Barely Coherent: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Makes an Appearance…

[mystery-ak]

Barely Coherent: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Makes an Appearance…
Posted on September 13, 2018   by sundance

A few weeks ago American media began heavily promoting a generally odd video of Supreme Court Justice doing a workout.  It seemed weird.  Today, the motive of putting out that video becomes transparent.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appears at an event hosted by the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA).  Watch:

! No longer available

more
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/09/13/barely-coherent-supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-makes-an-appearance/

[Wingnut]

I hope Trump has someone in the on-deck circle.

[Sanguine]

She can't even hold her head up.

[Wingnut]

She can't even hold her head up.

She's a broken bobble head.

[cato potatoe]

This is just pitiful.  She belongs in a home at this point, unless a nurse or close family lives with her.

[Jazzhead]

Assuming, of course, that Kavanaugh is successfully confirmed,  it might be a wise conciliatory gesture to nominate Merrick Garland to replace RBG.   That still moves the Court significantly away from the extreme left,  and might be the sort of surprising gesture that could help bring about reconciliation in this divided nation.   

[skeeter]

Assuming, of course, that Kavanaugh is successfully confirmed,  it might be a wise conciliatory gesture to nominate Merrick Garland to replace RBG.   That still moves the Court significantly away from the extreme left,  and might be the sort of surprising gesture that could help bring about reconciliation in this divided nation.

Any conciliatory gesture made at this point needs to come from the democrats, which you know they'll never make. Their behavior on the judiciary has been abominable and the GOP owes them nothing as it is the voters who have handed the GOP their position of advantage.

[Free Vulcan]

Wow. She's fairly sharp, but to be on the SCOTUS? No.

[Wingnut]

Assuming, of course, that Kavanaugh is successfully confirmed,  it might be a wise conciliatory gesture to nominate Merrick Garland to replace RBG.   That still moves the Court significantly away from the extreme left,  and might be the sort of surprising gesture that could help bring about reconciliation in this divided nation.

There is no and will be no reconciliation.  All the rats and their liberal minions know and want is capitulation. 

[Jazzhead]

Any conciliatory gesture made at this point needs to come from the democrats, which you know they'll never make. Their behavior on the judiciary has been abominable and the GOP owes them nothing as it is the voters who have handed the GOP their position of advantage.

Spoken like a partisan.  And I understand, since I'm a partisan too.  But I'm also a citizen of a Republic that has suffered by reason of extreme partisanship bordering on hatred for many years now.   Do I think the Dems started it?  Sure, but does it really matter?   At some point someone ought to make a conciliatory gesture to lance the boil and allow it to heal.   

Judge Garland is supremely qualified and, in the grand scheme of things, a relative moderate.   You know as well as I that if the Dems are reduced to spasms of apoplexy when Justice Kennedy is replaced by a man who acknowledges him as his mentor that they will be driven over the edge of sanity if RBG is replaced by a conservative.   (Just, of course, as we were when it appeared that our hero Scalia was going to be replaced by Barack Obama.)   

There's nothing wrong with an honest and intellectually impeccable moderate on the Supreme Court.  I think it may be well worth it to take the first step toward reconciliation.   If not us, who?  If not now, when?   My children will have to carry on without me before long.   I'd love to leave them a bit better world.   

[cato potatoe]

Democrats made the confirmation process ugly.  Not us.  But the Supreme Court is worth fighting over.  Progressive judges are dictators.  They don't understand or respect the constitution, and they should be opposed with every ounce of strength we possess.

Trump's Democrat successor will nominate the biggest nutcases (s)he can find to replace Clarence Thomas.  That is why Trump has no choice but to nominate and hard-sell an originalist when the time comes.

[Cyber Liberty]

Assuming, of course, that Kavanaugh is successfully confirmed,  it might be a wise conciliatory gesture to nominate Merrick Garland to replace RBG.   That still moves the Court significantly away from the extreme left,  and might be the sort of surprising gesture that could help bring about reconciliation in this divided nation.

Nope.  "Conciliatory gestures" by Republicans are rudely slapped away every time it's been tried, so it's time for a truly in-your-face pick for SCOTUS.  Eff the Rats.  Let the Rats prove they're over the slapping first (something that cannot happen until Trump is out office.  The well has been that poisoned by the Rats), then we'll see.

[Absalom]

Disintegrating and sad old goat, or is it goatee?
FYI, she is in her late 80ties and has both serious
heart disease and intestinal cancer!!!

[Cyber Liberty]

There's nothing wrong with an honest and intellectually impeccable moderate on the Supreme Court.  I think it may be well worth it to take the first step toward reconciliation.   If not us, who?  If not now, when?   My children will have to carry on without me before long.   I'd love to leave them a bit better world.   

There is plenty wrong with picking an "impeccable moderate" for the bench.  Moderates always drift to the left (Souter, anybody?  He was an impeccable moderate), so a Justice in that mold today is a far-left radical tomorrow.

If not us, who?  The rats.  They started this and must be the ones to end it If not now, when" Ask the Rats, they control the timetable on conciliation.

I'd love to leave them a bit better world.   Are you suggesting or implying that the rest of us here don't want to leave our children a better world?   That our goal is just watch the country burn? 

[Jazzhead]

I wrote what I wrote above without the slightest expectation that anyone here would possibly agree with it.   

The Dems are irredeemably evil, and we possess all the virtues.  Check.  Tribalism at its most corrosive and destructive.

Sigh. 

[kidd]

Assuming, of course, that Kavanaugh is successfully confirmed,  it might be a wise conciliatory gesture to nominate Merrick Garland to replace RBG.   That still moves the Court significantly away from the extreme left,  and might be the sort of surprising gesture that could help bring about reconciliation in this divided nation.

RBG (Clinton nominee) was approved 96-3
Breyer (Clinton nominee) was approved 87-9

Scalia (GHW Bush nominee) was only confirmed by a 65-33 vote
Alito (GW Bush nominee) was only confirmed by a 58-42 vote
Gorsuch (Trump nominee) was only confirmed by a 54-45 vote
Thomas (GHW Bush nominee) was only confirmed by a 52-48 vote

See the pattern?
The GOP makes the conciliatory gestures. The democrats fight anyone the GOP nominates. Who exactly is dividing the nation?

[Cyber Liberty]

I wrote what I wrote above without the slightest expectation that anyone here would possibly agree with it.   

The Dems are irredeemably evil, and we possess all the virtues.  Check.  Tribalism at its most corrosive and destructive.

Sigh.

It's not black and white, it's a matter of degrees.  Not claiming all the virtues, just telling it like it is Re:  Democrats. 

It used to be like just opposing teams, but now there is no doing business with somebody who thinks we're evil and must be destroyed (killed if necessary, like that goofball in Castro CA thinks), not merely defeated.  That is the state of the Democrat Party today, and my caving in to them will not make them any better, it would just embolden them to dig even deeper.

Call me what you will, I don't care.  Tribal, partisan, whatever floats your boat is good with me.  I would suspect you wrote what you did above to troll the board, but I know better than that.

[kidd]

It used to be like just opposing teams, but now there is no doing business with somebody who thinks we're evil and must be destroyed (killed if necessary, like that goofball in Castro CA thinks), not merely defeated.  That is the state of the Democrat Party today, and my caving in to them will not make them any better, it would just embolden them to dig even deeper.

You said it better than I could.
Civility will be restored only when the present crop of democrats want it.

[Sanguine]

There is plenty wrong with picking an "impeccable moderate" for the bench.  Moderates always drift to the left (Souter, anybody?  He was an impeccable moderate), so a Justice in that mold today is a far-left radical tomorrow.

If not us, who?  The rats.  They started this and must be the ones to end it If not now, when" Ask the Rats, they control the timetable on conciliation.

I'd love to leave them a bit better world.   Are you suggesting or implying that the rest of us here don't want to leave our children a better world?   That our goal is just watch the country burn? 

Exactly.  We don't need "moderates".  We need judges who will base their decisions on the legal basis of our country and law: the Constitution.

[Wingnut]

I have seen Jazzy's world through his posts and I don't want to live there.  Or anywhere near it.

[Cyber Liberty]

Exactly.  We don't need "moderates".  We need judges who will base their decisions on the legal basis of our country and law: the Constitution.

I think it's pretty damned sad that has come to mean "Angry, white, right-wingnuts."

[skeeter]

Spoken like a partisan.  And I understand, since I'm a partisan too.  But I'm also a citizen of a Republic that has suffered by reason of extreme partisanship bordering on hatred for many years now.   Do I think the Dems started it?  Sure, but does it really matter?   At some point someone ought to make a conciliatory gesture to lance the boil and allow it to heal.   

Judge Garland is supremely qualified and, in the grand scheme of things, a relative moderate.   You know as well as I that if the Dems are reduced to spasms of apoplexy when Justice Kennedy is replaced by a man who acknowledges him as his mentor that they will be driven over the edge of sanity if RBG is replaced by a conservative.   (Just, of course, as we were when it appeared that our hero Scalia was going to be replaced by Barack Obama.)   

There's nothing wrong with an honest and intellectually impeccable moderate on the Supreme Court.  I think it may be well worth it to take the first step toward reconciliation.   If not us, who?  If not now, when?   My children will have to carry on without me before long.   I'd love to leave them a bit better world.   

They will not reciprocate. They do not want to heal. It will be a wasted gesture. They will seize what is offered and stick the shiv in at their next opportunity.

We need to stop acting like fools and begin acting like we believe in something.

[austingirl]

There is plenty wrong with picking an "impeccable moderate" for the bench.  Moderates always drift to the left (Souter, anybody?  He was an impeccable moderate), so a Justice in that mold today is a far-left radical tomorrow.

If not us, who?  The rats.  They started this and must be the ones to end it If not now, when" Ask the Rats, they control the timetable on conciliation.

I'd love to leave them a bit better world.   Are you suggesting or implying that the rest of us here don't want to leave our children a better world?   That our goal is just watch the country burn? 

Hilarious, isn't it,  to think there is such a thing as a Democrat SC nominee that is moderate. They adore the legal precedents of the EU and World Curt, and don't believe in the US Constitution.

[Fishrrman]

The Ghost wrote:
"I hope Trump has someone in the on-deck circle."

He does:
Amy Coney Barrett.

But wait until Ruthie's gone and Mr. Trump nominates Barrett to fill the seat.

Think "the Kavanaugh Show" was bad?

Jes' wait until next time!

[Fishrrman]

cato potatoe wrote:
"Trump's Democrat successor will nominate the biggest nutcases (s)he can find to replace Clarence Thomas."

Not gonna happen.
A Fishrrman prediction (you read it here first):
Justice Thomas will announce his retirement at the close of the 2019 Court term.
He will probably make a private request to Mr. Trump to find the most conservative replacement possible for his seat.

He's had enough time on The Court, and he's of a mind to "let it go" and enjoy himself.

I'm wonderin' if Kennedy and Thomas "flipped a coin" to see who would retire first!