Guess when Ruth Bader Ginsburg will die

[bostonlager 2,463]

5 minutes ago, riversco said:

In the event that Ginsburg dies and Trump appoints a right wing justice to replace her, I would fully expect the next democrat president would just add a 10th and 11th liberal justice as long as the democrats hold the Senate.

It will take more than that. 11 would mean 6 good guys and 5 homo-pandering terrorists. 

[Reality 2,710]

20 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Just to make sure we're not skipping over an important detail on the so called "Biden rule".  He said that because a Republican was in office.  Let's not pretend that he would have brought it up had a Democrat been in office at the time.  I mean, he didn't support that thought 3 years ago, did he?

Let's also not forget that the American people didn't want a Democrat appointee, because with the knowledge of the vacancy, a Republican candidate won the election.

Also, Obama and the Dems were so confident that a democrat would win in 2016 that they really didn't push the Republicans on the nominee. They could have fought harder but, figured WTH, why bother. That's on the them.

Republicans controlled Congress at the time, America decided they were no longer interested in Obama's policies or appointees. 

Democracy in action.

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,116]

11 minutes ago, riversco said:

In the event that Ginsburg dies and Trump appoints a right wing justice to replace her, I would fully expect the next democrat president would just add a 10th and 11th liberal justice as long as the democrats hold the Senate.

I did a little reading on this and I hope they don't take this approach.  Now I know that the Dem's party line is "if we can't win, let's make rules to help us win", but this is a really dangerous idea.  What's to stop Republicans from doing this?  This is not a good idea.

 

One thing that I read, which I thought was a good idea, was term limits on SC judges.  Ro Khanna, must be a moderate Democrat because this has some common sense to it (and we know that common sense and Democrats are like oil and water), but that was something that he mentioned.  The idea apparently came from a Yale law professor, but it's one that makes sense.

[TBayXXXVII 2,116]

1 minute ago, Reality said:

Also, Obama and the Dems were so confident that a democrat would win in 2016 that they really didn't push the Republicans on the nominee. They could have fought harder but, figured WTH, why bother. That's on the them.

Republicans controlled Congress at the time, America decided they were no longer interested in Obama's policies or appointees. 

Democracy in action.

 

Exactly my thinking.

[RLLD 3,455]

8 minutes ago, Reality said:

Democracy in action.

 

 

Democrats laud Democracy when they derive power, assail it when power is not provided to them, they have become pretty scary as a party.....they are more of a cult now.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

23 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I did a little reading on this and I hope they don't take this approach.  Now I know that the Dem's party line is "if we can't win, let's make rules to help us win", but this is a really dangerous idea.  What's to stop Republicans from doing this?  This is not a good idea.

 

One thing that I read, which I thought was a good idea, was term limits on SC judges.  Ro Khanna, must be a moderate Democrat because this has some common sense to it (and we know that common sense and Democrats are like oil and water), but that was something that he mentioned.  The idea apparently came from a Yale law professor, but it's one that makes sense.

I think a term limit on judges requires a constitutional amendment.  The nation is too divided to agree on any constitutional amendments.  3 constitutional amendments got passed during the Civil War after going 60 years without any, but that was because half the nation had seceded and the states that remained shared a more unified and cohesive culture which made passing amendments easier.

[TBayXXXVII 2,116]

50 minutes ago, Ray Lewis's Limo Driver said:

 

Democrats laud Democracy when they derive power, assail it when power is not provided to them, they have become pretty scary as a party.....they are more of a cult now.

QFT

[TBayXXXVII 2,116]

56 minutes ago, riversco said:

I think a term limit on judges requires a constitutional amendment.  The nation is too divided to agree on any constitutional amendments.  3 constitutional amendments got passed during the Civil War after going 60 years without any, but that was because half the nation had seceded and the states that remained shared a more unified and cohesive culture which made passing amendments easier.

There's nothing wrong with constitutional amendments that are logical.  The only problems are the ones where emotion is controlling legislation.  When the Supreme Court was created and the lifetime appointment was given in the late 1700's, the average lifespan was only around 40 years old.  Sure, the "rich" and more educated probably lived into their 50's (on average), but no one really expected these judges to hold their positions for more than 10 to 15 years.

[cbfalcon 824]

2 hours ago, bostonlager said:

This is because it is very important for the safety and future of our country we have a conservative majority on the SC. We aren't going to last long as a nation if we let the f@gs, muslims, blacks, and women run rampant. 

Your views are very welcome on this message board. I mean, it's a given that I consider you to be a pig, but I'm in the minority.

Yes, there is a slight chance a couple of others will call you out, and they may even be Republican types. But they won't dig in too deep, probably one comment and then they will move on. It could be because they privately agree with you but feel obligated to pay lip service to being a decent human being. Or it could be that they disagree with you, but know that so many of the other posters here agree with you that they don't want to speak out too strongly.

But know that your views are welcome here.

[bostonlager 2,463]

1 minute ago, cbfalcon said:

Your views are very welcome on this message board. I mean, it's a given that I consider you to be a pig, but I'm in the minority.

Yes, there is a slight chance a couple of others will call you out, and they may even be Republican types. But they won't dig in too deep, probably one comment and then they will move on. It could be because they privately agree with you but feel obligated to pay lip service to being a decent human being. Or it could be that they disagree with you, but know that so many of the other posters here agree with you that they don't want to speak out too strongly.

But know that your views are welcome here.

Much obliged. 

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

3 hours ago, bostonlager said:

This is because it is very important for the safety and future of our country we have a conservative majority on the SC. We aren't going to last long as a nation if we let the f@gs, muslims, blacks, and women run rampant. 

I openly agree with you. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,116]

 

3 hours ago, bostonlager said:

This is because it is very important for the safety and future of our country we have a conservative majority on the SC. We aren't going to last long as a nation if we let the f@gs, muslims, blacks, and women run rampant. 

5 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

I openly agree with you. 

I only agree with the first sentence.  I'd change the second sentence to "... we let the f@gs, muslims, blacks, and women Democrats run rampant".

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

4 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

 

I only agree with the first sentence.

He doesn’t mean blacks or women shouldn’t be on the SC. He means that only a conservative SC will be able to get the outrageous progressives in this country under control. I agree with him 100%.

I don’t think a Muslim or a homosexual should ever be allowed on the SC though. I don’t think Muslims should even be allowed in the country.

[bostonlager 2,463]

1 minute ago, iam90sbaby said:

He doesn’t mean blacks or women shouldn’t be on the SC. He means that only a conservative SC will be able to get the outrageous progressives in this country under control. I agree with him 100%.

I don’t think a Muslim or a homosexual should ever be allowed on the SC though. 

I don't care who is on the SC as long as they are conservative and ready to combat any progressive agenda held by muslims, homos, BLM types, or feminists. This country's moral compass needs to go back in time about 70 years. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,116]

5 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

He doesn’t mean blacks or women shouldn’t be on the SC. He means that only a conservative SC will be able to get the outrageous progressives in this country under control. I agree with him 100%.

I don’t think a Muslim or a homosexual should ever be allowed on the SC though. I don’t think Muslims should even be allowed in the country.

Which is why I put "Democrats" in how I would have re-worded it.  I don't have any problem with other races and sexual preferences, so I don't just do what Democrats do, and generalize a whole group.

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

2 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Which is why I put "Democrats" in how I would have re-worded it.  I don't have any problem with other races and sexual preferences, so I don't just do what Democrats do, and generalize a whole group.

Not speaking on the others, but it’s okay to sh!t on Islam. Any person that won’t renounce Mohammed is a turd and they don’t belong in the west. 

[RLLD 3,455]

2 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

Not speaking on the others, but it’s okay to sh!t on Islam. Any person that won’t renounce Mohammed is a turd and they don’t belong in the west. 

Most religions have negative aspects, with some exceptions.  I would promote the idea that most of human misery can be traced to religion. The issue I have with Islam is that it never experienced the reformation like Christianity did, and its followers are too devoted to the corrupt that are seen to govern it.  Islam should be so much more than it is, as it stands now i find it perverse.....

[Hardcore troubadour 12,631]

Muslims are a net negative on the country. They don't appear to do much more than drive cabs and work in crappy bodegas. Non essential. Don't need to take on the terrorism risk for that.  

[drobeski 3,061]

She should die the same way she helped many babies get killed...ripped to pieces while alive.

[bostonlager 2,463]

5 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Muslims are a net negative on the country. They don't appear to do much more than drive cabs and work in crappy bodegas. Non essential. Don't need to take on the terrorism risk for that.  

They also smell foul and look like boogers with limbs, therefore American women are repulsed by them, which in turn means they get all aggressive and resort to taking the pvsssy. I am not down with rapin'. 

[Mr. Hand 482]

If she dies while Trump is President and he gets to nominee another justice heads will explode on the left.

[cbfalcon 824]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Muslims are a net negative on the country.

As are bigots

[Hardcore troubadour 12,631]

11 minutes ago, cbfalcon said:

As are bigots

I thought attacks on organized religion were ok around here? Have you called out geeks for the numerous anti-Christian statements? If you have, good for you. If you haven't, shut your cuck mouth. 

[cbfalcon 824]

4 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I thought attacks on organized religion were ok around here? Have you called out geeks for the numerous anti-Christian statements? If you have, good for you. If you haven't, shut your cuck mouth. 

Bigotry is defined as intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. It's not necessarily a religious thing. That said, if someone that isn't a past or present Christian were to say Christians are a net negative to our country, I'd disagree with them and consider it to be an intolerant and bigoted statement.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,631]

1 hour ago, cbfalcon said:

Bigotry is defined as intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. It's not necessarily a religious thing. That said, if someone that isn't a past or present Christian were to say Christians are a net negative to our country, I'd disagree with them and consider it to be an intolerant and bigoted statement.

And inaccurate. And I was talking about Muslims, who are called that because they are adhereants to the Islamic faith. Which is a religion. And my specific criticism is about what  they do (or don't do) . I never mentioned their opinions. 

[cbfalcon 824]

2 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

And inaccurate. And I was talking about Muslims, who are called that because they are adhereants to the Islamic faith. Which is a religion. And my specific criticism is about what  they do (or don't do) . I never mentioned their opinions. 

And I never called you a bigot. I only said they are a net negative for the country. That said, I can see how it appears I was implying you are a bigot, and I’ll apologize for that.

While I know the general energy of your posts, i don’t follow who says what closely enough to make such a statement about you. 

[wiffleball 4,639]

4 minutes ago, cbfalcon said:

And I never called you a bigot. I only said they are a net negative for the country. That said, I can see how it appears I was implying you are a bigot, and I’ll apologize for that.

While I know the general energy of your posts, i don’t follow who says what closely enough to make such a statement about you. 

It's a toss-up between him and magnificent bastard.

[Gepetto 985]

1 hour ago, cbfalcon said:

And I never called you a bigot. I only said they are a net negative for the country. That said, I can see how it appears I was implying you are a bigot, and I’ll apologize for that.

While I know the general energy of your posts, i don’t follow who says what closely enough to make such a statement about you. 

Do you know Muslims think and believe they are better than you?  They do.  They think that way about all non-muslims.

[cbfalcon 824]

6 minutes ago, Gepetto said:

Do you know Muslims think and believe they are better than you?  They do.  They think that way about all non-muslims.

I’m not on a message board full of Muslims acting like bigots. If I was, I’d be critical of them. 

People love to be critical of their neighbors, yet they ignore the issues going on in their own house. It it were closer to the other way around, the world would be a much better place. 

[naomi 343]

54 minutes ago, cbfalcon said:

I’m not on a message board full of Muslims acting like bigots. If I was, I’d be critical of them. 

People love to be critical of their neighbors, yet they ignore the issues going on in their own house. It it were closer to the other way around, the world would be a much better place. 

That reminds me of this passage...I have no idea if it's common knowledge or not:

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Matthew 7:3-5

Cb, I'm glad you post here, for the record, or else I'd have to question my sanity for checking in here, that much more.

[wiffleball 4,639]

For one thing, dumbass Matthew doesn't know how to spell "moat."

 

What a muke.

 

[JustinCharge 2,397]

17 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

There's nothing wrong with constitutional amendments that are logical.  The only problems are the ones where emotion is controlling legislation.  When the Supreme Court was created and the lifetime appointment was given in the late 1700's, the average lifespan was only around 40 years old.  Sure, the "rich" and more educated probably lived into their 50's (on average), but no one really expected these judges to hold their positions for more than 10 to 15 years.

Lifespans were shorter only due to the very high infant mortality rate.  If you reached adulthood, your life expectancy was much higher than 40.

[TBayXXXVII 2,116]

5 hours ago, riversco said:

Lifespans were shorter only due to the very high infant mortality rate.  If you reached adulthood, your life expectancy was much higher than 40.

Ok, 55 was the average lifespan of an adult.  Still, what's the average age of SC's right now?  It's about 67 years old.  Right now, only 2 of the 9 are under 55.  Of the 9, 3 have served for over 20 years and barring any surprises, the two appointed by G-dub and Obama should all live long enough to be over 20 years as well.  There's no need to be on that long with the only intent being to keep your ideology in place.

[jerryskids 5,198]

Maybe after a certain period time we "renew" them Logan's Run style. 

 

 

[bostonlager 2,463]

Go on home to your jooo jesus, old biitch. 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/13/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-illness-supreme-court/index.html

 

[porkbutt 861]

whoa i just posted about her in trump thread. she's done. i believe this is the biggest fear of dems.

[5-Points 2,727]

December 13, 2019

[Hardcore troubadour 12,631]

And they ram another one right down their throats. Democrats in the house want to play beciase they have the majority? Ha! Wait till you see what real power looks like in the senate. 

[lickin_starfish 1,480]

Ruth will die in 2032, after Ivanka's second term.

[Mr. Hand 482]

1 hour ago, porkbutt said:

whoa i just posted about her in trump thread. she's done. i believe this is the biggest fear of dems.

Their heads will explode if Trump gets to appoint another nominee to the SC.