Posted on 12/31/2018 5:45:00 PM PST by be-baw
Yes. RBG has only weeks to live if my oncologist friends are right.
I doubt it. I stopped putting any faith in SCOTUS in the “assault rifle ban” era. I pretty much want nothing important decided by those capriciously condescending tyrants.
“Yes. RBG has only weeks to live if my oncologist friends are right.”
That is also what I have heard.
That was urban legend. She’s waiting for the 2020 election
We could call it "The Supreme Corpse", after its most deceased member.
Any chance we could get Ginsburg and Breyer to take up sky diving or even roller-blading?
When (not if, but when) Trump gets to nominate the next judge for the Supreme Court, he better do as the democrats do, and that is to ask the nominee how he/she would rule on cases related to abortions and guns and borders/illegals and taxes and regulations and state sanctuaries and, well... would he vote like a good conservative with the constitution and our bill of rights being the foundation for every decision of the court.
Democrats get away with asking those questions, so, why not Trump and republicans?
Did they give any reason? Shes too old to survive chemo, that kind cant be effectively removed surgically, etc...
My dad and uncle were both diagnosed with small cell lung cancer, upon diagnosis were given 3 weeks to live. They both lived 3 weeks. My dad could have gotten chemo and made it a few more months but decided it wasnt worth it. I would have made the same decision.
Roberts already took a big dump on the court’s rep with Obamacare. Then he did again a few weeks back. The guy is hopelessly lost in space. He should resign. He’s not SCOTUS material.
>> Abortion restrictions, workplace discrimination against LGBT people and partisan gerrymandering are on the agenda.
Today’s third-rail that’s dictating our liberties — sexual deviancy.
Yes.
I agree - RBG is a monumental pending fight.
Democrats will never agree to a conservative replacement. This is going to be a huge issue in 2019.
Roberts is unwilling to vote in ways that would anger the left, if he would be the swing vote.
So we still have 3 females witches who are the hard core commies plus Roberts, who is now exposed himself as being fully compromised to Obama. Thus that makes him the most dangerous element on the court.
No hearings no presidential wannabes lecturing us all, nominate and vote. It’s what schumer would do if he was in charge.
. . . which feels a whole lot safer when there is not a socialist in the White House.The case of all cases must be brought, and accepted by SCOTUS. I refer to the case the Republican Party must bring against every institution which promotes the conceit that journalist is (in fact) objective - and that includes not only the MSM (personified in the Associated Press and its membership, and all other major journalism) but the Federal Election Commission (the product of legislation which is constitutional nonsense without the assumption of journalistic objectivity) and the FCC.
The fact that Establishment journalism affects objectivity is actually a manifestation of subjectivty. Subjectivity is the natural condition of man, because everyone thinks that their own opinions are right (or they wouldn’t be their opinions). Attempting objectivity is hard - because against natural inclination - and actually achieving it is not reliably attainable.
Establishment journalism defines itself (in fact, not in its affectation) as a mutual admiration society of people who never question each other’s objectivity - and who will launch a hostile propaganda campaign against anyone who does (especially if they claim to be journalists when doing so). That is an effective PR technique - but it ersatz objectivity, and the institution of it is the product of a conspiracy against the public. The natural result of a century and a half of continuous virtual meeting over the AP “wire.”
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776)The rules for commercial success in journalism include “If it bleeds, it leads,” “Man Bites Dog, not Dog Bites Man,” and “There’s nothing more worthless than yesterday’s newspaper. Those rules filter historical perspective out - and what remains is inherently hostile to conservatism. Because of this fact, the New York Times v. Sullivan decision - nominally fair as it is - actually is slanted against conservatism. Sullivan prevents most civil action against journalists for libel by either Democrat or Republican politicians, but Democrat politicians are never libeled. And Republican Politicians routinely are.
“The case of all cases must be brought, and accepted by SCOTUS. I refer to the case the Republican Party must bring against every institution which promotes the conceit that journalist is (in fact) objective...”
Not sure what you have in mind. Do you mean that Sullivan should essentially be re-argued in front of the court? If so, what sort of scenario would be required to have this happen?
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.