dozen executions in this country each year.
To me, the liberal viewpoint doesn’t make sense - that it is cruel to kill people for heinous crimes, but that not only is it alright to kill innocent babies, but that the act of killing babies should be subsidized by tax payers.
https://thetriad.thebulwark.com/p/tyrann…
https://time.com/5338689/supreme-court-p…
Claiming that expanding the court will be done to take the politics out of it is likely to turn that pulled muscle into a torn muscle.
https://crooksandliars.com/2020/09/elie-…
No matter who’s in power, this country keeps on, and I know this, the sun will come up in the morning no matter who wins
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/22/mitt-rom…
In other words y’all like the echo chamber you’ve got here it beats getting smacked down in the real world
The concept of bipartisan cooperation goes back to my earlier statement seeking 60% bipartisan consensus over sinple 50%+1 majority. If that were required more often, there would be more centrist bills, nominations, and overall governance than we have today. Additionally, maybe we should do away with C-span and video in Congress. I wonder if there would be more of a focus on governing for the good of all Americans if the pols no longer had to come up with one-liners and soundbites to satisfy the 25iqs in their base.
When our political system descended into power politics rather than governing politics we seem to have lost sight of the initial goal. I know power has always been in play but it's difficult to tell who's really in it for the good of the people.
The overt power mongers are obvious to all. What kind of revolution will have to occur to bring us back to a place of vigorous debate but even stronger humanity? Is this even possible?
All it would take is a viable third party made up of populist moderates to balance the scales. Let the socialists have the Dems and let the Trumpists have the GOP. If Bush H, Bush W, McCain, and Mitt are all now considered RINOs, a third party could have a pretty big tent.
Do away with primaries. This would negate the abilities of fringe candidates like Alex Cortez and Warren to warrant the support of the party. We also need term limits and mandatory retirement ages so we do not get saddled with mainstream jackasses like Biden, McCain, Pelosi, and Kasich. Finally, remove the Senators from the general election, and have the state assemblies select them as the Constitution originally stipulated. Under the current system, they are just overpowered representatives. Maybe add in a two term (12 year) limit for them as well.
and don’t kill babies.
Do away with primaries? I see what you mean about eliminating the wackos like Cortez and Warren, but Presidential candidates being appointed by a few party bigwigs doesn't seem like a reasonable alternative.
I don't claim to have ALL the answers, just a willingness to consider the alternatives. This partisan gridlock is the second biggest problem in American politics, which it has been for decades. The largest problem is newer, and that is the 24-7 news cycle in which the left, the democrat party, the liberals and socialists and commies, have embraced feeding outright lies, propaganda, and fake news to the American public, and screaming down anyone who points out the truth and facts are not what is being reported. Even CNN and the NYT are wholly corrupted and complicit in a wide-ranging effort to deceive, confuse, and obfuscate the truth in a type of fiction which has no relation to true journalistic ethics.
Biden himself is a compromise candidate selected by the big wigs. He will lose for it. That goes back to my original idea for fit for duty tests, term limits, and age limits. It's not perfect, but it's better than what we have now.
Regarding your earlier comment: I think we're still far away from the creation of a "viable" third party. The most successful attempt in recent history was Ross Perot back in '92. Nationwide he received almost 20 million votes, compared to Bush's 39 million and Clinton's 45 million, but he failed to win even a single Electoral College vote. His supporters were pretty much scattered among all the states, without enough concentration in any one area to achieve success. In the end, all he did was act as a spoiler.
Given how much further apart the two major parties have become over the last several decades, your suggestion seems to have merit. But consider this: At best, a highly successful 3rd Party candidate would cause a 3-way split in the Electoral College where no one earns the required 270 votes. In that case, the President would be selected by the House of Representatives, which means the winner will be either the Democrat or Republican. Guaranteed it won't be the 3rd Party guy.
Unless they find a way to reincarnate George Washington, or Jesus Christ himself returns and runs for President, I can't see any way possible that a 3rd Party would be successful anytime soon.
The maximum for the Navy is 34.
The maximum for the Marines is 28
The maximum for the Air Force is 39.
The duties of someone enlisted in the military are much different than those of the Commander in Chief.
That notwithstanding, there are other key differences that make ages for service in the military a bad guide for service in elected office.
First of all, the ages for military service are based on physical fitness to fight in war. While it is true that with modern weapon systems, the ratio of people in support positions to people at the pointy end of the spear is increasing, the age requirements are based on effectivity in combat.
But the biggest difference between a blanket rule for the miliary and a similar rule for elected office is sheer numbers. There are approximately 1.4 million people in active duty, and 800,000 in the reserves today.
With some 2.2 million people serving the country through the military, blanket rules are necessary in certain instances because outliers are too expensive to find.
If you look at Alzheimer's specifically, about 1 in 10 Americans over the age of 65 have it to some degree. The vast majority of older Americans are mentally fit.
When you combine that with the small handful of people who run for elected office (at any level, not just the presidency) screening for mental fitness to hold office is not cost prohibitive.
There really ought to be some cognitive tests in order to qualify as a candidate for President. I mean, just the fact that a complete moron like Joe Biden, with the right support (political and financial backing) can stand up and convince a significant number of people that he should be President is evidence enough.
As much as I'm the 180-degree polar opposite of anything Bernie Sanders ever stood for, I'd have to agree that mentally the guy is very sharp. He earned the nickname "Crazy Bernie" not because he was lacking intelligence, but rather his vision of America's future was so far out there. That said, he very likely would be the Democratic candidate right now if both he and Biden had been subjected to a test of cognitive ability.
As for Biden - he cheated when he was in college. He got caught plagiarizing speeches when he ran for President for the 1988 election. (He was actually caught in 1987) There have been plagiarism issues this time around too.
Even before his mind turned to mush, he was never the sharpest tool in the shed.
Agreed. I'll never forgive Buffet for endorsing Obama and Hillary. Very intelligent guy, but a total asshole politically.
I am totally embarrassed to be an American now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVwv8cBh…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-eD2n2d…
...from the same speech as Corn Pop.
Mark my words, if Biden is elected, Canada will look at the situation, say to themselves “we can take these guys” and invade no later than February 1, 2021.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/ruth-bade…
(for those of you that don't live in Florida, that's an inside joke)
“I think that Mother, like many others, expected that Hillary Clinton would win the nomination and the presidency, and she wanted the first female president to name her successor."
Perfect example of how lefties make decisions. Could have (should have) stepped down while Obama was President and had a Democrat Senate that would easily confirm a young replacement for her. But as with all stupid liberals, they prefer spectacular news headlines over common sense decisions. I hope Trump's appointment, when confirmed, will publicly thank RBG for holding the seat.