Ginsburg won't sit for SCOTUS arguments??

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: carewemust

I agree that we should know about anyone's fitness to serve. The problem that comes from that is if an MD says her mind is sound, the other side would just claim the MD is in on it. I doubt it would make a difference.

Like I said, I'm for an age limit, but in this case all that matters is whether or not her mind is sound and it has nothing to do with whether or not she works from home or not.

Emotion should never be a part of a SCOTUS decision. For that reason transcripts would be all she needs.

I suspect she may never return and expect to see an announcement of her retirement pretty soon. Until then, as long as her grey matter works.....

I'm purposely keeping partisan considerations out of this, because it can happen to a Justice on either side of debates in the future. It's wrong to base it on which side she sits on in decisions.

Still, I agree, they should keep people informed.

I disagree!
If she cant show up for work just like me her opinion should not matter at all.

originally posted by: dawnstar
and well, we could always see just how long we could stretch that time frame out if we have to!!! I mean, we can always adopt the "republican way"!!!

Not really. The GOP had a Senate majority where Merrick Garland was concerned. The Dems do not have the same. The only reason Garland's nomination never was progressed was because the GOP majority was able to decide whether to advance the nomination to committee or not... the Dems won't have such a chance until 2020 and the earliest. The nuclear option has already been enacted, if Ginsburg leaves the court in the next 2 calendar years, Trump will replace her.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
She's not sleeping in those photo's, she just does not have the strength in her neck to keep her head up anymore. Nothing to do with her mind.

Not according to her, herself...
www.politico.com...

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg blames falling asleep at this year’s State of the Union address on not being “100 percent sober.”


“The audience, for the most part, is awake because they are bobbing up and down and we sit there, stone faced,” Ginsburg said Thursday during an event hosted by The Smithsonian Associates in Washington, D.C., according to CNN.

She continued, “But we’re not, at least I was not, 100 percent sober.”

She admits she took a little siesta and has done so previously at SOTU Addresses.

a reply to: Scepticaldem

my grandma live to 90, she still had a fully functional brain. so, well, ya, she could make it for two more years or maybe not. I am not into predicting deaths of people... or when they will become too weak and feeble to have to retire. someday, ya, she will no longer be sitting on the bench.. although, who's to say weather me or your even will be around to see that day.
but, ya know, I really think that retirement might be the cause of quite a few people leaving our world earlier than they would have if they had been allowed to stay active in the workplace!
some of yous remind me of a bunch of vultures circling waiting for the grim reaper to show up for their intended prey!!!

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Scepticaldem

my grandma live to 90, she still had a fully functional brain. so, well, ya, she could make it for two more years or maybe not. I am not into predicting deaths of people... or when they will become too weak and feeble to have to retire. someday, ya, she will no longer be sitting on the bench.. although, who's to say weather me or your even will be around to see that day.
but, ya know, I really think that retirement might be the cause of quite a few people leaving our world earlier than they would have if they had been allowed to stay active in the workplace!
some of yous remind me of a bunch of vultures circling waiting for the grim reaper to show up for their intended prey!!!

All I'm saying is she isnt fit to show up.
Prove me wrong.
I didnt ask for your emotional assualt!

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Well the SOTU may be different and I might just take a nap also.

I watched her on one interview a few months ago and she sat like that even when answering questions. Her mind was fine, she just could not hold her head up.

My main thoughts here are about whether or not a Justice could rule from home or not and I think they could without it changing anything. I am with you on there needing to be an age limit. As it is now though, I'm not bothered by here working from home.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Well the SOTU may be different and I might just take a nap also.

I watched her on one interview a few months ago and she sat like that even when answering questions. Her mind was fine, she just could not hold her head up.

My main thoughts here are about whether or not a Justice could rule from home or not and I think they could without it changing anything. I am with you on there needing to be an age limit. As it is now though, I'm not bothered by here working from home.

So when the question of whether or not women can continue to murder babies in the womb is brought up you are ok with RBGs "people" making that decision?
There are going to be cameras there like an NFL game to be able to replay "her" decision just like a fumble recovery right?
It's almost as important!

originally posted by: Blaine91555
My main thoughts here are about whether or not a Justice could rule from home or not and I think they could without it changing anything. I am with you on there needing to be an age limit. As it is now though, I'm not bothered by here working from home.

The main issue I see is that a Justice, on the bench, can ask any questions they may have to increase their clarity and understanding of the case they are hearing. If she's ruling based on updated briefs she's receiving from the court or even if she's watching CCTV proceedings of a case, she is relegated to little more than a juror status... ruling based off of what she was allowed to hear via the questions and comments of others rather than clarification of circumstances she personally may have asked about had she been present during the case. This is SCOTUSing done wrong, in my opinion.

a reply to: Scepticaldem

Do you work at a job that can be done from home? I work from home, run a business, pay my people and have no issues from it at all. But then I have the sort of business where I can. So does Ginsburg. Some jobs though, you have to be there to do your work. Of course few people do because they are not mature enough to work from home and manage themselves, so companies are backing away from that now.

I'd rather Ginsburg be gone to be honest, but that's not the topic here. The topic seems to me to be can a Justice work from home and in this case, yes.

originally posted by: bknapple32
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/)

What about when/if shes the deciding vote?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

That's a fair argument.

Where my head is at is a Justice is supposed to rule based on the law and only the law. I'd think they could make better decisions if they worked from written arguments without any emotion involved. In fact I doubt the arguments made in person have little if anything to do with their decisions. I suspect the decisions are made before the oral arguments even happen.

a reply to: Scepticaldem

All I'm saying is she isnt fit to show up.

umm... ya, if not being fit to show up for work one day through decades of service is reason to be let go, I kind of think we would have a heck of alot more unemployed people than we do!!! heck, I know one guy who couldn't make it through a month not missing a day and it wasn't because he had cancer, or even the flu, but it was because he just tied one on a little too much the night before and hadn't managed to get out of bed till afternoon... and believe me, it was known by the bosses!!!
we had two others working in that company, one ended up having brain cancer and well she never did come back to work... they other had a stroke while at work, and well, she never came back either.. they never fired them, kept them on the payroll till the day they died just to make sure that they would keep their insurance and such. the company would put pressure on the insurance company if they thought it was needed, they made sure that they were available if they could help in any way. it was the proper thing to do...
not throw them out in the cold because well they weren't fit to show up for work!

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Scepticaldem

Do you work at a job that can be done from home? I work from home, run a business, pay my people and have no issues from it at all. But then I have the sort of business where I can. So does Ginsburg. Some jobs though, you have to be there to do your work. Of course few people do because they are not mature enough to work from home and manage themselves, so companies are backing away from that now.

I'd rather Ginsburg be gone to be honest, but that's not the topic here. The topic seems to me to be can a Justice work from home and in this case, yes.

No I dont
I have to be at work to manage the day to day.
So does our supreme court justice.
You can call me immature if you want but you are the one coming off as a bully!

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Scepticaldem

All I'm saying is she isnt fit to show up.

umm... ya, if not being fit to show up for work one day through decades of service is reason to be let go, I kind of think we would have a heck of alot more unemployed people than we do!!! heck, I know one guy who couldn't make it through a month not missing a day and it wasn't because he had cancer, or even the flu, but it was because he just tied one on a little too much the night before and hadn't managed to get out of bed till afternoon... and believe me, it was known by the bosses!!!
we had two others working in that company, one ended up having brain cancer and well she never did come back to work... they other had a stroke while at work, and well, she never came back either.. they never fired them, kept them on the payroll till the day they died just to make sure that they would keep their insurance and such. the company would put pressure on the insurance company if they thought it was needed, they made sure that they were available if they could help in any way. it was the proper thing to do...
not throw them out in the cold because well they weren't fit to show up for work!

So a guy getting too drunk for work is comparable to a supreme court justice making it into work?
Ok....
Hahaha
Are you ok with her making her decisions on camera?
I'm cool with that?
Bet you are not!
Hahaha

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk Yep ginsberg is just mailing it in now.The first thing to go wrong mentally in an older person is usually their loss of judgement.The fact that she knows shes impaired and doesn't step down demonstrates her poor judgement. I'm worried Hillarys going to be sitting on the bench in a ginsburg robe and wig. As a radio host says "the stench from the bench makes me clench."

a reply to: Scepticaldem

I was simply making the point that some jobs can be done from home, some can't. IMO Ginsburg can rule from home just as effectively as she can being there. We disagree which is fine.

On the other I did not mean for that to be taken that way. If it felt like an insult, my apologies.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Scepticaldem

I was simply making the point that some jobs can be done from home, some can't. IMO Ginsburg can rule from home just as effectively as she can being there. We disagree which is fine.

On the other I did not mean for that to be taken that way. If it felt like an insult, my apologies.

I agree if she is ok having her decisions videotaped. I dont like the idea of her "people" making decisions.

a reply to: Scepticaldem
so, supreme court justices aren't allowed to get sick???
ha ha ha!!!

a reply to: Scepticaldem

That seems fair. I don't think it necessary since decisions are released as documents, but if it makes people more comfortable.

I think one of two things will happen here. Either it will be a single decision or maybe two she makes from home and then returns, or she will retire. In the end, her body will decide for her.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Until President Trump, most of the State of the Union addresses were an hour filled with good intentions, but no follow-through. Ginsburg knows this. She's probably really pissed off that Trump has integrity, and that he chose to run as a Republican.