Politics Ginsburg undergoes procedure to remove cancerous growths in lung

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
She will be fine. I wish her a speedy recovery
 
She survived lung cancer. She survived pancreatic cancer. She survived colorectal cancer. She will survive Trump cancer. Wait, Trump cancer and colorectal cancer are one in same so she will survive it twice.
 
Every major surgical operation of an elderly person measurably diminishes their mental capacity.

Anyone who has witnessed relatives going through this process knows it's irreversible.

There is no way this woman should have any power or sway over the lives of 300 million citizens, nearly all of whom have healthier minds and a much firmer grasp on reality.
 
MARIS61 said:
Every major surgical operation of an elderly person measurably diminishes their mental capacity.

Anyone who has witnessed relatives going through this process knows it's irreversible.

There is no way this woman should have any power or sway over the lives of 300 million citizens, nearly all of whom have healthier minds and a much firmer grasp on reality.
Click to expand...

Take it up with the Founders, who thought lifetime appointments were a good thing. You aren't doubting the wisdom of the Founders, are you?

barfo
 
barfo said:
Take it up with the Founders, who thought lifetime appointments were a good thing. You aren't doubting the wisdom of the Founders, are you?

barfo
Click to expand...
life spans were much shorter back then.
I think life time appointments ridiculous.
 
Hoopguru said:
life spans were much shorter back then.
I think life time appointments ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Same here, but if we start doubting the wisdom of the founders on this, we might have to wonder if they also failed to foresee other things.

barfo
 
MARIS61 said:
Every major surgical operation of an elderly person measurably diminishes their mental capacity.

Anyone who has witnessed relatives going through this process knows it's irreversible.

There is no way this woman should have any power or sway over the lives of 300 million citizens, nearly all of whom have healthier minds and a much firmer grasp on reality.
Click to expand...
I'm elderly and I've had over two dozen surgeries. What are you covfefe-ing? My brain is smocking.
 
MARIS61 said:
Every major surgical operation of an elderly person measurably diminishes their mental capacity.

Anyone who has witnessed relatives going through this process knows it's irreversible.

There is no way this woman should have any power or sway over the lives of 300 million citizens, nearly all of whom have healthier minds and a much firmer grasp on reality.
Click to expand...

So you must have had LOTS of procedures!
 
dviss1 said:
So feel free to cut that drunk rapist Kavanaugh's term...
Click to expand...
The average life expectancy back in that period was 35 years old.

12 year terms would make a lot of since, now.
 
MARIS61 said:
Every major surgical operation of an elderly person measurably diminishes their mental capacity.

Anyone who has witnessed relatives going through this process knows it's irreversible.

There is no way this woman should have any power or sway over the lives of 300 million citizens, nearly all of whom have healthier minds and a much firmer grasp on reality.
Click to expand...

Ginsburg is head and shoulders above where trump is at mentally so we have that going for her, but then again, trump knows more about surgeries than the best doctors in the world.
 
Hoopguru said:
The average life expectancy back in that period was 35 years old.

12 year terms would make a lot of since, now.
Click to expand...
That figure was the result of a lot of children who either died of disease while young or died during child birth. People who survived childhood usually lived a lot longer than 35.

I'm satisfied with a lifetime appointment for federal judges and no term limit for Presidents.

Limiting the President to two terms means us voters do not have the right to select whomever we want to be President unless it's going to be his/her first or second term. If people, egads, want Trump to be President indefinitely, they should have the right to vote for whomever they want including, egads, Trump. Now, excuse me, I feel the need to puke.
 
BrianFromWA said:
I feel like reaching the point where someone's medical condition is a political tool is a pretty poor place to be.
Click to expand...
Yeah I only said previously that she should have retired a few years ago.

My 90 year old grandma still mows her 2 acres and nobody can stop her so I get the stubbornness.
 
bodyman5000 and 1 said:
Yeah I only said previously that she should have retired a few years ago.
My 90 year old grandma still mows her 2 acres and nobody can stop her so I get the stubbornness.
Click to expand...

Don't misunderstand me, I wasn't calling anyone out...but in the last decade or so we've seen Ted Kennedy, McCain, Giffords, etc. brought in to vote when they either should still be recovering or on their deathbeds. If they've been voted on I get it, but it just seems poor form to me.
 
barfo said:
Take it up with the Founders, who thought lifetime appointments were a good thing. You aren't doubting the wisdom of the Founders, are you?

barfo
Click to expand...

Certainly not.

Provisions were wisely made for impeachment of Justices if unable to carry out the duties of the office.
 
BrianFromWA said:
Don't misunderstand me, I wasn't calling anyone out...but in the last decade or so we've seen Ted Kennedy, McCain, Giffords, etc. brought in to vote when they either should still be recovering or on their deathbeds. If they've been voted on I get it, but it just seems poor form to me.
Click to expand...

It seems to me they shouldn't be allowed to vote until/and if they are fully recovered.
 
MARIS61 said:
It seems to me they shouldn't be allowed to vote until/and if they are fully recovered.
Click to expand...
Who's to say when that is? Perhaps a hand picked doctor.
And what about cases where that vote is critical in determining the outcome?
 
Big questions about life and viability face the Supreme Court over ailing Bader Ginsburg

By Laura Ingraham | Fox News

In 1973, the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade struck down state laws banning abortions. And liberals then, I think, thought that would settle the issue.

But 46 years later, the country is still torn apart about abortion. On Friday, hundreds of thousands of mostly young people will converge on Washington for the March for Life. They brave the snow and usually frigid temperatures, year after year after year, to speak for those who have no voice -- the unborn. According to a new Marist poll, 75 percent of Americans say they would limit abortion to, at most, the first three months of pregnancy, that include 6 and 10 of those who self-identify as pro-choice as well 6 and 10 Democrats.

Well, that means the Supreme Court is actually out of sync with most Americans on that issue. Not that any of that matters. Because we've given so much power to the Supreme Court to run roughshod over the will of the people in the states, that's it become a super governmental force.

Our framers never intended that unelected judges would have power over politics and our culture like this. Because it's a question, addressed time and again, by really smart minds, like the late great Justice Antonin Scalia.

"Regardless of whether you think prohibiting abortion is good or whether you think prohibiting portion is bad, regardless of how you come out on that, my only point is the constitution does not say anything about it, it leaves it up to democratic choice," he once said on the issue.

But the decisions have not been left up to the people. In fact, the left has long relied on courts to advance a radical transformation of American society on issues like marriage and public justice, and criminal justice reform. And now that the balance of the high court is shifting, or could be shifting, the stakes could not be higher. This is part of the reason Supreme Court battles have gotten so ugly and contentious in recent years.

Compared to the chaos and ugliness of Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing, the hearing room during Scalia's confirmation had several empty seats behind him, even after a few hours in. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg admitted that judicial confirmations were never this ugly during her process, saying a few months ago, "The way it was, [it] was right. The way it is [now], is wrong."

Well, Bader Ginsburg was confirmed overwhelmingly in 1993 by a vote of 93 to 6. Scalia was confirmed by a vote of 98 to 0. By the way, the two had completely different, in most issues, judicial philosophies. But they were really close, really good friends. And as a family friend of the Scalias, I even actually spent a New Year's eve with them, back in 1986 if you can believe it. It was nice to see those friendships.

All these years later, the court is still a pretty collegial place. The justices get along, they're actually friends; they like each other. But because so many on the outside have become so reliant on the court instead of Congress to advance mostly liberal causes, another potential vacancy comes up, and it has all the activists on edge.

Politico just published a piece titled, "What happens if Ruth better Ginsburg remains too sick to work?" In just the past two months, Politico reports, the justice, 85, has suffered three fractured ribs and had a pair of cancerous nodules removed from her lung. And this was, as we all know, not Bader Ginsburg's first bout of cancer. She's been there before and her doctors say that they expect her to return to the bench next month.

Well, the justice has been buoyed by America's prayers and well-wishes, and she seems to actually have enjoyed the near-mythic status bestowed on her by the left. You've got movies, documentaries, books, children's books about her. Let's face it, cynics say that this was smartly-designed to set the cultural narrative early, and should the time come, make it more difficult perhaps, for President Trump to appoint someone to replace her with a judicial conservative - someone with temperament that is obviously judicially conservative -- even if that pick is another woman.

Look, anytime a sitting Supreme Court justice, especially at an advanced age, is in declining health, it does raise serious questions. That's why people are writing articles like Politico's. Remember how Democrats made a big deal about President Trump's health leading up to his first physical as commander-in-chief? They endlessly questioned his stamina and mental acuity. A White House physician, Ronny Jackson, reported that the president was in excellent health last January. People still didn't believe it.

Well, now there are some asking that, if it was appropriate to ask questions about the physical condition of the president and his fitness for office, is it also appropriate to ask similar questions about Supreme Court justices, beyond Ginsburg -- all of them. With all the weighty issues facing the High Court, everything from immigration to ObamaCare's contraceptive rules, the stakes are really high now.

And as we all wish the justices long and happy lives, do Americans have the right to be reassured that 28-year old law clerks aren't exercising undue influence, especially when the court has outsized powers over matters of life and death. These are big questions we all face.

Adapted from Laura Ingraham's monologue from "The Ingraham Angle" on January 17, 2019.
 
MARIS61 said:
Big questions about life and viability face the Supreme Court over ailing Bader Ginsburg

By Laura Ingraham | Fox News

In 1973, the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade struck down state laws banning abortions. And liberals then, I think, thought that would settle the issue.

But 46 years later, the country is still torn apart about abortion. On Friday, hundreds of thousands of mostly young people will converge on Washington for the March for Life. They brave the snow and usually frigid temperatures, year after year after year, to speak for those who have no voice -- the unborn. According to a new Marist poll, 75 percent of Americans say they would limit abortion to, at most, the first three months of pregnancy, that include 6 and 10 of those who self-identify as pro-choice as well 6 and 10 Democrats.

Well, that means the Supreme Court is actually out of sync with most Americans on that issue. Not that any of that matters. Because we've given so much power to the Supreme Court to run roughshod over the will of the people in the states, that's it become a super governmental force.

Our framers never intended that unelected judges would have power over politics and our culture like this. Because it's a question, addressed time and again, by really smart minds, like the late great Justice Antonin Scalia.

"Regardless of whether you think prohibiting abortion is good or whether you think prohibiting portion is bad, regardless of how you come out on that, my only point is the constitution does not say anything about it, it leaves it up to democratic choice," he once said on the issue.

But the decisions have not been left up to the people. In fact, the left has long relied on courts to advance a radical transformation of American society on issues like marriage and public justice, and criminal justice reform. And now that the balance of the high court is shifting, or could be shifting, the stakes could not be higher. This is part of the reason Supreme Court battles have gotten so ugly and contentious in recent years.

Compared to the chaos and ugliness of Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing, the hearing room during Scalia's confirmation had several empty seats behind him, even after a few hours in. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg admitted that judicial confirmations were never this ugly during her process, saying a few months ago, "The way it was, [it] was right. The way it is [now], is wrong."

Well, Bader Ginsburg was confirmed overwhelmingly in 1993 by a vote of 93 to 6. Scalia was confirmed by a vote of 98 to 0. By the way, the two had completely different, in most issues, judicial philosophies. But they were really close, really good friends. And as a family friend of the Scalias, I even actually spent a New Year's eve with them, back in 1986 if you can believe it. It was nice to see those friendships.

All these years later, the court is still a pretty collegial place. The justices get along, they're actually friends; they like each other. But because so many on the outside have become so reliant on the court instead of Congress to advance mostly liberal causes, another potential vacancy comes up, and it has all the activists on edge.

Politico just published a piece titled, "What happens if Ruth better Ginsburg remains too sick to work?" In just the past two months, Politico reports, the justice, 85, has suffered three fractured ribs and had a pair of cancerous nodules removed from her lung. And this was, as we all know, not Bader Ginsburg's first bout of cancer. She's been there before and her doctors say that they expect her to return to the bench next month.

Well, the justice has been buoyed by America's prayers and well-wishes, and she seems to actually have enjoyed the near-mythic status bestowed on her by the left. You've got movies, documentaries, books, children's books about her. Let's face it, cynics say that this was smartly-designed to set the cultural narrative early, and should the time come, make it more difficult perhaps, for President Trump to appoint someone to replace her with a judicial conservative - someone with temperament that is obviously judicially conservative -- even if that pick is another woman.

Look, anytime a sitting Supreme Court justice, especially at an advanced age, is in declining health, it does raise serious questions. That's why people are writing articles like Politico's. Remember how Democrats made a big deal about President Trump's health leading up to his first physical as commander-in-chief? They endlessly questioned his stamina and mental acuity. A White House physician, Ronny Jackson, reported that the president was in excellent health last January. People still didn't believe it.

Well, now there are some asking that, if it was appropriate to ask questions about the physical condition of the president and his fitness for office, is it also appropriate to ask similar questions about Supreme Court justices, beyond Ginsburg -- all of them. With all the weighty issues facing the High Court, everything from immigration to ObamaCare's contraceptive rules, the stakes are really high now.

And as we all wish the justices long and happy lives, do Americans have the right to be reassured that 28-year old law clerks aren't exercising undue influence, especially when the court has outsized powers over matters of life and death. These are big questions we all face.

Adapted from Laura Ingraham's monologue from "The Ingraham Angle" on January 17, 2019.
Click to expand...

"...the constitution does not say anything about it, it leaves it up to democratic choice,"

Then why are republicans trying to make it illegal
 
Wonder if she will show up at the State of the Union.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top