User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/7/2019 2:54:46 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm worried that Trump could offer up a moderate or a liberal SCOTUS pick in exchange for the wall funding and the .Gov shutdown.  Think about it....... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2019 2:54:53 PM EDT
[#2]
She and everyone else knows how bad this looks. If she’s staying home today, it’s bad.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2019 2:56:41 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You must be present to decide/vote on anything. /end |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2019 2:58:28 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Summer 2019 when Thomas retires. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
When will Trump have his 3rd SCOTUS appointment? And RBG kicks the bucket a week later setting off an epic double vacancy/nomination/confirmation Summer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2019 3:00:23 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks for digging that out. It doesn't surprise me, I just hadn't seen in it writing, or cared enough to dig for the answer. The real question in my mind is how does RBG get to cast her vote after oral arguments if she can't physically attend the justice's conference. I assume, without knowing, that the justices will hold off on deciding any case where RBG's vote would break a tie until she can attend a conference. Others will of course assume that her clerks will be allowed to mail in her vote. I won't pretend to know which is reality. But I'd bet no clerk's ass ever warms one of these chairs during a conference. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/images/conferenceRoom.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe anyone with an informed opinion of the man, regardless of their opinion on his jurisprudence, would laugh at your assertion that he doesn't care about the reputation of the Court. I'm not saying that's a good thing. I'm saying that it's the accepted view. It explains this: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-114_qol1.pdf And this: Now, if you think Roberts is going to let a clerk fill in for RBG in their private conference, and undermine what little credibility the Court still has with the population when that news leaks, you should adjust your tinfoil. Myself I am curious as to the precedent for allowing a Justice to vote on cases where they don't attend oral arguments. I think it's very rare. I do recall reading about a Justice that was aging and ill, yet refused to resign, many years ago, and the other Justices basically worked around him. I'd have to dig to find that nugget of history and the details. But conspiracy theories about clerks physically filling in for Justices is a fantasy I'm not willing to tolerate. Do all of the Justices have to be present in order to hear a case?
A quorum of six Justices is required to decide a case. Justices may also participate in a case by listening to audio recordings of the oral arguments and reading the transcripts. The real question in my mind is how does RBG get to cast her vote after oral arguments if she can't physically attend the justice's conference. I assume, without knowing, that the justices will hold off on deciding any case where RBG's vote would break a tie until she can attend a conference. Others will of course assume that her clerks will be allowed to mail in her vote. I won't pretend to know which is reality. But I'd bet no clerk's ass ever warms one of these chairs during a conference. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/images/conferenceRoom.jpg Just going off memory, the only votes that occur in the conference room are votes to grant or deny cert petitions (deciding whether or not to take a case) and preliminary votes taken after oral argument when the opinion writing is being assigned. The final count is based on who agrees to sign onto which opinion/dissent after drafts are circulated among the justices, with most communication being done via memo or clerk. Cert petitions still get voted on during the summer recess when most justices are out of DC or even out of the country, so clearly there is some precedent for remote voting. SCOTUS's "Reporter's Guide to Applications" also says that when applications for a stay are referred to the full court to decide, "Justices do not meet officially or publicly, but confer, sometimes by phone, or through their law clerks." Ginsburg voted against one of these applications for a stay from her hospital bed recently in the asylum ban case, although I haven't seen it confirmed what method was used to do so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2019 3:03:45 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
She and everyone else knows how bad this looks. If she’s staying home today, it’s bad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2019 3:05:08 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is a strong tradition that no one besides the justices are allowed to sit in on the conferences. This is why the most junior justice is assigned the task of answering the door if anyone knocks with coffee or paperwork.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2019 3:10:20 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is a strong tradition that no one besides the justices are allowed to sit in on the conferences. This is why the most junior justice is assigned the task of answering the door if anyone knocks with coffee or paperwork. Just going off memory, the only votes that occur in the conference room are votes to grant or deny cert petitions (deciding whether or not to take a case) and preliminary votes taken after oral argument when the opinion writing is being assigned. The final count is based on who agrees to sign onto which opinion/dissent after drafts are circulated among the justices, with most communication being done via memo or clerk. Cert petitions still get voted on during the summer recess when most justices are out of DC or even out of the country, so clearly there is some precedent for remote voting. SCOTUS's "Reporter's Guide to Applications" also says that when applications for a stay are referred to the full court to decide, "Justices do not meet officially or publicly, but confer, sometimes by phone, or through their law clerks." Ginsburg voted against one of these applications for a stay from her hospital bed recently in the asylum ban case, although I haven't seen it confirmed what method was used to do so. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe anyone with an informed opinion of the man, regardless of their opinion on his jurisprudence, would laugh at your assertion that he doesn't care about the reputation of the Court. I'm not saying that's a good thing. I'm saying that it's the accepted view. It explains this: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-114_qol1.pdf And this: Now, if you think Roberts is going to let a clerk fill in for RBG in their private conference, and undermine what little credibility the Court still has with the population when that news leaks, you should adjust your tinfoil. Myself I am curious as to the precedent for allowing a Justice to vote on cases where they don't attend oral arguments. I think it's very rare. I do recall reading about a Justice that was aging and ill, yet refused to resign, many years ago, and the other Justices basically worked around him. I'd have to dig to find that nugget of history and the details. But conspiracy theories about clerks physically filling in for Justices is a fantasy I'm not willing to tolerate. Do all of the Justices have to be present in order to hear a case?
A quorum of six Justices is required to decide a case. Justices may also participate in a case by listening to audio recordings of the oral arguments and reading the transcripts. The real question in my mind is how does RBG get to cast her vote after oral arguments if she can't physically attend the justice's conference. I assume, without knowing, that the justices will hold off on deciding any case where RBG's vote would break a tie until she can attend a conference. Others will of course assume that her clerks will be allowed to mail in her vote. I won't pretend to know which is reality. But I'd bet no clerk's ass ever warms one of these chairs during a conference. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/images/conferenceRoom.jpg Just going off memory, the only votes that occur in the conference room are votes to grant or deny cert petitions (deciding whether or not to take a case) and preliminary votes taken after oral argument when the opinion writing is being assigned. The final count is based on who agrees to sign onto which opinion/dissent after drafts are circulated among the justices, with most communication being done via memo or clerk. Cert petitions still get voted on during the summer recess when most justices are out of DC or even out of the country, so clearly there is some precedent for remote voting. SCOTUS's "Reporter's Guide to Applications" also says that when applications for a stay are referred to the full court to decide, "Justices do not meet officially or publicly, but confer, sometimes by phone, or through their law clerks." Ginsburg voted against one of these applications for a stay from her hospital bed recently in the asylum ban case, although I haven't seen it confirmed what method was used to do so. What makes me wonder about it is how Thomas and Roberts will act/vote in a conference where RBG isn't present when her vote could break a tie. Kavanaugh votes first, then through seniority, and Roberts votes last. Or does RBG have to mail in her vote before the conference? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2019 3:29:51 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is a process. Congress can impeach justices. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Hey that's mine I claimed it a few pages back.....  All joking aside, this is where congress and the judiciary need to put into place a process to remove judges who aren't mentally or physically fit to be on the bench. There are a large number of judges over 70 and I seriously doubt most of them are capable of handling complicated matters or god forbid a criminal trial. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2019 3:34:37 PM EDT
[#10]
She could even mail it in posthumously for probably a year before anybody would do anything about it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2019 3:35:05 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What if he offered up Merrick Garland? Think about it....... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2019 3:45:24 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm worried that Trump could offer up a moderate or a liberal SCOTUS pick in exchange for the wall funding and the .Gov shutdown. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2019 3:47:13 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is consistent with my recollection. What makes me wonder about it is how Thomas and Roberts will act/vote in a conference where RBG isn't present when her vote could break a tie. Kavanaugh votes first, then through seniority, and Roberts votes last. Or does RBG have to mail in her vote before the conference? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe anyone with an informed opinion of the man, regardless of their opinion on his jurisprudence, would laugh at your assertion that he doesn't care about the reputation of the Court. I'm not saying that's a good thing. I'm saying that it's the accepted view. It explains this: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-114_qol1.pdf And this: Now, if you think Roberts is going to let a clerk fill in for RBG in their private conference, and undermine what little credibility the Court still has with the population when that news leaks, you should adjust your tinfoil. Myself I am curious as to the precedent for allowing a Justice to vote on cases where they don't attend oral arguments. I think it's very rare. I do recall reading about a Justice that was aging and ill, yet refused to resign, many years ago, and the other Justices basically worked around him. I'd have to dig to find that nugget of history and the details. But conspiracy theories about clerks physically filling in for Justices is a fantasy I'm not willing to tolerate. Do all of the Justices have to be present in order to hear a case?
A quorum of six Justices is required to decide a case. Justices may also participate in a case by listening to audio recordings of the oral arguments and reading the transcripts. The real question in my mind is how does RBG get to cast her vote after oral arguments if she can't physically attend the justice's conference. I assume, without knowing, that the justices will hold off on deciding any case where RBG's vote would break a tie until she can attend a conference. Others will of course assume that her clerks will be allowed to mail in her vote. I won't pretend to know which is reality. But I'd bet no clerk's ass ever warms one of these chairs during a conference. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/images/conferenceRoom.jpg Just going off memory, the only votes that occur in the conference room are votes to grant or deny cert petitions (deciding whether or not to take a case) and preliminary votes taken after oral argument when the opinion writing is being assigned. The final count is based on who agrees to sign onto which opinion/dissent after drafts are circulated among the justices, with most communication being done via memo or clerk. Cert petitions still get voted on during the summer recess when most justices are out of DC or even out of the country, so clearly there is some precedent for remote voting. SCOTUS's "Reporter's Guide to Applications" also says that when applications for a stay are referred to the full court to decide, "Justices do not meet officially or publicly, but confer, sometimes by phone, or through their law clerks." Ginsburg voted against one of these applications for a stay from her hospital bed recently in the asylum ban case, although I haven't seen it confirmed what method was used to do so. What makes me wonder about it is how Thomas and Roberts will act/vote in a conference where RBG isn't present when her vote could break a tie. Kavanaugh votes first, then through seniority, and Roberts votes last. Or does RBG have to mail in her vote before the conference? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2019 3:51:29 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Impeachment is usually reserved for wrong doing....not sure senility or physical incapacity is covered by that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Hey that's mine I claimed it a few pages back..... All joking aside, this is where congress and the judiciary need to put into place a process to remove judges who aren't mentally or physically fit to be on the bench. There are a large number of judges over 70 and I seriously doubt most of them are capable of handling complicated matters or god forbid a criminal trial. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2019 5:41:15 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah but Sylvan is saying they could cover up her actual death...….that is impossible IMHO. IIRC, by law, the coroner is required to be notified of someone's death within a certain number of hours and that is public record I would imagine. There are many other ways it would be basically impossible to cover up her actual death but you get the gist of where I am going with this. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: So you believe that the work product RBG is producing while working from home is actually her own work? There are numerous instances of her not paying attention/being asleep during arguments while she was formerly at work. Its not a stretch to believe that the clerks are doing most of her work, which would be unConstitutional since the clerks are neither appointed by the President nor approved by the Senate as a Supreme Court Justice. Thats not tinfoil, thats a reasonable conclusion based on available fact. Its impossible to tell whose thoughts are on a piece of paper. She may be dictating her thoughts and forming her own opinions privately, but its reasonable to question at this point if she has the capacity to fulfill the requirements of her office. IIRC, by law, the coroner is required to be notified of someone's death within a certain number of hours and that is public record I would imagine. There are many other ways it would be basically impossible to cover up her actual death but you get the gist of where I am going with this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2019 5:46:17 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They will try to keep her heartbeat going until 2020, or keep up the charade if she actually croaks, and then see if Mitch will keep his word about not voting for a nominee in 2020. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: They are going to play this out for a year. If RBG dies we will never know. She may be dead already. People who can kill hundreds of enemies and get away with it can keep someone alive on paper for ever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2019 5:48:33 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Mitch" didn't say that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They are going to play this out for a year. If RBG dies we will never know. She may be dead already. People who can kill hundreds of enemies and get away with it can keep someone alive on paper for ever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2019 7:05:14 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I could have sworn I saw a video clip of him saying exactly that during the BK hearings. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They are going to play this out for a year. If RBG dies we will never know. She may be dead already. People who can kill hundreds of enemies and get away with it can keep someone alive on paper for ever. “We didn’t attack Merrick Garland’s background and try to destroy him,” McConnell responded on “Fox News Sunday.” “We simply followed the tradition in America, which is that if you have... a Senate of a different party than the president you don’t fill a vacancy created in a presidential year. That went all the way back to 1888.” Wallace, picking up on McConnell’s revised version of his rationale for blocking Garland, pressed him on his mention of party difference. “When you blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination from President Obama, you basically said that we don’t do this in a presidential election year, and that we wait until the election and then whoever the people choose (for the White House), they get to pick the Supreme Court nominee,” Wallace said. “But what you just said now was it’s a question of whether or not the party in control of the Senate is different than the president.” “If Donald Trump were to name somebody in the final year of his first term in 2020, are you saying that you would go ahead with that nomination?” he asked McConnell. McConnell danced around the inquiry, pointing again to the Senate’s voting record in the 1880s. When Wallace tried to ask the question again, McConnell interrupted him: “The answer to your question is we’ll see whether there’s a vacancy in 2020.” Later Sunday, CBS News’ John Dickerson continued to grill McConnell about his reason for blocking Garland’s nomination. “Your decision to block Merrick Garland is something [Democrats] see as having kicked off a new stage in the partisanship associated with Supreme Court nominees,” Dickerson said on CBS’ “Face The Nation.” McConnell claimed again that he had been merely following historical precedent, but Dickerson challenged him on the facts. “John you are not listening to me,” McConnell said. “The history is exactly as I told you.” Dickerson responded that they “have a disagreement about the history.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2019 7:21:05 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Discussing Brett Kavanaugh’s Saturday confirmation to the court, Fox News’ Chris Wallace asked McConnell to respond to a clip of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) slamming the Kentucky lawmaker’s handling of the Garland nomination. “We didn’t attack Merrick Garland’s background and try to destroy him,” McConnell responded on “Fox News Sunday.” “We simply followed the tradition in America, which is that if you have... a Senate of a different party than the president you don’t fill a vacancy created in a presidential year. That went all the way back to 1888.” Wallace, picking up on McConnell’s revised version of his rationale for blocking Garland, pressed him on his mention of party difference. “When you blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination from President Obama, you basically said that we don’t do this in a presidential election year, and that we wait until the election and then whoever the people choose (for the White House), they get to pick the Supreme Court nominee,” Wallace said. “But what you just said now was it’s a question of whether or not the party in control of the Senate is different than the president.” “If Donald Trump were to name somebody in the final year of his first term in 2020, are you saying that you would go ahead with that nomination?” he asked McConnell. McConnell danced around the inquiry, pointing again to the Senate’s voting record in the 1880s. When Wallace tried to ask the question again, McConnell interrupted him: “The answer to your question is we’ll see whether there’s a vacancy in 2020.” Later Sunday, CBS News’ John Dickerson continued to grill McConnell about his reason for blocking Garland’s nomination. “Your decision to block Merrick Garland is something [Democrats] see as having kicked off a new stage in the partisanship associated with Supreme Court nominees,” Dickerson said on CBS’ “Face The Nation.” McConnell claimed again that he had been merely following historical precedent, but Dickerson challenged him on the facts. “John you are not listening to me,” McConnell said. “The history is exactly as I told you.” Dickerson responded that they “have a disagreement about the history.” Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They are going to play this out for a year. If RBG dies we will never know. She may be dead already. People who can kill hundreds of enemies and get away with it can keep someone alive on paper for ever. “We didn’t attack Merrick Garland’s background and try to destroy him,” McConnell responded on “Fox News Sunday.” “We simply followed the tradition in America, which is that if you have... a Senate of a different party than the president you don’t fill a vacancy created in a presidential year. That went all the way back to 1888.” Wallace, picking up on McConnell’s revised version of his rationale for blocking Garland, pressed him on his mention of party difference. “When you blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination from President Obama, you basically said that we don’t do this in a presidential election year, and that we wait until the election and then whoever the people choose (for the White House), they get to pick the Supreme Court nominee,” Wallace said. “But what you just said now was it’s a question of whether or not the party in control of the Senate is different than the president.” “If Donald Trump were to name somebody in the final year of his first term in 2020, are you saying that you would go ahead with that nomination?” he asked McConnell. McConnell danced around the inquiry, pointing again to the Senate’s voting record in the 1880s. When Wallace tried to ask the question again, McConnell interrupted him: “The answer to your question is we’ll see whether there’s a vacancy in 2020.” Later Sunday, CBS News’ John Dickerson continued to grill McConnell about his reason for blocking Garland’s nomination. “Your decision to block Merrick Garland is something [Democrats] see as having kicked off a new stage in the partisanship associated with Supreme Court nominees,” Dickerson said on CBS’ “Face The Nation.” McConnell claimed again that he had been merely following historical precedent, but Dickerson challenged him on the facts. “John you are not listening to me,” McConnell said. “The history is exactly as I told you.” Dickerson responded that they “have a disagreement about the history.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2019 8:23:02 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
She won't make it through this year.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2019 8:54:55 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Impeachment is usually reserved for wrong doing....not sure senility or physical incapacity is covered by that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2019 8:56:50 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The grounds for impeachment are whatever Congress says they are. Obviously the question is moot for the next 2 years with a Dem House of Representatives. House does impeach the Prez, the Senate tries him. But since the House doesn't vote on a USSC nominee, they also don't impeach. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2019 8:59:57 PM EDT
[#23]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2019 9:27:02 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Reps do NOTHING on impeachment for a Justice, IIRC. I believe it's all Senate. Someone correct me if I'm wrong there. House does impeach the Prez, the Senate tries him. But since the House doesn't vote on a USSC nominee, they also don't impeach. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The grounds for impeachment are whatever Congress says they are. Obviously the question is moot for the next 2 years with a Dem House of Representatives. House does impeach the Prez, the Senate tries him. But since the House doesn't vote on a USSC nominee, they also don't impeach. removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Federal judges are considered civil officers. Article I, section 2 of the Constitution says "The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." The House has impeached 13 judges, and 8 have been convicted by the senate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2019 9:28:03 PM EDT
[#25]
Is she room temperature yet?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2019 11:57:23 PM EDT
[#26]
How does this work? I thought I read here that she had to be present during oral arguments in order to be a part of the opinions? Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you believe that the work product RBG is producing while working from home is actually her own work? There are numerous instances of her not paying attention/being asleep during arguments while she was formerly at work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2019 12:02:15 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I did think about it and Trump nominating Garland is maybe the dumbest thing I've ever heard. He's too old and it would piss off Trump's base right before an election. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2019 1:01:41 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While that would make some sense, it is not the case. Article II, section 4 of the Constitution says "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Federal judges are considered civil officers. Article I, section 2 of the Constitution says "The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." The House has impeached 13 judges, and 8 have been convicted by the senate. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The grounds for impeachment are whatever Congress says they are. Obviously the question is moot for the next 2 years with a Dem House of Representatives. House does impeach the Prez, the Senate tries him. But since the House doesn't vote on a USSC nominee, they also don't impeach. removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Federal judges are considered civil officers. Article I, section 2 of the Constitution says "The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." The House has impeached 13 judges, and 8 have been convicted by the senate. The line from the one judge about to a juror about not recognizing another juror with their clothes on is priceless. Yet that guy stayed on the bench. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2019 2:40:49 AM EDT
[#29]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2019 6:03:55 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All joking aside, this is where congress and the judiciary need to put into place a process to remove judges who aren't mentally or physically fit to be on the bench. There are a large number of judges over 70 and I seriously doubt most of them are capable of handling complicated matters or god forbid a criminal trial. 
Oh, and "a criminal trial"? Where the fuck did you take high school civics, Albania? Egypt? Nigeria? 'Cause it sure as fuck wasn't in the U.S. of A. Except for impeachments and a few really weird governmental disputes, SCOTUS doesn't do trials. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2019 8:15:26 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is she room temperature yet? no fucking way are they letting trump get the hag's seat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2019 8:41:37 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I did think about it and Trump nominating Garland is maybe the dumbest thing I've ever heard. He's too old and it would piss off Trump's base right before an election. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: What if he offered up Merrick Garland? Think about it....... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2019 9:18:25 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nah, Trump would never do anything to bump his base like that & fire up the opposition. He's too good of stock for that. It'd only be a bandaid, at best.  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2019 9:24:34 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nah, Trump would never do anything to bump his base like that & fire up the opposition. He's too good of stock for that. It'd only be a bandaid, at best. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: What if he offered up Merrick Garland? Think about it.......
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2019 9:30:14 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: What if he offered up Merrick Garland? Think about it....... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2019 9:42:42 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd look like that too if I didn't understand Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: What if he offered up Merrick Garland? Think about it....... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2019 9:54:54 AM EDT
[#37]
You guys are pretty much at the stage that she will be kept alive my the tech priests
Her mind and decaying body kept alive in her golden SCOTUS seat….. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2019 10:09:15 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: she has been dead for weeks. they're going to have her "work from home" until a democrat president is in place. no fucking way are they letting trump get the hag's seat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2019 10:10:04 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What if he offered up Merrick Garland? Think about it....... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2019 10:37:11 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, they've got until Wednesday to figure it out. That'll be the conference where they make their preliminary votes on cases argued today and tomorrow. Maybe they'll be able to have Hillary's doctors pump Ginsburg full of uppers to get her lucid by then. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2019 10:51:07 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He should hold on to that option in case the Democrats take the Senate and one of the liberal members retires, it's basically a punt that they couldn't realistically oppose. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: What if he offered up Merrick Garland? Think about it....... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2019 11:23:54 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm guessing he's about to trade Garland for the wall. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: What if he offered up Merrick Garland? Think about it....... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2019 11:25:48 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even Trump isn't that dumb. Is he? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: What if he offered up Merrick Garland? Think about it....... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2019 11:35:37 AM EDT
[#44]
A couple of links from SCOTUSblog about how the absence of CJ Rehnquist from the Court due to cancer was handled in the past.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2005/02/update-on-the-chief-justice/ https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/27/politics/chief-justice-wont-return-to-the-court-this-year.html?module=inline |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2019 2:33:02 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A couple of links from SCOTUSblog about how the absence of CJ Rehnquist from the Court due to cancer was handled in the past. http://www.scotusblog.com/2005/02/update-on-the-chief-justice/ https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/27/politics/chief-justice-wont-return-to-the-court-this-year.html?module=inline |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2019 2:58:50 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah but Sylvan is saying they could cover up her actual death....that is impossible IMHO. IIRC, by law, the coroner is required to be notified of someone's death within a certain number of hours and that is public record I would imagine. There are many other ways it would be basically impossible to cover up her actual death but you get the gist of where I am going with this. There are a lot of things required by law but liberals and liberal politicians Dodge the law all the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2019 3:00:38 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What public appearances are "mandatory" for the notorious RBG? The poor woman (while perfectly capable of doing 45 minutes on the elliptical the day after lung surgery), is recovering. Don't over stress her. If they can say she did 45 minutes of aerobic exercise with a straight face, hiding her death seems tame by comparison. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2019 3:13:39 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A couple of links from SCOTUSblog about how the absence of CJ Rehnquist from the Court due to cancer was handled in the past. http://www.scotusblog.com/2005/02/update-on-the-chief-justice/ https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/27/politics/chief-justice-wont-return-to-the-court-this-year.html?module=inline |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2019 8:33:23 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hope not |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2019 8:37:00 PM EDT
[#50]
Well, the suspense of waiting is killing me
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File
Attached File