Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Cancels Public Appearance in Los Angeles Set for January 29

Gateway Pundit ^ | January 15 , 2019 | Kristinn Taylor

[huckfillary]

Like John McLame, she’ll die when she’s told to.

[pabianice]

In “Search the Sky,” Poul imagined a planet of the greybeards. The oldest man automatically won any election and so there were a multitude of centennarians ruling from their motor-stetchers with cattle prods to zap anyone who challenged them.

[Trump_the_Evil_Left]

What nonsense. The Libtard Deep State would prefer she lived forever, or at least a few more years. She is dying because her body and organs are close to giving out, not because she is “told to”.... similarly they would have loved to have John McVain around a few more years, at least.

All this silliness about McVain or Ginsburg being put to death is so stupid.

[libstripper]

Now, notice that Pelosi and Schumer do not want Trump to make a public State of the Union speech! Is that not also an indication Ginsberg is not physically able to attend?

Now that you, a PE, have given a not medically approved opinion on this matter, I, a similarly medically unqualified JD, will chime in. Looks like you've hit the nail on the head. I suspect Pelosi's uprecedented action is specifically to cover for RBG being terminal or near terminal.

[bert]

She had a bumper sticker on her wheel chair

[Trump_the_Evil_Left]

Sorry guys, that speculation won’t fly. Ginsburg skipped SOTU last year, flying instead to Rhode Island to give a talk. Obviously she was physically able to attend then but preferred to do her own little boycott of President Trump.

No reason Pelosi would cancel this year’s SOTU to cover for Ginsburg when Ginsburg’s plan was to be in Los Angeles for a different event (which Ginsburg has now cancelled, as is public knowledge, so cancelling the SOTU in no way covers for anything about Ginsburg).

[rdl6989]

There is another thread, now in Breaking, saying she will miss an event in New York on Feb. 6.

[Tenacious 1]

First order of business should be to do away with Life Terms for Supreme Court Justices.

I'd have to give some consideration to support or be against that. There are some arguments against term limits for SCJ.

The system is supposed to create an atmosphere where there is no opportunistic reason for a judge to have a political bias. SC Justice is supposed to be one's "last job". They should not owe political favors or seek favor from any future potential employer or politician, should they retire from the SCOTUS for other employment. In that, I see the point. Look at all the former politicians that are enriched in lobbying positions following their political tenure. There is also the idea posed that term limits might affect the interactions and reactions between the justices. The idea that these folks have to work with each other for 10, 15, 20 years may very well steer "how" they work with each other. I don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing, honestly.

For the sake of good rulings, on its face, I have to agree. Crazy or otherwise incapacitated individuals should not be qualified to rule on cases at the SC level or any other level. Intellectual honesty and some introspective admission forces me to recognize my bias as well. I would rather have an empty seat in in the SCOTUS than have a Constitutional Conservative replaced by an activist liberal hack.

Remember, there is no Constitutional requirement for a specific number of judges.

[Rebelbase]

“We can make her better, stronger, faster”.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

First order of business should be to do away with Life Terms for Supreme Court Justices. Some continue being cognizant well into old age, but some do not. Give younger people the opportunity to be on the Supreme Court with more modern ideas. Everyone should forego politics once they reach a designated age, or show signs of poor judgment.

IMHO the proper approach would be to, by constitutional amendment, set the maximum number of SCOTUS justices at 11, and specify that POTUS gets to name two SCOTUS justices when elected - to be either confirmed by the Senate or, if the president-elect has publicly and officially named two (or more) prospective justices at least 2 months prior to the election, to be considered to have been confirmed by the presidential vote.

. . . and of course the longest-serving justices would retire as necessary to keep the number of justices below 12.

I suggest an eleven-justice bench because that way a two-term POTUS would name only 4/11 of the Court, not 4/9 if the bench remained at 9. But whatever, the number of justices should be stipulated in the Constitution so that “court packing” would be permanently off the table.

I put it to you that there should be a minimum age of 35 for all elected officials - as well as term limits and the abolition of pensions for elected office. IOW, politics as a lifetime profession should be off the table, too. I would balance that by raising Congressional salaries so that successful professional people could serve without financial hardship.

At this stage I think we know that the country can do without presidential candidates who are less than forty - even forty five - years old.

[LS]

Hey, this is interesting: tie your comment about Buzzi’s health (or lack thereof) to Botoxic pulling the plug on the SOTU-—might it be because Buzzi can’t appear, and it would look, re, fishy?

[DIRTYSECRET]

Everyone knows she should have quit under Obama. That’s the problem with the left and government. They’d rather do this than ph—k. Look at all the old 2020 candidates not willing to step aside.