Ginsburg won't sit for SCOTUS arguments??

So AP is reporting Justice Bader Ginsburg won't be sitting to hear SCOTUS proceedings owing to recent surgery.

(I'd post a link but I'm on my phone)

Chief Justice Robert's said Ginsburg would still be deciding cases though!! Really??????

Apparently aides will giving her transcripts and briefs of the arguments.

So now you don't even have to show up to decide the biggest cases in the country?. Really???

What precedent is being set here?

She could be dead for all we know (shes not, but she could be), and someone else could be deciding for her. Who would know?

Seems to me, you either show up, or resign.

Sure, shes probably entitled to have some recovery time, but being allowed to hear and decide on cases in absentia is not okay!!!

What am I missing here?

It was the first time Ginsburg, one of the court's nine justices, has missed oral arguments as a result of her various health scares, including two previous cancer diagnoses. Ginsburg participated in the court's private meeting last Friday in which the justices voted on which new cases to take up, but was not present at the court, Arberg said.

Source

I am willing to let one day since 1993 slide, but I agree this should not become a precedent.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Being eighty-five and with cancer and the pain meds alone she is sleeping most all day pissing herself and probably has little clue to wtf is going on. There really should be some kind of health clause so you have to step down if you cant stay awake more than eight- twelve hours a day and can't show up in person over a specified period of time. The SC has taken on too much power and importance to have some one this incapacitated still wearing the robe.

a reply to: headorheart

Being absent is perfectly understandable.

It's the hearing / deciding cases in abstentia which is the disturbing part!! That's not okay!!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

While it’s a rare occurrence, there have been some instances in which a justice participated in a case despite missing the oral argument. For example, when Chief Justice William Rehnquist was battling thyroid cancer, he missed several arguments throughout the 2004-2005 term. He ended up voting in many of those cases and wrote the majority opinion in four of them.

Source

Im just curious- do people not trust the other 8 members of SCOTUS? I mean- surely if this is a gigantic issue to her performing her duties, the other 8 would have said or done something...

This only seems to bother those who want to replace her. I find that odd (s/)

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

While the Senate is busy looking at a term limit law for positions which are effectively elected every 2 or 6 years, thereby having a built-in term limit in so much as when their constituents are dissatisfied, their term will end next election cycle, they really should instead be looking at eliminating the life long appointment policy for the SCOTUS. We shouldn't have 85 year olds on the bench.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Poor woman... I disagree with her on many points, but it's still sad.

Anyone deserves some personal leave now and then, but she definitely needs to assess her situation. Resign and spend time with family or something. No need to work oneself to death..

a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

Thank you for that info.

That should not have been permitted either!

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I think part of the problem is age does not define mental stability.

a reply to: bknapple32

It's not about the other 8. She's rendering opinions...so theres 9, but shes not there. That's what its it's about!

She’ll be dancing her way thru briefs in no time(all puns intended)



-Chris

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

i am persnally of the opinion - that actuall attendance really is not required to ajudicate typical SCOTUS cases

there is rarley - physical evidence , adversorial cross examination or hostile witnesses

unlike say - a rape allegation - with poor physhical evidence - in which case every nuance of the witnesses may ne critical

its my opinion that justice ginsberg - can deliver a vald vote based on just whats delivered to her as a reading list - as lon as we know that her reading list was not tampered

BUT

i have to question her motives for refusal to resign - she has even pledged to carry on 5 years

thats just partisan wingnuttery

justice ginsberg - give it up - resign and have fun with the rest of your life

i believe she is ATTEMPTING to out last trump - and hopes that a democrat will suceed her

its not worth it

originally posted by: bknapple32
This only seems to bother those who want to replace her. I find that odd (s/)

That argument works both ways, though. It strikes me that the only folks not bothered by her very advanced age and deteriorating health are those who want to see her remain in the office until someone who stands on their political side is in the big chair to nominate her replacement. This in total spite of the fact that she is suffering and the stresses of the job are certainly not conducive to her overall well being and recuperation from her third cancer surgery.

I will not pretend to be overly fond of her, because I am not. I do, however, respect her as an elder and recognize that she's in her twilight years and not in the peak condition one would ideally be in to be a seated Justice. I find it rather cruel and selfish that so many people are demanding she "tough it out" until there's a change over in the White House.

originally posted by: headorheart
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I think part of the problem is age does not define mental stability.

That's all I can say to that.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

They cant Skype? I get she may not have great mobility, but I would hope she can maintain some type of lucidity. That just seems odd to me, of course at her age she's probably on quite the concoction most of the time, so who knows.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Then how would you know who is actually rendering the opinions?

How would you know it's not the proverbial Wizard behind the curtain.?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: headorheart
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I think part of the problem is age does not define mental stability.

That's all I can say to that.

Ha. Good response. I was not arguing her mental stability. Just in general, it is hard to make mandatory retirement rules when age does not define mental stability. States have those laws though. Maybe it is time for Congress to enact a mandatory retirement age of 70 or 75? Anyone currently on the court over that age can be grandfathered in so there is less partisan argument over it. Just quick thoughts.

There are contingency measures to deal with no majority opinion. Why are these not being used?

It's why such measures exist to begin with!

You know- shes addressed falling asleep at the SOTU...
She drinks.. with the other judges.... before the speech. And gets tired. And has done so on more than one occasion. Much ado about nothing?

The best bits of the evening were when Ginsburg talked about hitting the bottle. You may have noticed the 83-year-old judge and reluctant pop culture icon has some trouble staying awake at the State of the Union every year. Well, she has a good reason for that: As she told attendees at last week's event, she's hammered. Or, in the more measured words befitting a Supreme Court justice, "not 100-percent sober." It seems the judges get together every year for dinner before the President's speech, and sometimes things get a bit out of hand (read: the wine flows freely). Ginsburg recalled that the first time she passed out during the State of the Union she had intended to stick to sparkling water, but then Californian Justice Kennedy brought "a couple of bottles of Opus One from California," and, well, you know how it goes.

link[e ditby]edit on 7-1-2019 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)