Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, four-time cancer survivor, is back in the hospital

[laylalex 7,300]

4 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

How do you know she lied? Do you have some inside scoop?

Yeah, I didn't think she was lying. And if I recall correctly, quite a number of people, including Republicans, found her highly credible at the time. There's never been any decision on whether or not she was lying. Having Kavanaugh confirmed didn't mean she was lying -- it just means that enough senators either believed him or didn't think it was important if he did do it or not.

[90DayFinancier 910]

Just now, laylalex said:

Yeah, I didn't think she was lying. And if I recall correctly, quite a number of people, including Republicans, found her highly credible at the time. There's never been any decision on whether or not she was lying. Having Kavanaugh confirmed didn't mean she was lying -- it just means that enough senators either believed him or didn't think it was important if he did do it or not.

To my memory, the president called her " extremely believable"

[TBoneTX 45,971]

3 hours ago, luckytxn said:

Amy Barrett

What will happen to her will make Kavanaugh's experience look like a perfunctory walk in the park.

[Dashinka 24,745]

6 hours ago, 90DayFinancier said:

How do you know she lied? Do you have some inside scoop?

How do you know that she wasn't lying?  Thirty years is a long time to remember and even her best friends could not substantiate her accusation.  It was just another Democrat hit job using her as sort of a whistleblower at the eleventh hour with an accusation that could never be verified, but was so troubling it must be believed.  Time to start calling out these partisan hacks for their tactics.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

How do you know that she wasn't lying?  Thirty years is a long time to remember and even her best friends could not substantiate her accusation.  It was just another Democrat hit job using her as sort of a whistleblower at the eleventh hour with an accusation that could never be verified, but was so troubling it must be believed.  Time to start calling out these partisan hacks for their tactics.

Her "testimony" was glaringly scripted, IMO. And not very well, at that.

[Dashinka 24,745]

6 hours ago, laylalex said:

Yeah, I didn't think she was lying. And if I recall correctly, quite a number of people, including Republicans, found her highly credible at the time. There's never been any decision on whether or not she was lying. Having Kavanaugh confirmed didn't mean she was lying -- it just means that enough senators either believed him or didn't think it was important if he did do it or not.

I think they found her highly credible based on her bonafides.  Her testimony and lack of any supporting witnesses seems to indicate she is either mistaken in her memory of the event or the folks there.  It seemed to be the latter as there was at least one individual that came forward and said it was him and not Kavanaugh.  Regardless, Kavanaugh was confirmed, but much like the 2016 election, the Left will not let it go.  I supposed it is time to impeach Kavanaugh as well.  Maybe a 2 for 1 in the Senate. 

[yuna628 9,700]

I found her credible for a variety of reasons, and for me, watching the testimony was painful. I don't expect anyone to understand why, nor do I expect anyone to feel the same way as I. Morally, I believe we do not belong nominating 'problematic' persons to positions of power. Whether he was guilty or not, the stain of the process and ultimately his behavior seemed to be in question to me in lacking character and good judgement. There have been many fine persons nominated to SCOTUS, and I feel there could have been a plethora of many better male and female prospects that would have been much better suited to the position. Sometimes I do not feel this WH vets persons appropriately, and there have been a stream of other judges nominated and pushed through that have SEVERELY lacked in qualifications (so much though that R's on panels often get very nervous and hostile about them.. but begrudgingly say 'ok' anyway.. because if they don't tow the line..).

[luckytxn 2,265]

5 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

What will happen to her will make Kavanaugh's experience look like a perfunctory walk in the park.

I know and I want what I know will happen to happen. The attack will show a lot to the public where the party stands and how they think and it will show how out of touch they are.

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

How do you know that she wasn't lying?  Thirty years is a long time to remember and even her best friends could not substantiate her accusation.  It was just another Democrat hit job using her as sort of a whistleblower at the eleventh hour with an accusation that could never be verified, but was so troubling it must be believed.  Time to start calling out these partisan hacks for their tactics.

I knew she was a lying sack of chit. They also had lined up other lying sack of chits and will use the same tactics in the future as people are gullible.

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I think they found her highly credible based on her bonafides.  Her testimony and lack of any supporting witnesses seems to indicate she is either mistaken in her memory of the event or the folks there.  It seemed to be the latter as there was at least one individual that came forward and said it was him and not Kavanaugh.  Regardless, Kavanaugh was confirmed, but much like the 2016 election, the Left will not let it go.  I supposed it is time to impeach Kavanaugh as well.  Maybe a 2 for 1 in the Senate. 

I dare them to try and impeach him. If they do SCOTUS will laugh at anything they try to get rulings on for generations.

29 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

I found her credible for a variety of reasons, and for me, watching the testimony was painful. I don't expect anyone to understand why, nor do I expect anyone to feel the same way as I. Morally, I believe we do not belong nominating 'problematic' persons to positions of power. Whether he was guilty or not, the stain of the process and ultimately his behavior seemed to be in question to me in lacking character and good judgement. There have been many fine persons nominated to SCOTUS, and I feel there could have been a plethora of many better male and female prospects that would have been much better suited to the position. Sometimes I do not feel this WH vets persons appropriately, and there have been a stream of other judges nominated and pushed through that have SEVERELY lacked in qualifications (so much though that R's on panels often get very nervous and hostile about them.. but begrudgingly say 'ok' anyway.. because if they don't tow the line..).

Because your judgement is colored by the lies that were spewed. You seem to also believe the media what they say as long as they say it. Don't like who the WH nominates then win the WH in the future. Too bad the horrible orange man won huh? smh

Edited November 25, 2019 by luckytxn

[yuna628 9,700]

4 minutes ago, luckytxn said:

I know and I want what I know will happen to happen. The attack will show a lot to the public where the party stands and how they think and it will show how out of touch they are.

I knew she was a lying sack of chit. They also had lined up other lying sack of chits and will use the same tactics in the future as people are gullible.

I dare them to try and impeach him. If they do SCOTUS will laugh at anything they try to get rulings on for generations.

Because your judgement is colored by the lies that were spewed. You seem to also believe the media what they say as long as they say it. Don't like who the WH nominates then win the WH in the future. Too bad the horrible orange man won huh? smh

My judgement in the matter has nothing to do with the media or anything else you assume. By 'me' winning the WH, once again you assume that my politics is somehow on the 'other side' you seemingly despise. Rest assured I neither belong to the D's or the R's. 

[Dashinka 24,745]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

I found her credible for a variety of reasons, and for me, watching the testimony was painful. I don't expect anyone to understand why, nor do I expect anyone to feel the same way as I. Morally, I believe we do not belong nominating 'problematic' persons to positions of power. Whether he was guilty or not, the stain of the process and ultimately his behavior seemed to be in question to me in lacking character and good judgement. There have been many fine persons nominated to SCOTUS, and I feel there could have been a plethora of many better male and female prospects that would have been much better suited to the position. Sometimes I do not feel this WH vets persons appropriately, and there have been a stream of other judges nominated and pushed through that have SEVERELY lacked in qualifications (so much though that R's on panels often get very nervous and hostile about them.. but begrudgingly say 'ok' anyway.. because if they don't tow the line..).

So how does one find that mythical figure that won’t garner some allegation based on partisan virtues?  No matter who President Trump nominated, the Dems would have orchestrated something against them.  Heck, they are already attacking the supposed next nominee.  Nothing short of complete control will satisfy the Dems, and it has been posited that one of the reasons we have had a constant attack on President Trump is related to SCOTUS and its supposed political bias.

[TBoneTX 45,971]

19 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Sometimes I do not feel this WH vets persons appropriately, and there have been a stream of other judges nominated and pushed through that have SEVERELY lacked in qualifications

The judicial-selection/vetting process has been delegated (from the start) to The Federalist Society and at least one other.

[yuna628 9,700]

7 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

The judicial-selection/vetting process has been delegated (from the start) to The Federalist Society and at least one other.

Not all of them. And quite a few have had severe problems, which led to R's having big issues and complained loudly with misgivings of voting to allow such persons lifetime appointments with ZERO experience. In the end they still voted yes, some of them feeling forced to do so, and that seems incredibly irresponsible to me.

[laylalex 7,300]

Why is it okay for the administration to privatize the selection and vetting process of lifetime appointments to the court? 

[laylalex 7,300]

By the way: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-health.html

 

Sorry, death watchers.

[90DayFinancier 910]

2 minutes ago, laylalex said:

By the way: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-health.html

 

Sorry, death watchers.

I purchased all the betting pool spots from 2029 to 2039, so I am still in.