US Supreme Court judge fractures three ribs in a fall

[gazza619]

US Supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg has fractured three ribs in a fall on Wednesday, the court says.
The fall happened in her office at the Supreme Court in Washington.
Ms Ginsburg, 85, went home but was in discomfort and went to George Washington University hospital on Thursday morning, a statement said.
Tests showed that she had fractured three ribs on her left side and she has been admitted for observation and treatment.
It meant that Ms Ginsburg - the most senior justice on the court's liberal wing - was not present for Thursday's investiture of Brett Kavanaugh, whose appointment led to protests following allegations of sexual misconduct.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46142226

 

[Sachin136]

At this age it can result in serious complications like pneumonia. Regardless of political differences, hope she recovers soon. But it is time for her to retire.

 

[Napa]

At this age it can result in serious complications like pneumonia. Regardless of political differences, hope she recovers soon. But it is time for her to retire.

She is possibly the most anti-Trump Supreme Court Associate Justice, so she is going to hang in there as long as possible.

 

[Gilly]

Well its obvious that Trump plant Kavanaugh pushed her.

 

[slipcatch]

Well its obvious that Trump plant Kavanaugh pushed her.

Imagine if she was younger and Kavanaugh had couple of drinks in him.

I’m sure you would have found an excuse to support him because he is conservative and he will make everything great again.

 

[Gilly]

Imagine if she was younger and Kavanaugh had couple of drinks in him.

I’m sure you would have found an excuse to support him because he is conservative and he will make everything great again.

I know when someone is desperate, they attack the poster because they have nothing else.

 

[mmkextreme_1]

Well, that's gonna suck, if she decides to leave the SC then that will give Trump another pick. Not many Presidents have appointed 3 SC judges.

Sure the Democrats will want her to pull through at least 2020.

 

[slipcatch]

I know when someone is desperate, they attack the poster because they have nothing else.

I’m attacking trump supporter who make no sense in defending him.

 

[Gilly]

I’m attacking trump supporter who make no sense in defending him.

I know, you have nothing so you attack the poster, you cant make a logical argument so you resort to personal attacks. This is pretty much the straight from the democrats playbook.

 

[slipcatch]

I know, you have nothing so you attack the poster, you cant make a logical argument so you resort to personal attacks. This is pretty much the straight from the democrats playbook.

Logic? How can you have reasonable debate with Trump supporters who make up false facts and any of his racist supporters ?

So back to my original comment, Trump supporters would find any excuse to support his stupidity, racism, bigotry, and racism.

 

[Gilly]

Logic? How can you have reasonable debate with Trump supporters who make up false facts and any of his racist supporters ?

So back to my original comment, Trump supporters would find any excuse to support his stupidity, racism, bigotry, and racism.

Thats a reflection on you and nothing to do with Trump or his supporters, you are incapable of intellectual conversation.

 

[slipcatch]

Thats a reflection on you and nothing to do with Trump or his supporters, you are incapable of intellectual conversation.

Intellectual? Lol

Have you ever heard Trump speak?

Like I’ve said, how can someone have intellectual conversation who support bigotry, xenophobia, racism, ignorance and openly support white nationalism.

Ignorance, bigotry, racism, xenophobia has everything to do with Trump supporters, maybe not all of them.

Like I’ve quoted you in other threads. Trump may not be racist but every racist white nationalist believe he is.

Which category do you fall into ?

 

[USofA]

She is way up there in age, 85-86. Not a good for anything to happen at that age. Especially breaking ribs. Thing don't heal well. Good luck to her, hope she recovers well.

 

[Markhor]

I know, you have nothing so you attack the poster, you cant make a logical argument so you resort to personal attacks. This is pretty much the straight from the democrats playbook.

Dude, have you never seen your dear leader's Twitter page ? It's a smorgasboard of schoolyard insults, lies, smears and personal attacks against his opponents every single day.

Trump supporters lecturing others on the need for civility in politics is like Kim Jong Un lecturing others about human rights.

 

[Napa]

Well, that's gonna suck, if she decides to leave the SC then that will give Trump another pick. Not many Presidents have appointed 3 SC judges.

Sure the Democrats will want her to pull through at least 2020.

The liberal justices should have resigned when Obama was re-elected in 2012 to enable replacements 30 years younger. They didn't so now there is going to be a conservative court majority for the next 30 years.

 

[Slog]

The liberal justices should have resigned when Obama was re-elected in 2012 to enable replacements 30 years younger. They didn't so now there is going to be a conservative court majority for the next 30 years.

That would be just a mockery of the system. Only problem is that a Supreme Court pick was stolen off Obama

 

[mmkextreme_1]

The liberal justices should have resigned when Obama was re-elected in 2012 to enable replacements 30 years younger. They didn't so now there is going to be a conservative court majority for the next 30 years.

Yeah Ginsberg should have retired in the Obama era, now hopefully she can hang on until 2020, and hope that Trump loses the election.

 

[Napa]

That would be just a mockery of the system. Only problem is that a Supreme Court pick was stolen off Obama

37 year old allegations at a convenient time by a woman who took a million dollars from her Go Fund Me account and ran is the real mockery of the system, not following the rules by which Associate Justices are appointed to the SCOTUS.

The "stolen" allegation is hyperbole, you have been reading too much Daily Beast or Huffington Post. The Judiciary Committee Chairman and Senate Majority Leader both have the right to refuse to bring to vote a Supreme Court nominee. If the Dems wanted Merrick Garland on the SCOTUS they should have won the elections to the Senate seats so that they could have Senate majority. The Republicans were kind enough to vote to confirm rabid partisans like Kagan and Sotomayor.

 

[pakistanigoneaussie]

37-year-old allegations at a convenient time by a woman who took a million dollars from her Go Fund Me account and ran is the real mockery of the system, not following the rules by which Associate Justices are appointed to the SCOTUS.

The "stolen" allegation is hyperbole, you have been reading too much Daily Beast or Huffington Post. The Judiciary Committee Chairman and Senate Majority Leader both have the right to refuse to bring to vote a Supreme Court nominee. If the Dems wanted Merrick Garland on the SCOTUS they should have won the elections to the Senate seats so that they could have Senate majority. The Republicans were kind enough to vote to confirm rabid partisans like Kagan and Sotomayor.

what decisions of Kagan and Sotomayor do you cite which shows them to be "rabid partisans." There is no doubt they are more judicial activists but that can be attributed to the entire court given how infected with politics it is.

Don't act as if the Republicans are any different. I give you three examples

1. David Souter was nominated by Bush senior. He was a registered Republican, top-notch qualifications from Harvard and Oxford. However, he ended up on the more liberal side of the court, and this enraged conservatives.

2. Recently Gorusch sided with the liberal branch on the Court in an Immigration case regarding deportations ( Sessions v. Dimaya). His reason stemming from principled views as to the power of the government. This is a guy who is extremely conservative, but again people were furious that he didn't vote down partisan lines.


3. The gay baker case and the Muslim ban. These two cases show how political the court is. I'm not here to make a judgement on the rulings just on the hypocrisy and willful ignorance of precedence. Personally speaking, I am actually for the baker, and in regards to the Muslim ban, if we are following a black letter law method, then the Muslim ban 2.0 is legal because it removed an exemption for Christians.

However here is the hypocrisy. In the gay baker case, the conservative wing of the Court examined the views of the organisation which was representing the gay couple ( don't remember the exact name, but something like Colorado human rights association). Here the majority stated that they had a "hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs" of the baker. This was not part of the case itself. They took the external views of the commision and brought them into the case.

Then comes the Muslim ban. That same conservative majority rules that its legal. However, they refused to acknowledge Trump's public comments regarding Muslims both before and after the election, or that of his officials either. They stated it was not relevant.

That's a clear double standard that reflects political bias. It's not one party that the issue. The entire American justice system is crook due to how partisan it is


As for Kavanaugh, there is only one reason he is there and thats because he is 100% a political operative. Far worse than anyone there, he has no judicial philosophy. When Clinton was president he must be indicted, when Bush was president he writes a president should never be indited. He is there to protect trump .. Otherwise, there were plenty of Gorsuch' and Scalia's' out there, that the Democrats would have let pass well.

 

[Napa]

what decisions of Kagan and Sotomayor do you cite which shows them to be "rabid partisans." There is no doubt they are more judicial activists but that can be attributed to the entire court given how infected with politics it is.

Thanks for a well argued post.

We are saying the same thing, the whole court is now political. You can mostly predict who will vote which way in contentious cases. That is not how a court should work. It should work based on the merits of a case, not on the existing political leanings of the judges.

That is the real mockery of the judicial system.

Don't act as if the Republicans are any different. I give you three examples

1. David Souter was nominated by Bush senior. He was a registered Republican, top-notch qualifications from Harvard and Oxford. However, he ended up on the more liberal side of the court, and this enraged conservatives.

2. Recently Gorusch sided with the liberal branch on the Court in an Immigration case regarding deportations ( Sessions v. Dimaya). His reason stemming from principled views as to the power of the government. This is a guy who is extremely conservative, but again people were furious that he didn't vote down partisan lines.


3. The gay baker case and the Muslim ban. These two cases show how political the court is. I'm not here to make a judgement on the rulings just on the hypocrisy and willful ignorance of precedence. Personally speaking, I am actually for the baker, and in regards to the Muslim ban, if we are following a black letter law method, then the Muslim ban 2.0 is legal because it removed an exemption for Christians.

However here is the hypocrisy. In the gay baker case, the conservative wing of the Court examined the views of the organisation which was representing the gay couple ( don't remember the exact name, but something like Colorado human rights association). Here the majority stated that they had a "hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs" of the baker. This was not part of the case itself. They took the external views of the commision and brought them into the case.

Then comes the Muslim ban. That same conservative majority rules that its legal. However, they refused to acknowledge Trump's public comments regarding Muslims both before and after the election, or that of his officials either. They stated it was not relevant.

That's a clear double standard that reflects political bias. It's not one party that the issue. The entire American justice system is crook due to how partisan it is

I have no problem accepting facts, I do not want to be delusional. The fact is that the conservative judges like the liberal judges vote according to their prior political beliefs.

As for Kavanaugh, <b>there is only one reason he is there and thats because he is 100% a political operative.</b> Far worse than anyone there, he has no judicial philosophy. When Clinton was president he must be indicted, when Bush was president he writes a president should never be indited. He is there to protect trump .. Otherwise, there were plenty of Gorsuch' and Scalia's' out there, that the Democrats would have let pass well.

There is more to Kavanaugh's selection.

Kavanaugh was on the Federalist Society's shortlist. The Federalist Society does have a particular philosophy, though we may disagree with it.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/28/6244...ty-and-how-does-it-affect-supreme-court-picks

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-kavanaugh-got-on-trumps-supreme-court-list/?

Given that Trump in the past held many liberal positions, and had supported Democratic donors, there was reason for conservatives to fear that he was their worst nightmare, a "New York liberal".

One of the things Trump did to defuse conservative anxiety by committing himself to the Federalist Society's shortlist of judges. He has followed through on the commitment which were made before the elections.

Kavanaugh at least served as a federal judge, so there many of his opinions to judge his political philosophy by. Kagan on the other hand never served as a judge.

Democrats are at least partly responsible for the current partisanship. Harry Reid changed Senate rules when he was Majority Leader to make confirmation of federal judges possible with 51 votes instead of 60 votes. Republicans extended this to the SCOTUS.

Sure, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are political, but no more than Kagan and Sotomayor. However:

Number of Democrats voting for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh: 3 and 1.

Number of Republicans voting for Kagan and Sotomayor: 5 and 9.

 

[pakistanigoneaussie]

Thanks for a well-argued post.

We are saying the same thing, the whole court is now political. You can almost predict who will vote which way in contentious cases. That is not how a court should work. It should work based on the merits of a case, not on the existing political leanings of the judges.

That is the real mockery of the judicial system.



I have no problem accepting facts, I do not want to be delusional. The fact is that the conservative judges like the liberal judges vote according to their prior political beliefs.



There is more to Kavanaugh's selection.

Kavanaugh was on the Federalist Society's shortlist. The Federalist Society does have a particular philosophy, though we may disagree with it.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/28/6244...ty-and-how-does-it-affect-supreme-court-picks

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-kavanaugh-got-on-trumps-supreme-court-list/?

Given that Trump in the past held many liberal positions, and had supported Democratic donors, there was reason for conservatives to fear that he was their worst nightmare, a "New York liberal".

One of the things Trump did to defuse conservative anxiety by committing himself to the Federalist Society's shortlist of judges. He has followed through on the commitment which were made before the elections.

Kavanaugh at least served as a federal judge, so there many of his opinions to judge his political philosophy by. Kagan on the other hand never served as a judge.

Democrats are at least partly responsible for the current partisanship. Harry Reid changed Senate rules when he was Majority Leader to make confirmation of federal judges possible with 51 votes instead of 60 votes. Republicans extended this to the SCOTUS.

Sure, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are political, but no more than Kagan and Sotomayor. However:

Number of Democrats voting for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh: 3 and 1.

Number of Republicans voting for Kagan and Sotomayor: 5 and 9.

I think its hard to equate the number of Dems voting for Gorusch and Kavanaugh due to the unique circumstances of theiri nominations.

As for Kavanaugh ill still disagree. The head of the fedralist society did any interview with MSNBC where he said you could through a dart at the list of names they provided to the White House, and all would be reliable conservative justices ( who would be inclined to overturn Rowe v Wade).

The thing that sets Kavanaugh apart is that for much his career he has been a Republican operative. You cant square his inconsistencies, he wanted Clinton indited for an immoral but consensual affair, but while Bush was in charge his academic writings were that a President should never be indited due to the effect that would have ont he country. Thats what sets him apart. Otherwise he was always going to be a difficult candiate to get across and his floundering during the hearings attests to that.

on a side note, yes it is nice to have such a disucssion here, been a while since I have posted in time pass.

 

[Napa]

I think its hard to equate the number of Dems voting for Gorusch and Kavanaugh due to the unique circumstances of theiri nominations.

As for Kavanaugh ill still disagree. The head of the fedralist society did any interview with MSNBC where he said you could through a dart at the list of names they provided to the White House, and all would be reliable conservative justices ( who would be inclined to overturn Rowe v Wade).

The thing that sets Kavanaugh apart is that for much his career he has been a Republican operative. You cant square his inconsistencies, he wanted Clinton indited for an immoral but consensual affair, but while Bush was in charge his academic writings were that a President should never be indited due to the effect that would have ont he country. Thats what sets him apart. Otherwise he was always going to be a difficult candiate to get across and his floundering during the hearings attests to that.

on a side note, yes it is nice to have such a disucssion here, been a while since I have posted in time pass.

I think one constraint on Trump is the old Republican establishment. Kavanaugh has deep ties with Bush having served in his administration. While Trump often attacks Bush, he is pretty savvy about the alliances he needs to build. Nobody succeeds in business without understanding the real world and the alliances necessary for success.

Bush campaigned for Kavanaugh behind the scenes, and his nomination finally prevailed by a tiny margin, with just one vote to spare. It is not clear that Senators like Sasse, Flake and Collins would have voted for him without Bush's support, nor may Senator Graham campaigned so vigorously for him.

The failure of Kavanaugh's nomination would have been a significant political defeat for Trump. The point I am trying to make is that Trump may seem like an iconoclast, but he realizes that it is good for him to have the older Repub establishment on his side. That is also the reason why figures like Bolton have now entered his administration. Not that everybody will, he won't let Romney in as there is a personal dislike.

I agree that Kavanaugh's behavior during the Clinton impeachment is contradictory and an indictment of him. His past work for the Bush Admin did work in his favor for the political alliances he brought to the table. These are just my opinions, and I could be wrong. Thanks again for your replies.