Ruth "Buzzi" Ginginsburg has fallen, can she get back up?

[TurtleDude]

Was that Bork you claim had an impeccable reputation...or someone else?

Estrada (endorsed by all of the three living Democratic Party Solicitor Generals) and Peter Keisler

 

[JMR]

yeah the GOP wasn't as hateful as the Dems are

Antonio Scalia....98 votes

Sandra Day O'Connor....99 votes

Anthony Kennedy....97 votes

John Roberts....78 votes

Samuel Alito... 58 votes despite being declared not qualified by the ABA, as I recall.

It was only after the horrific treatment of the duly nominated eminently qualified Merrick Garland that the democrats fought back. Also, Trump utilizing the vetting of the Heritage Foundation, rather than seeking a truly qualified candidate has a lot to do with this, as I am sure you are aware.

 

[Gaius46]

I disagree with Ginsburg on nearly everything, with some exceptions, but have always respected her intellect.

Her recent politicized attacks on the POTUS were not the norm for her, for the rest of her long tenure; I think she is a bit unraveled after the unexpected death of her best friend, Antonin Scalia.

Hope she heals..but it is almost a CERTAINTY that Trump will name her successor, who will FLY through the 2018 Midterm ENHANCED GOP Senate....sooooo...get ready...it is almost sure to happen.

And now you know the difference between the House and the Senate....

I liked your post because I agree with you about Ginsberg. I don't agree with her often either but she is as smart as they come. I wouldn't bet on Trump naming her successor though. He's halfway through his term and unless the democrats nominate Hillary again his re-election is not assured by any stretch of the imagination. I think RBG can hang in for another couple of years.

 

[TurtleDude]

Antonio Scalia....98 votes

Sandra Day O'Connor....99 votes

Anthony Kennedy....97 votes

John Roberts....78 votes

Samuel Alito... 58 votes despite being declared not qualified by the ABA, as I recall.

It was only after the horrific treatment of the duly nominated eminently qualified Merrick Garland that the democrats fought back. Also, Trump utilizing the vetting of the Heritage Foundation, rather than seeking a truly qualified candidate has a lot to do with this, as I am sure you are aware.

so explain why the MINORITY dems refused to give two top candidates even a hearing for a court of appeals position

 

[TurtleDude]

Antonio Scalia....98 votes

Sandra Day O'Connor....99 votes

Anthony Kennedy....97 votes

John Roberts....78 votes

Samuel Alito... 58 votes despite being declared not qualified by the ABA, as I recall.

It was only after the horrific treatment of the duly nominated eminently qualified Merrick Garland that the democrats fought back. Also, Trump utilizing the vetting of the Heritage Foundation, rather than seeking a truly qualified candidate has a lot to do with this, as I am sure you are aware.

LOL that's really funny. Alito was one of the best US attorneys in the US and his academic credentials are at the very top of the Supreme Court. He also was a distinguished appellate judge for years.
Alito was unanimously rated "well qualified" to fill the Associate Justice post by the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary

 

[JMR]

so explain why the MINORITY dems refused to give two top candidates even a hearing for a court of appeals position

Sure, right after you respond to my answer to your post that the Dems had been hateful toward the GOP nominees. (In other words, lets not change the subject)

 

[JMR]

LOL that's really funny. Alito was one of the best US attorneys in the US and his academic credentials are at the very top of the Supreme Court. He also was a distinguished appellate judge for years.
Alito was unanimously rated "well qualified" to fill the Associate Justice post by the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary

You are correct. I misremembered...Alito replaced a Bush nominee who was rated unqualified...Harriet somebody or other.

 

[TurtleDude]

Sure, right after you respond to my answer to your post that the Dems had been hateful toward the GOP nominees. (In other words, lets not change the subject)

all but four dems voted against Alito-and this was before Saint Merrick got the same treatment Estrada and Keisler got. and do you know what the difference is-Keisler and Estrada had the votes to be seated. I doubt Saint Merrick did. the GOP had the majority and I doubt he would have been seated

 

[TurtleDude]

You are correct. I misremembered...Alito replaced a Bush nominee who was rated unqualified...Harriet somebody or other.

His WH counsel who appeared to be a "yes woman". She was the first woman partner at some big Texas firm but didn't go to a top drawer law school (SMU if my memory serves me). I was critical of her appointment because she wasn't a top scholar at a top law school. Now, I don't believe that you have to have gone to Yale, Harvard, Stanford or Columbia (generally seen as the top four law schools though Chicago, Duke, Cornell,UVa, NYU, Penn and Michigan sometimes get mentioned as well) to be appointed even though every current judge went to Yale (Alito,Thomas, Kavanaugh, Sotomayor) or Harvard (Breyer, Ginsburg (who transferred to Columbia due to her husband) Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kagan). The quality of Justices wouldn't be diminished if a Michigan, NYU, Duke, Cornell or Penn graduate or even say UC-B or Vanderbilt or Notre Dame (top 20 schools) graduate was selected. But SMU -don't think so

 

[JMR]

all but four dems voted against Alito-and this was before Saint Merrick got the same treatment Estrada and Keisler got. and do you know what the difference is-Keisler and Estrada had the votes to be seated. I doubt Saint Merrick did. the GOP had the majority and I doubt he would have been seated

Estrada had no judicial experience at any level. He also had no academic writing, so there was NO basis on which to judge his positions or abilities. He also refused to provide any
samples of his writing in his previous positions.

I doubt this refusal of providing information to the Senators was in any way duplicated by Merrick Garland.

 

[JMR]

His WH counsel who appeared to be a "yes woman". She was the first woman partner at some big Texas firm but didn't go to a top drawer law school (SMU if my memory serves me). I was critical of her appointment because she wasn't a top scholar at a top law school. Now, I don't believe that you have to have gone to Yale, Harvard, Stanford or Columbia (generally seen as the top four law schools though Chicago, Duke, Cornell,UVa, NYU, Penn and Michigan sometimes get mentioned as well) to be appointed even though every current judge went to Yale (Alito,Thomas, Kavanaugh, Sotomayor) or Harvard (Breyer, Ginsburg (who transferred to Columbia due to her husband) Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kagan). The quality of Justices wouldn't be diminished if a Michigan, NYU, Duke, Cornell or Penn graduate or even say UC-B or Vanderbilt or Notre Dame (top 20 schools) graduate was selected. But SMU -don't think so

I agree that qualified people have been educated at a variety of institutions. The school that granted the degree should be one of the least considered qualifications. On the other hand, those top schools send their graduates off to the top jobs that receive the recognition that puts them on the path to higher appointments.

 

[TurtleDude]

Estrada had no judicial experience at any level. He also had no academic writing, so there was NO basis on which to judge his positions or abilities. He also refused to provide any
samples of his writing in his previous positions.

I doubt this refusal of providing information to the Senators was in any way duplicated by Merrick Garland.

yet all three former Democrat party solicitor generals endorsed him. Kagan also endorsed him BTW. this was for an appellate position. His experience in the things you mentioned was not much different than KAGAN who went straight to the USSC. The reason why he wasn't given a hearing came up in a leaked Democrat document-the Democrats realized Bush was grooming him to be the first HISPANIC on the Court and the Dems didn't want Bush to be able to do that.

 

[TurtleDude]

I agree that qualified people have been educated at a variety of institutions. The school that granted the degree should be one of the least considered qualifications. On the other hand, those top schools send their graduates off to the top jobs that receive the recognition that puts them on the path to higher appointments.

It also rewards people who were really focused at age 18 or 19. versus those who became focused at say 22 or 24. While years ago-someone like Alan Dershowitz could have two poor years at Brooklyn (IIRC) and still get into Yale Law, the competition since about 1975 or 1980 is brutal. So a brilliant student who didn't apply himself until say his junior year in college is NOT going to get into a top five and probably not a top 10 law school.I don't know if that is healthy for the Supreme Court to limit itself to people who basically did nothing but pursue top grades since they were 16 or 17

 

[Fishking]

Antonio Scalia....98 votes

Sandra Day O'Connor....99 votes

Anthony Kennedy....97 votes

John Roberts....78 votes

Samuel Alito... 58 votes despite being declared not qualified by the ABA, as I recall.

It was only after the horrific treatment of the duly nominated eminently qualified Merrick Garland that the democrats fought back. Also, Trump utilizing the vetting of the Heritage Foundation, rather than seeking a truly qualified candidate has a lot to do with this, as I am sure you are aware.

I'm guessing you forgot about Clarence Thomas.

 

[JMR]

yet all three former Democrat party solicitor generals endorsed him. Kagan also endorsed him BTW. this was for an appellate position. His experience in the things you mentioned was not much different than KAGAN who went straight to the USSC. The reason why he wasn't given a hearing came up in a leaked Democrat document-the Democrats realized Bush was grooming him to be the first HISPANIC on the Court and the Dems didn't want Bush to be able to do that.

OK. And they used very logical objections to reach that goal. Perhaps he should have provided some information about his positions to seal the deal? Or would his entanglement in the Heritage Foundation be not so great a recommendation? It wasn't that the democrats were opposed to an Hispanic...they were opposed to a right wing judge manufacturer.

 

[JMR]

I'm guessing you forgot about Clarence Thomas.

No, I did not forget Clarence Thomas, I did not mention him because obviously his nomination was subject to much more than purely political considerations. He was confirmed despite very credible accusations as to his character, in conjunction with a less than qualified ranking by the ABA. The fact that he got a majority of the votes is remarkable, and carries baggage to this very day. You might say I find this particular judge outside the terms of the discussion.

 

[JMR]

It also rewards people who were really focused at age 18 or 19. versus those who became focused at say 22 or 24. While years ago-someone like Alan Dershowitz could have two poor years at Brooklyn (IIRC) and still get into Yale Law, the competition since about 1975 or 1980 is brutal. So a brilliant student who didn't apply himself until say his junior year in college is NOT going to get into a top five and probably not a top 10 law school.I don't know if that is healthy for the Supreme Court to limit itself to people who basically did nothing but pursue top grades since they were 16 or 17

Totally agree.

 

[TurtleDude]

No, I did not forget Clarence Thomas, I did not mention him because obviously his nomination was subject to much more than purely political considerations. He was confirmed despite very credible accusations as to his character, in conjunction with a less than qualified ranking by the ABA. The fact that he got a majority of the votes is remarkable, and carries baggage to this very day. You might say I find this particular judge outside the terms of the discussion.

Majority Leader Mitchell told WH Counsel Liberman and Keisler that if the GOP nominated someone OTHER than a BLACK to fill the "Black seat" when Thurgood Marshall retired, the Dems would "Bork"the candidate.

 

[JMR]

Majority Leader Mitchell told WH Counsel Liberman and Keisler that if the GOP nominated someone OTHER than a BLACK to fill the "Black seat" when Thurgood Marshall retired, the Dems would "Bork"the candidate.

As crazy as this seems in today's world....O'Connor's seat was a woman's seat, and Marshall's seat was a "black" seat. Unfortunately Bush the elder nominated a black candidate who could not hold a candle to his predecessor. And I think that is where there hard ball partisanship began.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Panicked Leftists offer to donate Ribs to Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg

https://news.iheart.com/featured/ru...onate-ribs-and-organs-to-ruth-buzzi-ginsburg/

This is not funny........even to this crusty old sailor who loves dark humor.

RBG is a good lady regardless of what ever political leanings she may have.

 

[Thorgasm]

This is not funny........even to this crusty old sailor who loves dark humor.

RBG is a good lady regardless of what ever political leanings she may have.

Scalia and her were good friends. That says a lot about both of them.

 

[PleasantValley]

Leftist Ideology has killed 200 million people, it is arguably the greatest evil humanity has ever created. I have strong personal animus against anyone trying to inflict it on me.

OK, you have a right to that opinion.
I just want to let you know her vote has been cancelled out by two recent SCOTUS appointments, and possibly another before 2020.
Anyone with two brain cells knew the 2016 election would ultimately be about Supreme Court appointments.

I do not see her as a threat, but as a really old woman who had a terrible fall.
Her partisanship was obvious to all when she made that statement about candidate Trump.
That was despicable for a Supreme Court justice to do.
However, the court is now being filled with conservatives that will rule in favor of the Constitution instead of trying to be activists.
Rest easy. The threat has been dealt with.

Now...however...you have to be gracious in your victory.

As I said in my post....sometime you have to separate POLITICS from PERSONAL.

This is an old woman who had a terrible fall. Those can be deadly at her age, and especially after all she has endured so far.
I salute her for the tough old bird she is today.
She survived many illnesses that have killed others much younger.
Give her credit where credit is due.

My recent disabling illness has shown me this.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Disgusting to make fun of an elderly, injured person.

Broken ribs freaking hurt. It's not anything to laugh at.

Whoa, I say whoa there... can you specifically point out for us who was laughing at her broken ribs, please? Who is it that was making fun of an elderly, injured person?

Maybe CNN... or perhaps liberals in general...might you say?



Ginsberg and the left made a silly video that SHOULD be mocked... Besides, you don't think Trump, well over 65 and so a person who some would certainly consider elderly as well is mocked ... constantly, incessantly?

Get over it. Should we berate you for having the gall to even call RBG elderly?

https://www.npr.org/2013/03/12/174124992/an-age-old-problem-who-is-elderly

Maybe some should have a bit better-placed shaming if one is going to so engage.