It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The likelihood that RBG is alive

page: 3
46
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: StoutBroux
Maybe Trump should start naming prospects for her replacement and if questioned, demand proof of life.


This is probably about the only thing which makes me think she's actually alive. Because I think Trump would do exactly this if he had probable reason to believe she was dead. We might not know her status, but you can be pretty sure Trump does, and unless the entire government has TDS you can just about bet he's got an RBG heart rate monitor sitting on his desk!




posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Can you imagine if someone actually did try to conceal the death of a Supreme Court Justice and pretend they were alive?

It would be the biggest scandal in the history of US politics, and make scandals like Watergate and JFK look like a game of 'Go Fish'.



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

It would be as big a scandal as making up a fake document to get a search warrant to spy on a presidential candidate.



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Someone should post a reward for anyone that can prove RBG is alive!

If I had a million dollars I would... . : P



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: imitator
Someone should post a reward for anyone that can prove RBG is alive!

If I had a million dollars I would... . : P



Time for a crowd funding fundraiser?


Quite sure Dog the Bounty Hunter could use the fame and fortune, anyone on ATS know him?

edit on 10-2-2019 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

Off the top of my head (at work and on my phone) I remember someone posting a $25,000 reward for proof...

I also remember that there is a white house petition you can sign asking for proof that she's alive...




posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Yeah, I don't think she's dead.

I do think it entirely possible that she is completely incapacitated (in a coma, naturally or medically induced) and only alive in terms of having vital signs; even if those vital signs are kept going due to mechanical intervention.



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Yeah, I don't think she's dead.

I do think it entirely possible that she is completely incapacitated (in a coma, naturally or medically induced) and only alive in terms of having vital signs; even if those vital signs are kept going due to mechanical intervention.



Time for Article 3 proceedings rhen... I don't think "in a coma" would satisfy the Constutional requirement for "good behavior".




posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

In a coma or dead, there needs to be some form of proof of her health status.

She could be cremated and sitting on someones mantel... we would never know.
edit on 13021328pm282019Sun, 10 Feb 2019 16:13:01 -0600 by imitator because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Credit to RalagaNarHallas for finding this:


The late Antonin Scalia waved off the idea of limiting the terms of justices as “a solution in search of a problem,” but the problem is not an imaginary one: Some justices really have clung to their positions long after their mental faculties have left them. Justice Henry Baldwin remained on the court for nearly a dozen years after his 1832 hospitalization for “incurable lunacy.” One of Justice Nathan Clifford’s colleagues described him as a “babbling idiot” in the final years before his death in 1881. Justice Stephen Field in the mid-1890s and Justice Joseph McKenna in the early to mid-1920s each reportedly spent the end of their tenures in a haze.

“Mental decrepitude” on the Supreme Court has continued into the modern era, as historian David Garrow has documented. Frank Murphy, who served in the 1940s, was likely addicted to illegal drugs by the end of his tenure, and his biographer wrote that “on at least one occasion,” with Murphy in absentia, his law clerk and two fellow justices “jointly decided what Murphy’s votes should be.” Justice Charles Whittaker teetered on the brink of nervous breakdown for much of his five-year stint on the court in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Hugo Black stayed on for more than two years after his wife concluded in 1969 that “his mentality has been impaired.”

Nor was Black the last justice whose mind slipped while he was still on the bench. In 1975, his last year on the court, William O. Douglas was so severely disabled by a stroke that his fellow justices agreed to delay any decision in which Douglas’ vote could swing the outcome. Justice William Rehnquist developed a dependence on a sedative that caused him to experience hallucinations during withdrawal; at one point in late 1981, he tried to escape from George Washington University Hospital in his pajamas. Rehnquist recovered, but two of his colleagues—Lewis Powell and Thurgood Marshall—faced doubts about their mental capacities at the tail end of their careers.

The history of cognitive decline on the high court teaches two lessons. First, there is a real risk of a substantial time lag between the onset of mental deterioration and a justice’s retirement. But second, and as important, this is a risk that can be contained. No justice—no matter how deranged—can do serious doctrinal damage without the acquiescence of at least half his colleagues. And when a justice is so utterly incapacitated that he is unable to break 4-4 ties, the court can continue to function with an even number of active members. Originally, the court had only six justices; during the Civil War, it had 10; and it has functioned fine with eight members during prolonged vacancies. Indeed, there are notable virtues to having an even number of justices—one of them being that it then takes more than a knife’s-edge majority to overturn a lower court decision or strike down a law nationwide.


What Happens if Ruth Bader Ginsburg Remains Too Sick to Work? - Politico

I imagine that there would be some major pushback should it be learned that RBG is indeed in a coma and then president Trump tried to have her removed from her seat. It would be argued that it is a constitutional mandate that supreme court justices are appointed for life.



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Why can't POTUS announce he would like to visit RBG...to personally deliver his "Get Well" wishes?
Turning that down would be difficult.



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

His wife was going to take flowers over to her but for some reason that was cancelled.



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Technically not true... there is Article 3 which gives an additional means to remove judges.

The problem is that nobody has taken the time to bring to the Supreme Court a case where they can interpret the phrase "good behavior".

At the time it was written it clearly meant "able to perform the duties of the office".

I think it is time to get a SC ruling on the language

Ruth would be an excellent example whose time has come.




posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Halfswede
Let's just play with this conspiracy for a bit. What could they possibly hold out for? They can't go on for a year and pull the lame duck delay card. There would have to be another angle--something in the very near term that they would cling to and keep her frozen.

The only thing that winds up as a win is a Dem in the WH to nominate only lib SCOTUS replacements. That means both Trump and Pence removed. The only possible move that they could be holding out for is a Mueller report of apocalyptic proportions (not going to happen...not even close).

But considering the complete disassembly of rational thought on the left lately (Green Deal, full-term abortions, etc.), maybe they actually believe their own narrative.

Edit: Or maybe ... I didn't think of this -- thank you interweb -- searching for body double-- somebody that can continue to work from home and make blurry appearances.




Well, she cannot be removed unless through impeachment. Other than that, she would have to resign/retire. So the Dems don't really have to do anything but make sure the media plays along (like her potentially being at a concert). They can just wait this out till 2020 and hope they win the WH to appoint her replacement. The seat is occupied until then.

Which I think is one reason why the Dem field is so stacked for 2020.

ETA: And I don't think impeaching her for not being able to do her job will play well with the polls and public opinion, so I wouldn't look for that headline anytime soon.

edit on 10-2-2019 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

They also have the time to do that...

If you start an Article 3 impeachment proceeding, it will need a SC definition to proceed, since the Democrats will push the "there are no term limits for judges" angle.

THAT will need to go to the Supreme court.

Which takes time.

Once THAT is done, proceedings can commense...

However if they get the impeachment done and there is less than a year before the Presidential election, Biden's law will kick in and a Justice cannot be nominated till after the election.

So they only actually need a few more months.

Tops.

There's my conspiracy theory on what us going on.




posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Anybody remember the Ivan Reitman film Dave, with Kevin Kline and Sigourney Weaver?

Frank Langella was superb in it.

Great film:

www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

No one is gonna wanna be the one to bring forth impeachment proceedings against frail and sickly RBG. The public backlash would be enough that you might as well commit seppuku.



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: TDawg61
If she is alive why can't she send a picture,video or even a phone call to dispel all the rumors?


because of a handful idiots she has to take a pic and show it to the world? don't be too open minded because your brain can fell out. just sayin.



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
a reply to: Lumenari

No one is gonna wanna be the one to bring forth impeachment proceedings against frail and sickly RBG. The public backlash would be enough that you might as well commit seppuku.


Unless someone can show that the Democrats have her on life support somewhere merely for political purposes...

Then it's a whole new ball game.



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Biden's "law" isn't written law. Once there is a vacancy Trump can nominate someone at any time, and with (R) controlling the Senate, any nominee will be approved.




top topics



 
46
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join