Chandemonium Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 2 hours ago, row_33 said: they are not going to fake that she is still alive if she has croaked incapacity is another matter, since the Dems have been stating that Trump is clearly unfit mentally or psychiatrically or physically, the bar must be pretty low by now. Part of me thinks they already are. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 1 hour ago, Foxx said: Somebody needs to hire these guys to sing outside the Supreme Court chambers.... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 1 hour ago, Chandemonium said: Part of me thinks they already are. i can't go there.... they are going to have a private ceremony and burial at Arlington? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 43 minutes ago, /dev/null said: Somebody needs to hire these guys to sing outside the Supreme Court chambers.... On it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 5 hours ago, row_33 said: they are not going to fake that she is still alive if she has croaked Yeah, it's not like she's an investigation in to Russian collusion... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 6 hours ago, /dev/null said: Sandiego. Which, in German, of course, means a whale's *****. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 9 hours ago, Chandemonium said: Part of me thinks they already are. Nothing is out of the question anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 Say she is dead or say she's a vegetable.... 1) if she's comatose and incapacitated and no one has been informed of such status: what's precedent? Who would get punished if they just get her on life support for a year to keep another appointment being made? I really could see this as an option. 2) if she's dead and just kept in a meat locker for a short time without someone knowing, then what? Why couldn't this happen? For a month or so? Who's the one who's get in trouble? No one. And it'd be nearly impossible to attack politically Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 15 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: Say she is dead or say she's a vegetable.... 1) if she's comatose and incapacitated and no one has been informed of such status: what's precedent? Who would get punished if they just get her on life support for a year to keep another appointment being made? I really could see this as an option. 2) if she's dead and just kept in a meat locker for a short time without someone knowing, then what? Why couldn't this happen? For a month or so? Who's the one who's get in trouble? No one. And it'd be nearly impossible to attack politically get her entombed in Arlington please, the jig is up, if it deserves to be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 2 hours ago, row_33 said: get her entombed in Arlington please, the jig is up, if it deserves to be It was a cereal question. What's honestly going to keep RBG and her ilk from pulling something where she is on life support barely hanging on until they can play a game of politics and influence??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 (edited) If she can’t serve and is unlikely to in the long term, she should resign. But with the bar set so high on playing politics with the SC nomination process (Garland), don’t expect the Ds to take the high road. They will probably play as dirty as the Rs did. Edited January 30, 2019 by BeginnersMind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 Yes. Hiding the corpse of a justice to deny POTUS a replacement is the same level as playing procedural politics with Garland. He just keeps getting more and more ridiculous. And transparent. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 30, 2019 Author Share Posted January 30, 2019 Just now, BeginnersMind said: If she can’t serve and is unlikely to in the long term, she should resign. But with the bar set so high on playing politics with the SC nomination process (Garland), I don’t expect the Ds to take the high road. They will probably play as dirty as the Rs did. Horseshit. There was precedent for the Garland non vote. There's no precedent or moral necessity to keep RBG alive for political reasons. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 10 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: It was a cereal question. What's honestly going to keep RBG and her ilk from pulling something where she is on life support barely hanging on until they can play a game of politics and influence??? I don't know what the specific crime would be if they were hiding her death, or if there would even be one. Koko or others might have a better grasp on that, I'd think the biggest blowback would be political. If the public at large were to learn for a fact that RGB was dead and that was hidden from the public by politicians on the left purely to deny Trump a pick it would confirm every single bad thing uttered about the left by independents and moderates over the years. 1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said: Horseshit. There was precedent for the Garland non vote. There's no precedent or moral necessity to keep RBG alive for political reasons. Of course not. But when you're not here to be honest, and are here to push an agenda, you can make that kind of ludicrous leap in logic. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: If the public at large were to learn for a fact that RGB was dead and that was hidden from the public by politicians on the left purely to deny Trump a pick it would confirm every single bad thing uttered about the left by independents and moderates over the years. And the media would explain that while the events that transpired were bad, they weren't as bad as what the Rs did to Garland. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I don't know what the specific crime would be if they were hiding her death, or if there would even be one. Koko or others might have a better grasp on that, I'd think the biggest blowback would be political. If the public at large were to learn for a fact that RGB was dead and that was hidden from the public by politicians on the left purely to deny Trump a pick it would confirm every single bad thing uttered about the left by independents and moderates over the years. Of course not. But when you're not here to be honest, and are here to push an agenda, you can make that kind of ludicrous leap in logic. I would have to imagine that the crime would be in "her" rendering decisions, when she wasn't the one doing so. I'm not sure what it would fall under, but I'm certain it would be criminal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 Just now, TakeYouToTasker said: I would have to imagine that the crime would be in "her" rendering decisions, when she wasn't the one doing so. I'm not sure what it would fall under, but I'm certain it would be criminal. That's a good point and likely where the rubber would meet the road. If they're issuing opinions in her name while she's dead or not conscious it would definitely be fraud on top of a host of other crimes I image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 8 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said: If she can’t serve and is unlikely to in the long term, she should resign. But with the bar set so high on playing politics with the SC nomination process (Garland), don’t expect the Ds to take the high road. They will probably play as dirty as the Rs did. You think Garland set the bar high on politics with an SC nom? I'm guessing you were asleep during the Kavanaugh hearings. Did you miss that? Ignore it? Or are you convinced Kavanaugh is a gang rapist and the only problem is enough people didn't pay attention to Avenatti? Just now, Deranged Rhino said: That's a good point and likely where the rubber would meet the road. If they're issuing opinions in her name while she's dead or not conscious it would definitely be fraud on top of a host of other crimes I image. You know what is absolutely ridiculous? That so many people genuinely believe it to be in the realm of possibility that the Democrats would hide the death of SC justice and posthumously issue opinions in her name . My first thought was, "Okay, people, let's be serious about this." But then you think about it seriously, and you look at all the incredibly underhanded things the Dems do, and you think to yourself, "Likely? No. Possible? Yep. Pretty much." Kind blows my mind a little bit. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts