Is Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dead?

[Serial Brain 9]

Changing the subject, slightly. Sorry.

In Australia, like the USA, different States have different LAWS .... some LAWS are NATIONAL but the person I am thinking of, hasn't a clue about ANY particular NATIONAL LAW, only knows State Law.

Ditto driving laws .... they also change from State to State. Here and in the USA. Europe, etcetera.

Liberal states in the US are changing laws to what other states consider "cheating" - so its legalised cheating

I like the system here in australia whereby if its a Federal Election then it all falls under the federal laws.

but one thing I don't like about our elections is that we can't pick our own Prime Minister like what America did with Trump

[Serial Brain 9]

First Media Outlet to Report on Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Cancer NOW SAYS She Contracted Pneumonia – Is Fighting for Her Life

In September The Santa Monica Observor reported that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had developed cancer.

Snopes labeled the report as fake news.
Snopes was wrong.

The Santa Monica Observer was the only paper to report of lung cancer at the time.

Now The Santa Monica Observer says Ruth Bader Ginsburg has pneumonia and is fighting for her life.
And… That Ginsburg will retire in January.

The Santa Monica Observer reported:

As any reader of the Santa Monica Observer knew last September, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has developed lung cancer. The 85 year old Supreme Court Justice had surgery as quietly as possible on December 22, 2018.

Following surgery, she has developed complications including pneumonia. Pneumonia often afflicts elderly post surgery patients in the US, since antibiotics have resulted in Multi Resistant Strains of the lung infection.

The left and the main stream media have tried to put on a brave face as Ginsburg missed three straight days of argument this week, interviewing cancer doctors to say that she would recover. They claimed that she was working in her hospital room, knowing that it was untrue.

No one in the media on in the Democratic party want to face the awful truth that President Donald Trump is about to replace one of the Court’s most liberal justices

Snopes - just another arm of the dishonest counter intelligence corrupt media

[Black Orchid]

Apparently she is retiring so Trump will get another pick. That should rattle the Dems.

[Serial Brain 9]

Apparently she is retiring so Trump will get another pick. That should rattle the Dems.

they will go into meltdown "WHEN" that happens

we all saw what Kavanaugh went through

[The Mechanic]

Oops!… FOX News Accidentally Airs Ruth Bader Ginsburg Is Dead

It was a mistake.

It was a tech mistake. All newsrooms create obit panels and stories and store them for quick access just in case. Not sure what happened in this case. I seem to recall something similar happened back in April on another network.

— Kevin Corke (@kevincorke) January 21, 2019

well that was a shame...

im sure she's fine..

[Serial Brain 9]

It has been 54 days since the public laid eyes on the 85-year-old Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and her absence is prompting calls for proof of life.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 ... 5e8bD64ED

Take this with a grain of salt. Interesting through - and this is exactly what the Dems would do.

“I am someone close to Ruth and have decided to come here to tell you the truth about what is happening. Ruth is not dead, like others have suggested. She is in a medically induced coma at an undisclosed location. Ruth is deathly ill with pneumonia and has multiple infections related to her recent lung cancer surgery and the accident that fractured her ribs,” the insider said on social media.

“Big players on the Democrat side of things are doing everything they can to cover this up and keep Ruth out of the spotlight and alive (through life support, if necessary). They do not want, under any circumstances, Trump picking another justice to serve on the SCOTUS. This would be devastating to their long-term plans… or so I have been told.”

“They plan on continuing this charade until the 2020 election and will casually announce she has passed away after a new Dem president gets into office. If Trump remains in office and wins reelection, I’m not sure what they will do.”

[Black Orchid]

President Donald Trump told a conservative media outlet he believes he is "confined" to a list of 25 potential Supreme Court nominees that his administration released in 2017 for his next pick for the top court.

The list, which was released during the 2016 presidential campaign and updated in Trump's first year in office, was compiled with the assistance of people tied to conservative groups including the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation.

Speculation about Trump's next potential nominee has taken on newfound significance because of concerns about liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's health. Ginsburg underwent cancer surgery late last year, forcing the 85-year-old to miss her first oral arguments in her 25 years on the bench as she recovered.

"I have very much confined myself to that list as you know … that list has great people on it … and I'd say it's highly likely I would say," Trump told The Daily Caller in an interview for an article published late Wednesday.

Trump's first nominees to the court, who both came from the short list, have strong ties to the Federalist Society. Justice Neil Gorsuch spoke at the group's annual conference in 2017. In his Senate confirmation questionnaire, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said his ties to the group lasted from 1988 to the present. He attended the group's conference last year.

Trump told the outlet he would not commit to nominating Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a favorite among social conservatives and particularly among opponents of abortion.

Trump was criticized by some conservatives for his selection of Kavanaugh instead of Barrett last year, and that criticism has grown since Kavanaugh was confirmed to the bench.

"Anybody on that list would be a choice," Trump said in the interview. The president, who wished Ginsburg a speedy recovery on Twitter after her surgery, said he hoped she was healthy.

His administration has reportedly begun preparations in case she departs from the bench.

"I hope that she's healthy … I hope she's happy … I hope she lives for a long time," he told The Daily Caller.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment about Trump's interview.

The ideological balance on the Supreme Court will likely play a major part in the 2020 presidential campaign. Social conservatives who had qualms about Trump in 2016 backed him largely for his dedication to appointing conservative judges to federal courts. The Supreme Court now has five conservative justices and four liberals.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/31/trump-s ... eport.html

[The Mechanic]

apparently RBG is back at work...

but pictures they keep putting in the media are all old... this one was taken back in November...

one of many old pictures that the MSM have been posting on RBG..

why?

[Black Orchid]

She's almost 87 years old. Whatever the go is she needs to retire. John Paul Stevens retired at 90 and Oliver Wendell Holmes stepped down from the bench two months shy of his 91st birthday. It's ridiculous. No matter how 'fit' you are at that age you are too OLD to sit on the bench.

Some justices really have clung to their positions long after their mental faculties have left them. Justice Henry Baldwin remained on the court for nearly a dozen years after his 1832 hospitalization for “incurable lunacy.” One of Justice Nathan Clifford’s colleagues described him as a “babbling idiot” in the final years before his death in 1881. Justice Stephen Field in the mid-1890s and Justice Joseph McKenna in the early to mid-1920s each reportedly spent the end of their tenures in a haze.

“Mental decrepitude” on the Supreme Court has continued into the modern era, as historian David Garrow has documented. Frank Murphy, who served in the 1940s, was likely addicted to illegal drugs by the end of his tenure, and his biographer wrote that “on at least one occasion,” with Murphy in absentia, his law clerk and two fellow justices “jointly decided what Murphy’s votes should be.” Justice Charles Whittaker teetered on the brink of nervous breakdown for much of his five-year stint on the court in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Hugo Black stayed on for more than two years after his wife concluded in 1969 that “his mentality has been impaired.”

Nor was Black the last justice whose mind slipped while he was still on the bench. In 1975, his last year on the court, William O. Douglas was so severely disabled by a stroke that his fellow justices agreed to delay any decision in which Douglas’ vote could swing the outcome. Justice William Rehnquist developed a dependence on a sedative that caused him to experience hallucinations during withdrawal; at one point in late 1981, he tried to escape from George Washington University Hospital in his pajamas. Rehnquist recovered, but two of his colleagues—Lewis Powell and Thurgood Marshall—faced doubts about their mental capacities at the tail end of their careers.

The history of cognitive decline on the high court teaches two lessons. First, there is a real risk of a substantial time lag between the onset of mental deterioration and a justice’s retirement. But second, and as important, this is a risk that can be contained. No justice—no matter how deranged—can do serious doctrinal damage without the acquiescence of at least half his colleagues. And when a justice is so utterly incapacitated that he is unable to break 4-4 ties, the court can continue to function with an even number of active members. Originally, the court had only six justices; during the Civil War, it had 10; and it has functioned fine with eight members during prolonged vacancies. Indeed, there are notable virtues to having an even number of justices—one of them being that it then takes more than a knife’s-edge majority to overturn a lower court decision or strike down a law nationwide.

More at https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... lth-224014

Demomorons just don't want Trump having another pick and thus have a conservative majority but c'mon how are these decrepit old codgers beneficial to the justice system period?

[The Mechanic]

She's almost 87 years old. Whatever the go is she needs to retire. John Paul Stevens retired at 90 and Oliver Wendell Holmes stepped down from the bench two months shy of his 91st birthday. It's ridiculous. No matter how 'fit' you are at that age you are too OLD to sit on the bench.

Some justices really have clung to their positions long after their mental faculties have left them. Justice Henry Baldwin remained on the court for nearly a dozen years after his 1832 hospitalization for “incurable lunacy.” One of Justice Nathan Clifford’s colleagues described him as a “babbling idiot” in the final years before his death in 1881. Justice Stephen Field in the mid-1890s and Justice Joseph McKenna in the early to mid-1920s each reportedly spent the end of their tenures in a haze.

“Mental decrepitude” on the Supreme Court has continued into the modern era, as historian David Garrow has documented. Frank Murphy, who served in the 1940s, was likely addicted to illegal drugs by the end of his tenure, and his biographer wrote that “on at least one occasion,” with Murphy in absentia, his law clerk and two fellow justices “jointly decided what Murphy’s votes should be.” Justice Charles Whittaker teetered on the brink of nervous breakdown for much of his five-year stint on the court in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Hugo Black stayed on for more than two years after his wife concluded in 1969 that “his mentality has been impaired.”

Nor was Black the last justice whose mind slipped while he was still on the bench. In 1975, his last year on the court, William O. Douglas was so severely disabled by a stroke that his fellow justices agreed to delay any decision in which Douglas’ vote could swing the outcome. Justice William Rehnquist developed a dependence on a sedative that caused him to experience hallucinations during withdrawal; at one point in late 1981, he tried to escape from George Washington University Hospital in his pajamas. Rehnquist recovered, but two of his colleagues—Lewis Powell and Thurgood Marshall—faced doubts about their mental capacities at the tail end of their careers.

The history of cognitive decline on the high court teaches two lessons. First, there is a real risk of a substantial time lag between the onset of mental deterioration and a justice’s retirement. But second, and as important, this is a risk that can be contained. No justice—no matter how deranged—can do serious doctrinal damage without the acquiescence of at least half his colleagues. And when a justice is so utterly incapacitated that he is unable to break 4-4 ties, the court can continue to function with an even number of active members. Originally, the court had only six justices; during the Civil War, it had 10; and it has functioned fine with eight members during prolonged vacancies. Indeed, there are notable virtues to having an even number of justices—one of them being that it then takes more than a knife’s-edge majority to overturn a lower court decision or strike down a law nationwide.

More at https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... lth-224014

Demomorons just don't want Trump having another pick and thus have a conservative majority but c'mon how are these decrepit old codgers beneficial to the justice system period?

dear lord .... they need to change the laws on this one..