Posted on 02/04/2017 9:49:50 AM PST by Enterprise
From what I remember, she is a Type 2 diabetic. Depending on how adherent she is to her treatment and dietary requirements, will determine how long she remains ‘healthy’. I use the quotation marks due to the fact diabetes is sometimes a very difficult disease to manage. Other health issues arise from being diabetic. With her age and apparent weight, I would say she is not doing a great job managing things. Failure to manage her disease will result in a greatly shortened life. Not wishing ill, just stating facts.
They aren’t as worried about court stacking as they are about their careers and place in history.
When has any SC judge in decent health retired in order to allow such a replacement?
The Constitution says natural born citizen.
That means one who is naturally an American because they couldn’t be anything else, born here of citizen parents.
It is your sort of loose interpretation that brought about the Kenyanesian Usurpation.
You, in your usual liberal manner, are unable to distinguish between "qualified" and "desirable".
Indeed, it does. And it fails to provide an alternative to the dictionary definition of 'natural-born', which means that the dictionary definition is the legal definition. That is a judicial fact. You might wish that a presidential candidate had to be born on the 4th of July, in Washington DC, to tenth generation NBC parents, never having set foot outside the original 13 colonies, but it just isn't so. The Founders could easily have extended qualifications beyond the three they included, but they did not. Clearly it occurred to them that a potential candidate might spend extended time outside the USA (as, say, a military dependent or a dependent of a diplomat or even as a private citizen) but they did not include any special qualifications relating to that possibility, only a residency requirement of a mere 40% of the time required to be age-eligible - apparently they were not as frightened of 'foreign influence' as you are. They also did not state exactly how one was a citizen at birth, explicitly delegating the power to make those rules to Congress. So, get over it. Your argument is a house of cards based on cherry-picked, incomplete quotes from SCOTUS cases and misreadings of documents that are merely sources for (at best) and not, themselves, founding documents.You want your definition to be the Constitutional one? Get an amendment. I might even support it, if it isn't worded too liberally.
You are the one pushing the liberal definition.
If the Court loses a liberal like Ginsburg, I’d still love to see Trump nominate Merrick Garland as her replacement - with the threat. If Democrats oppose him, Trump withdraws the nomination and nominates a real conservative. Remember the Dems kept telling us what a moderate Garland is and how this was the best Republicans could hope for. But would he be the best Democrats could hope for from Trump?
I think the Dems would be so loaded for bear that a block of them would try to reject Garland in favor of somebody more extreme. Then Trump lowers the boom with the additional talking point that he TRIED to be fair with the Democrats but they would not go along so now he has no choice but to nominate the person he really wants.
This move puts the Democrats deeper on the edge as the Extremist Party while blunting forever the “Garland deserves a hearing, GOP stole the nomination, blah blah” talk.
Even if they accept Garland and approve him, you’ve got a more moderate judge than Ginsburg who has a chance to be drawn over as a swing vote on cases plus and Garland is already in his 60s where he’s unlikely to last more then 20 years on the High Court.
Naw, they’re too scared of guns. Even if they show up with them, they have no clue how to use them, and even less about weapon retention.
assuming of course that John Roberts doesn’t stab us in the back again.
I don’t trust Roberts one bit he betrayed us on 2 big ones. Ruthie thought HRC was a lock she wanted to be replaced by “The First Woman President”. So thanks Ruth, Marxist fool.
“Liberals begged Ginsburg to retire while the Liberal Messiah was President.”
My take is she wanted to go out in the majority.
“If the Court loses a liberal like Ginsburg, I’d still love to see Trump nominate Merrick Garland as her replacement”
No. Trump told us the list who he would nominate from. Why surrender? The Democrats wouldn’t do this if the roles were reversed. The only reason Obama nominated Garland is it was within 7 months of an election and Garland is no moderate.
One of Obama’s nominees replaced Souter. So let’s replace Souter with a conservative judge getting this seat back. Kennedy replaced Bork as nominee. If Kennedy leaves let’s get our Bork.
Thanks for this liberal/conservative breakdown. This helps clarify things for us.
Remember too, it’s not just the Supreme Court, but all of the federal courts at issue. The president nominates judges to the lower courts too, not just the Supreme Court.
After 8 years of Obama, fully 1/3 of federal judges serving today were appointed by him. With Trump there for at least four years, we have a chance to turn around the leftward tilt of the lower courts as well.
Hardly, lib, I am pushing exactly what the Constitution says. As I said, if you want to change that, get an amendment. You can’t just make new stuff up and try to gaslight us all with your BS. The Founders were smart people. If they wanted to have the restrictions you claim they did, why didn’t they simply put it into the Constitution from Day 1? We’re talking about the single most powerful office or person defined by the Constitution. Your whole ‘foreign influence’ argument falls apart with just a glance at the residency requirement. The definition of natural-born was at least 200 years old when the Constitution was written and had always been ‘having an attribute or quality from birth’. And all the sources that purport to define ‘naturals’ or ‘natives’ in a way that supports the birther position either don’t at all or use the terms interchangeably (see Blackstone ch. 10) and, as stated, are not themselves founding documents.
As for Cruz, simply prove neither of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth - Mr Edd has suggested a possible path for that, but I think that one has already been debunked - and you win that battle. And as for Obama, I personally doubt he was born in Hawaii due to the massive deception and coverup surrounding his proven-forged birth certificate(s) and other suppressed records and evidence, but that has yet to be fully substantiated, either. If foreign-born, by law he was not a citizen at birth (circumstances that did not apply to Cruz). But if you cannot prove those things, you cannot disqualify either man from the office beyond voting against them.
As I also said, do not confuse “qualified” and “desirable”.
Souter.
.
Your logical and factual post is wasted on Lurkinanloomin; she is emotional and hysterical on this for some reason.
( most likely rejection of Godly Patriots I suspect)
.
They were smart people and you should read their writings so you have a clue. They could have just said citizen if you were correct.
They did not, they meant it to be restrictive, that’s why the used natural born citizen.
The “Laws of Nations” that George Washington borrowed from the NY library is where they got their definition.
The reason is explained in John Jay’s letter to George Washington.
Read some history of the founders.
You’re drunk on Cruz-Aid
I am married to the only diabetic I’ve ever heard of who went from a couple of pills a day and (as much as) 40 units of insulin to absolutely no diabetes meds at all. That over several years, with intense discipline, and no weight issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.