DC Tom Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 30 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: Well, we've seen a sharp mental decline in DJT starting when he wanted to be involved with politics, but that might just be him. No we haven't. He's always been this boorish and stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 I wish her a speedy recovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 3 hours ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: Well, we've seen a sharp mental decline in DJT starting when he wanted to be involved with politics, but that might just be him. Proof? Or you just spouting out your ass again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 4 hours ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said: That is true, but not healthy for the republic. Elected officials should have a set retirement age and term limits. Case in point, John McCain. Some of these people are masking serious health problems that may or may not be affecting their ability to effectively function. I will throw it out there, 80 yrs old should be it for ANY elected official. The problem with that, and the point of lifetime tenure in the Constitution, was to prevent arbitrary laws to eliminate legislatures from modifying the laws to get rid of judges that aren't agreeing with them. Say Congress makes retirement age 80 for the Supreme Court. Well, they don't like the next crop of judges, so maybe they change it to 60 to get rid of troublesome judges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 Quote Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump FollowFollow @realDonaldTrump Wishing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg a full and speedy recovery! 4:16 PM - 21 Dec 2018 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 43 minutes ago, Koko78 said: The problem with that, and the point of lifetime tenure in the Constitution, was to prevent arbitrary laws to eliminate legislatures from modifying the laws to get rid of judges that aren't agreeing with them. Say Congress makes retirement age 80 for the Supreme Court. Well, they don't like the next crop of judges, so maybe they change it to 60 to get rid of troublesome judges. Will no one rid me of this turbulent Jurist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 31 minutes ago, B-Man said: . I'm disappointed in myself. I know CNN's going to spin that negatively...but I can't figure out how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 Does it make me a bad person if I enjoy imagining the scope of the left wing conniption should Trump get to pick her replacement? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 21 minutes ago, KD in CA said: Does it make me a bad person if I enjoy imagining the scope of the left wing conniption should Trump get to pick her replacement? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 24 minutes ago, KD in CA said: Does it make me a bad person if I enjoy imagining the scope of the left wing conniption should Trump get to pick her replacement? They’ll be campaigning on packing the SC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MILFHUNTER#518 Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 3 hours ago, Koko78 said: The problem with that, and the point of lifetime tenure in the Constitution, was to prevent arbitrary laws to eliminate legislatures from modifying the laws to get rid of judges that aren't agreeing with them. Say Congress makes retirement age 80 for the Supreme Court. Well, they don't like the next crop of judges, so maybe they change it to 60 to get rid of troublesome judges. There is no mention of specific lifetime tenure in the constitution. They just did not specify a specic time period of how long they can serve. So, naturally, everyone assumes they serve for life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, Koko78 said: The problem with that, and the point of lifetime tenure in the Constitution, was to prevent arbitrary laws to eliminate legislatures from modifying the laws to get rid of judges that aren't agreeing with them. Say Congress makes retirement age 80 for the Supreme Court. Well, they don't like the next crop of judges, so maybe they change it to 60 to get rid of troublesome judges. I understand that. However, RBG voting from her hospital bed? Strom Thurmond at 100 with his aids on the Senate floor voting? Louise Slaughter was 88 when she died in office after having gerrymandered her district to ensure she'd never lose (when it went from the 30th to the 28th (this was a real treat - just enough of NF, and Rochester to make certain the Rs on the lake has no real representation) to the 25th after population loss). There are tons of examples going back 150 years, but it (longer, older tenures) has been much more common since the 20th century when people's life expectancy increased exponentially. What nature took care of in the 18th and 19th centuries, is no longer a "solution" today. If age restrictions can be imposed due to age (military enlistments, pilots, etc) in some fields (more so with union restrictions), why can't Congress impose such restrictions on itself (and Federal judgeships)? Edited December 22, 2018 by Buffalo_Gal 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 11 hours ago, B-Man said: . Proof of his diminishing mental faculties. #IMPEACH! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/12/rbg-cancer/578869/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted December 23, 2018 Share Posted December 23, 2018 14 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said: why can't Congress impose such restrictions on itself (and Federal judgeships)? The Constitution. The Constitution decrees that federal judges are judges for as long as they behave themselves, whether it's 5 minutes or 500 years (hell, Judge Curtin - the guy who admitted me into federal court - was a LBJ appointee). Hamilton lays out the reasoning pretty well in Federalist 78. Similarly, Congress cannot regulate qualifications for being in Congress for the same reason they had no power to take it upon themselves to limit the presidency to two terms. The only way to have Congressional term limits and/or Judicial age limits is to amend the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted December 23, 2018 Share Posted December 23, 2018 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Koko78 said: The Constitution. The Constitution decrees that federal judges are judges for as long as they behave themselves, whether it's 5 minutes or 500 years (hell, Judge Curtin - the guy who admitted me into federal court - was a LBJ appointee). Hamilton lays out the reasoning pretty well in Federalist 78. Similarly, Congress cannot regulate qualifications for being in Congress for the same reason they had no power to take it upon themselves to limit the presidency to two terms. The only way to have Congressional term limits and/or Judicial age limits is to amend the Constitution. That is interesting. I did not know the consititution spoke to no age limits. I was always under the assumption (clearly wrong) that nothing was spelled out, so the assumption was there was no age limit (i.e. Lack of a specific age or term limit mentioned meant that no age or term limit, was implied). Well, since they got an amendment for presidential term limits through 65 years ago, then I guess term limits for congress, and age limits for both congress and federal "lifetime" judicial appointments are in order as well. (Like that will happen) Edited December 23, 2018 by Buffalo_Gal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted December 23, 2018 Share Posted December 23, 2018 On 12/21/2018 at 1:07 PM, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: Well, we've seen a sharp mental decline in DJT starting when he wanted to be involved with politics, but that might just be him. Not sure that's the case. The spotlight is on him now, but merely showcases the personality and mannerisms he touted most of his life. A clear indication of the extent to which we Deplorables were fed up with business-as-usual in DC promoted by the election and reelection of the same old hacks. Unfortunately, no one in power seems to be working to fix anything in DC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 23, 2018 Share Posted December 23, 2018 This feels creepy... even for Michael Moore. ............ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted December 23, 2018 Share Posted December 23, 2018 On 12/22/2018 at 8:02 AM, Buffalo_Gal said: I understand that. However, RBG voting from her hospital bed? Strom Thurmond at 100 with his aids on the Senate floor voting? Louise Slaughter was 88 when she died in office after having gerrymandered her district to ensure she'd never lose (when it went from the 30th to the 28th (this was a real treat - just enough of NF, and Rochester to make certain the Rs on the lake has no real representation) to the 25th after population loss). There are tons of examples going back 150 years, but it (longer, older tenures) has been much more common since the 20th century when people's life expectancy increased exponentially. What nature took care of in the 18th and 19th centuries, is no longer a "solution" today. If age restrictions can be imposed due to age (military enlistments, pilots, etc) in some fields (more so with union restrictions), why can't Congress impose such restrictions on itself (and Federal judgeships)? The primary reasons for life expectancy being far longer than it used to be are the decrease in death at childbirth and the better treatments of childhood diseases and accidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 23, 2018 Share Posted December 23, 2018 I see. So medical and surgical advances in treating heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and cancer haven’t been a factor. I guess virtually eliminating TB, dyptheria, cholera, yellow fever, sepsis had a negligible effect too. Good to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 AxiosVerified account @axios 8m8 minutes ago More JUST IN: Ruth Bader Ginsburg will miss oral arguments for the first time in her 25 years on the Supreme Court as she recovers from cancer surgery. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 59 minutes ago, B-Man said: AxiosVerified account @axios 8m8 minutes ago More JUST IN: Ruth Bader Ginsburg will miss oral arguments for the first time in her 25 years on the Supreme Court as she recovers from cancer surgery. . She wont last through the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 1 hour ago, B-Man said: AxiosVerified account @axios 8m8 minutes ago More JUST IN: Ruth Bader Ginsburg will miss oral arguments for the first time in her 25 years on the Supreme Court as she recovers from cancer surgery. . Really...not retiring at this point is an abrogation of her responsibility as a Justice in preference for party loyalty. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 6 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Really...not retiring at this point is an abrogation of her responsibility as a Justice in preference for party loyalty. Merrick Garland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 Just now, TH3 said: Merrick Garland What's your point? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 Just now, DC Tom said: What's your point? Come on...even you can connect the dots of your hypocrisy between your post and mine.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 Just now, TH3 said: Come on...even you can connect the dots of your hypocrisy between your post and mine.... I truly can't, because you're referencing a completely different situation while crediting me with an opinion I never held. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 12 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Really...not retiring at this point is an abrogation of her responsibility as a Justice in preference for party loyalty. LOL This from you is great! Tom calling for high mindedness! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 The meltdown when she goes will be epic. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 20 minutes ago, DC Tom said: I truly can't, because you're referencing a completely different situation while crediting me with an opinion I never held. Elvis Grbac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 7, 2019 Author Share Posted January 7, 2019 56 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: Elvis Grbac Do you want to buy a vowel? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 1 hour ago, Boyst62 said: Elvis Grbac Elvish Greeting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 MORE: "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will not be on the bench Monday when the Supreme Court hears oral arguments, the first time in her career she has missed a session." Writes Robert Barnes at WaPo. “As long as I can do the job full steam, I will do it,” Ginsburg said last year. She has hired law clerks through the 2020 term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 1 hour ago, DC Tom said: Really...not retiring at this point is an abrogation of her responsibility as a Justice in preference for party loyalty. Agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 It doesn't matter whether she attends or not. Everyone already knows which way she will vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: She wont last through the year. Well we know what will happen if she does last until at least 1/1/2020. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 7, 2019 Author Share Posted January 7, 2019 1 hour ago, unbillievable said: It doesn't matter whether she attends or not. Everyone already knows which way she will vote. Elena Kagan is taking notes for her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 Will she also be giving her mouth-to-mouth resuscitation? 7 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Elena Kagan is taking notes for her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 7, 2019 Author Share Posted January 7, 2019 2 minutes ago, Nanker said: Will she also be giving her mouth-to-mouth resuscitation? I don't understand why they are arguing over "oral". I thought that was settled when our first black president declared it "not sex". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts