Posted on 07/24/2019 7:39:21 AM PDT by SMGFan
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is reminding critics that she’s not dead yet.
“There was a senator, I think it was after my pancreatic cancer, who announced, with great glee, that I was going to be dead within six months. That senator, whose name I have forgotten, is now dead himself, and I am very much alive,” Ginsburg told NPR in an interview published Wednesday.
And the 86-year-old justice, who survived a string of health scares, including most recently when she was treated in December for lung cancer, said she intends to stay much longer on the bench.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Ruth Buzzi is the poster child for term limits.
She’s crowing but she’s also stepping from banana peel to banana peel.
Patience!
One day we’ll get our last laugh.
Has anyone actually seen her?
I want an video tape of her reading headlines from a recent newspaper, else I’m not impressed.
Bring out your dead!
CUSTOMER: Here’s one — nine pence.
DEAD PERSON: I’m not dead!
MORTICIAN: What?
CUSTOMER: Nothing — here’s your nine pence.
DEAD PERSON: I’m not dead!
MORTICIAN: Here — he says he’s not dead!
CUSTOMER: Yes, he is.
DEAD PERSON: I’m not!
MORTICIAN: He isn’t.
CUSTOMER: Well, he will be soon, he’s very ill.
DEAD PERSON: I’m getting better!
CUSTOMER: No, you’re not — you’ll be stone dead in a moment.
MORTICIAN: Oh, I can’t take him like that — it’s against regulations.
DEAD PERSON: I don’t want to go in the cart!
CUSTOMER: Oh, don’t be such a baby.
MORTICIAN: I can’t take him...
DEAD PERSON: I feel fine!
CUSTOMER: Oh, do us a favor...
MORTICIAN: I can’t.
CUSTOMER: Well, can you hang around a couple of minutes? He won’t
be long.
MORTICIAN: Naaah, I got to go on to Robinson’s — they’ve lost nine
today.
CUSTOMER: Well, when is your next round?
MORTICIAN: Thursday.
DEAD PERSON: I think I’ll go for a walk.
CUSTOMER: You’re not fooling anyone y’know. Look, isn’t there
something you can do?
DEAD PERSON: I feel happy... I feel happy.
[whop]
CUSTOMER: Ah, thanks very much.
MORTICIAN: Not at all. See you on Thursday.
CUSTOMER: Right.
A serious globalist marxian— complete agenda driven unconstitutional abomination.
Then take a look at Roberts— just WHY did he immediately fly to Malta, after his idiotic overnight rewrite of obmaumaocare opinion (the opposite of what his colleagues had agreed on— re: a fine as a tax, a mandate as a tax forced on everyone).
Still being blackmailed, still probable queer, and his “illegal” (only to the dems who are using this, obamaumao did especially) Irish orphans adopted through Brazilians.
Alive and functional are two different ways of being.
Like survived and accident, which means that they have been able to keep heart and respirations going
‘very much alive’ can have differing meanings.
She has conveniently forgotten the name.
An interview published? No audio? No video? I am skeptical.... The left and the Dems want to prop her up through the first of the year. Then with an election looming they will delay a replacement till after the next inauguration (of President Trump for his second term).
NPR evidently according to article. Of course they wouldn’t lie would they?
Post 17-
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/10/ruth-bader-ginsburg-clears-up-her-views-on-abortion-population-control-and-roe-v-wade.html
Slate - Emily Bazelon — October 12, 2012
Talking to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
[snip] Three years ago, I interviewed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the New York Times Magazine. At one point, we talked about the lack of Medicaid funding for abortions for poor women, because of a 1980 Supreme Court decision called Harris v. McRae. She said then:
The ruling surprised me. Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.
I didn’t ask the follow up question that would have given Ginsburg the chance to clarify what she meant—to explain who was concerned about population growth at the time, and in what context. Because I didn’t do that, some conservatives pounced. From Jonah Goldberg in theNational Review:
Left unclear is whether Ginsburg endorses the eugenic motivation she ascribed to the passage of Roe v. Wade or whether she was merely objectively describing it. One senses that if Antonin Scalia had offered such a comment, a Times interviewer would have sought more clarity, particularly on the racial characteristics of these supposedly unwanted populations.
The Democrats can’t delay unless Mitch McConnell agrees with them.
So far he says it’s a go next year if there is a vacancy.
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.