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.

 

SCJ RBG unable to continue duties who confirms & decides a new SCJ appointment is nessesary

page: 1
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 02:12 PM
link   
So being that RBG is completely out of the public eye and her condition CANNOT or WONT be verified that she is able to continue her DUTIES to serve the United States people As an Coherent Supreme Court Judge - the Nations TOP Court of Law-, and Evidence Over a hot microphone ignored- referring to That same Supreme Court Judge in the PAST TENSE Who Confirms Capability or denies it and decides A new SCJ should be appointed?

Why is it OK for the PRESIDENT & ON DOWN to leave the ENTIRE US POPULATION in the dark about the Health & Well Being of One of the Nations Supreme Court Judges? Doesn't the AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE BETTER ?? From there ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES? Why are you OK with this treatment?




posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJesuit


If Trump isn't talking about it, that means the democrats are going to shoot themselves in the foot soon in regards to it and Trump is simply waiting for it.


edit on 11-2-2019 by chadderson because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJesuit

I'M NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENS. I think maybe there is something IN THE CONSITUTION, or something.

MAYBE THIS IS GOING TO BE TALKED ABOUT SOON.

Who knows.

BUT INTERESTING stuff.



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJesuit

Ruth Ginsburg clerks read cases to her. She then blinks her eyes once for voting yes, or two blinks for voting no.

Her top law clerk then enters her vote by proxy.



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJesuit

I saw the article the other day about this. There just isn't a provision for this. And to make one, it would likely take a constitutional amendment. It's important enough to warrant one IMHO. But nobody needs to jump the gun on making rash decisions. That usually comes back to bite folks square on the ass.



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Something very big is about to be announced.

Something eerie and deceptive 😎



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I watched my dad physically deteriorate into his 80s. He told me on more than one occasion that his mind just wasn't sharp as it used to be. I have a hard time believing Ruth Bader Ginsburg is not in the same situation. She should have resigned several years ago but her ego keeps her in.



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: TheJesuit

I saw the article the other day about this. There just isn't a provision for this. And to make one, it would likely take a constitutional amendment. It's important enough to warrant one IMHO. But nobody needs to jump the gun on making rash decisions. That usually comes back to bite folks square on the ass.


Actually, there is one, Article three addresses the judicial branch.

What it would need is the SC to clarify the term "good behaviour" which is listed separately from criminal acts.

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




posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I watched my dad physically deteriorate into his 80s. He told me on more than one occasion that his mind just wasn't sharp as it used to be. I have a hard time believing Ruth Bader Ginsburg is not in the same situation. She should have resigned several years ago but her ego keeps her in.


Very few professions or positions of power would allow someone in her condition to continue to serve. It is absurd and the only reason she hasn't stepped down is political.



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 03:10 PM
link   
From a lot of the reading I have done of the topic, this unfortunately is nothing knew. That doesn't mean we shouldn't plan for it better in the future. The Supreme Court is one of the most secretive courts because of their prestige. I think this is getting as much attention as it is because of the division in our county and the need to know era of social media.



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Something very big is about to be announced.

Something eerie and deceptive 😎



Ummm...RBG...has been assimilated by the Borg...?

The good justice...is the first confirmed candidate for...consciousness uploading...?

They’ve acquired enough fetal stem cells from post birth abortions and youth blood...then injected RBG with them all and now she’s has the svelt body and mind of a 20 year old...?


What...what...spill the beans old chap...





YouSir



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: TheJesuit

Ruth Ginsburg clerks read cases to her. She then blinks her eyes once for voting yes, or two blinks for voting no.

Her top law clerk then enters her vote by proxy.

Maybe so, but I have a feeling she may be Blink Impaired at this point.



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 03:28 PM
link   
A reply to YouSir


edit on 11-2-2019 by CharlesT because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I think she has to make it to summer then they have to wait till after the 2020 election. Dims made a law a few years ago to block end of term appointments. It was used agains tnem



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 03:56 PM
link   
They are still on the search for an adequate body double.
As soon as they find one RBG will be back to work, but she'll need to do it remotely and away from the public eye, except for the odd sighting through a window.. probably doing push ups and lifting weights.

Seriously, I do not think there is a provision for this, so the plan will be to string it out until 2020 - election year. Enough Republicans will agree not to confirm a SC Judge in a Presidential election year.
edit on 11/2/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJesuit

The coroner.



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Just like a cop that goes on administrative leave after someone dies from the receiving end of their service weapon, perhaps we are witnessing what happens to a DOJ lifer that has to tend to their military tribunal callings?

Some indictments should remain sealed...



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Something wicked and evil is being hidden.

A dirty game is getting played 😎



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 04:46 PM
link   
So if a supreme court judge were to go into a coma, and was being kept alive with a respirator, are you telling me they can't be replaced because they are not dead?

If that is the case we have a big problem.

I am getting the feeling the Democrats are waiting to announce she needs to step down till there is a year left in Trumps first term. Than they are going to say Republicans set the standard with Garland that she cannot be replaced till the next term.



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: mikell

its the biden rule not a law ,and if you think an election would stop the appointment process when R's hold the senate ,something like 44 federal judges were confirmed the other day dang near rubber stamped process

biden rule: www.politifact.com...

Did Biden really say he would be against the president nominating a Supreme Court justice in an election year when political control of the Senate and White House were flipped? We wanted to use our In Context feature to lay out what Biden said back then outside of McConnell’s sound bite. Readers can determine if it’s relevant now. Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than it is now. There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill. There was no nominee to consider. The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election. Nonetheless, Biden took to the floor in a speech addressing the Senate president to urge delay if a vacancy did appear. But he didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992. Many of Biden's words echo the state of Washington today: "Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the (Clarence) Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process, and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best."
Mitch McConnell gambled that a republican would win and stopped any nominations in the end for obama then trump started nominating judges like crazy past two years

trumps court appointees
www.washingtonexaminer.com...

The 44 judicial nominees passed out of the committee marks the most approved in a single markup since 1981. The picks will now head to the full Senate where, if confirmed, they will join the 85 judges Trump has named to the federal bench, including two to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Senate is largely expected to confirm the nominees, as Republicans hold 53 seats. The president’s success with installing federal judges has been a key achievement of his administration.
so hes up to 85 with 61 current vacancies that he intends to fill , for comparison sake Obama got 329 in 8 years

time.com... Trump has appointed 4x times more judges in his first year then Obama did but are both tied at two scotus each for now




top topics



 
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join