Quote from: DaisyJane on November 26, 2014, 04:09:24 PM
She's a disgrace.

However, I wish her good health until hopefully a Republican President is elected in 2016.

Otherwise, we'll just get her clone for many more years.

DaisyJane   

Exactly. Thank you, DJ. Happy Thanksgiving!

Quote from: TboneAgain on November 26, 2014, 04:05:34 PM
Well... 9-0=9. Is that what you came up with? 

          Anyone interested in learning how the activities of the Supreme Court today differ from as  originally intended can search:
         "Judicial Review and the Supreme Court | Original Intent & Judicial Review"
          University Missouri at Kansas City has a  good brief on it.
          There is plenty of information on line on this topic.  You can thank the Tea Party for hammering this and like issues into the public brain.

I pray for her recovery. Still, Republicans have a lousy record with their appointmentd.

Ginsburg, who reiterated that she has no imminent plans to retire, told Elle that it would be next to impossible for the Senate to confirm a new justice to the court who she would approve of.

"Who do you think President Obama could appoint at this very day, given the boundaries that we have? If I resign any time this year, he could not successfully appoint anyone I would like to see in the court," she said. "[The Senate Republicans] took off the filibuster for lower federal court appointments, but it remains for this court. So anybody who thinks that if I step down, Obama could appoint someone like me, they're misguided.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/09/24/ruth-bader-ginsburg-obama-couldnt-appoint-an-acceptable-replacement-for-me/

Quote from: Solar on November 27, 2014, 09:14:36 AM
Ginsburg, who reiterated that she has no imminent plans to retire, told Elle that it would be next to impossible for the Senate to confirm a new justice to the court who she would approve of.

"Who do you think President Obama could appoint at this very day, given the boundaries that we have? If I resign any time this year, he could not successfully appoint anyone I would like to see in the court," she said. "[The Senate Republicans] took off the filibuster for lower federal court appointments, but it remains for this court. So anybody who thinks that if I step down, Obama could appoint someone like me, they're misguided.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/09/24/ruth-bader-ginsburg-obama-couldnt-appoint-an-acceptable-replacement-for-me/

Such arrogance!

It is not her job to approve of her replacement!

Darth

Quote from: Darth Fife on November 27, 2014, 09:24:25 AM
Such arrogance!

It is not her job to approve of her replacement!

Darth

True.  But what a shattering blow to b o ego.   

Quote from: Darth Fife on November 27, 2014, 09:24:25 AM
Such arrogance!

It is not her job to approve of her replacement!

Darth

True, but I think you missed the real point.

"The Senate Republicans took off the filibuster for lower federal court appointments, but it remains for this court."
In other words, the Dims lost the power to shove another Marxist down the throats of the country in the image of a Ginsburg.
And they have Harry to thank for that.

Quote from: Solar on November 27, 2014, 09:14:36 AM
Ginsburg, who reiterated that she has no imminent plans to retire, told Elle that it would be next to impossible for the Senate to confirm a new justice to the court who she would approve of.

"Who do you think President Obama could appoint at this very day, given the boundaries that we have? If I resign any time this year, he could not successfully appoint anyone I would like to see in the court," she said. "[The Senate Republicans] took off the filibuster for lower federal court appointments, but it remains for this court. So anybody who thinks that if I step down, Obama could appoint someone like me, they're misguided.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/09/24/ruth-bader-ginsburg-obama-couldnt-appoint-an-acceptable-replacement-for-me/

Those Senate Republicans must have been channeling that other well-known Republican, George Wallace.

Fifty bucks says Ginsburg didn't say or mean that. It was the so-called "journalist." Yet another coup for the ever-alert WP editors!

Quote from: TboneAgain on November 28, 2014, 06:48:47 PM
Those Senate Republicans must have been channeling that other well-known Republican, George Wallace.

Fifty bucks says Ginsburg didn't say or mean that. It was the so-called "journalist." Yet another coup for the ever-alert WP editors!

Probably but it's a moot issue when the crux of the point was " took off the filibuster for lower federal court appointments, but it remains for this court.". Meaning Reid can't stop them.

Quote from: DaisyJane on November 26, 2014, 04:09:24 PM
She's a disgrace.

However, I wish her good health until hopefully a Republican President is elected in 2016.

Otherwise, we'll just get her clone for many more years.

DaisyJane   

The odds are stacked against us in 2016.

Quote from: Solar on November 28, 2014, 07:59:04 PM
Probably but it's a moot issue when the crux of the point was " took off the filibuster for lower federal court appointments, but it remains for this court.". Meaning Reid can't stop them.

I understand what was being said overtly. (I'm sharper than you might think.  ) I just want to make sure that everyone understands what was being said covertly, that nasty bit of sleight-of-hand that seeks to put the fractured filibuster on the wrong side of the aisle.

If the words in brackets reflect Ginsburg's true thoughts or words, she's badly out of touch with reality. Otherwise, it's just one more bullet fired by a Leftist "reporter" of the same stripe as the one who claimed that Wallace was a Pub, or the many who have attempted to convince everyone that Lincoln was a Dem.

In my opinion, we have to fight that sort of shit tooth and nail, root and branch. In fact, I think control of the narrative has already become the existential fight. I'm proud to say that, at the moment, the Dems are losing. (Probably more accurate to say that liberalism/progressivism is losing.) But I'm mindful that the Left has a history of being one hell of a lot better at manipulating and controlling the narrative than we are.

Quote from: Captain Centrist on November 28, 2014, 09:19:46 PM
The odds are stacked against us in 2016.

Please elaborate.

Quote from: red_dirt on November 26, 2014, 12:27:19 PM
        The Supreme Court has turned into the Achilles Heel of the American system. It was never intended to turn out this way.  The intent of the founders was that the Supreme Court would rule on matters of the high seas, treason, and disputes between the states that could not be resolved by the high courts of the original states. There was never intended a court that would judge "the law of the land."  That developed as the ideals of the Constitutional Republic were gradually eroded by persistent lawyers and legislators picking away at the right of the states to govern themselves.
        This process of the federal government infringing on the rights of states began before the ink dried on the United States Constitution, though it kicked into gear with the close of the Civil War and the assassination of Lincoln. History books have been written on the subject.

It's like everything else in the constitution....it wasn't meant to be a deliverer of never-ending rights and freebies and official victimhood.  As liberals think it should be.

It was meant to be a nearly non-existent, invisible function that did almost nothing, except the few non-selfish things that you describe.  Just like the rest of the govt prescribed in the constitution.

But of course that won't stay true as long as it can be grown and misused by communists, corporatists, and power hungry SOB's.  It's just too juicy a piece of power for anybody without the ethics of the founders, which is everybody for the last 150 years, other than a Reagan or Bush here and there.

Quote from: supsalemgr on November 29, 2014, 05:50:11 AM
Please elaborate.

When did vinny get a second account  ?