[Cog]

With the election of Hyde Smith in Mississippi yesterday, the Republicans have a 53-47 advantage in supreme court confirmations. So squishy Republicans like Murkowski won't be able to derail the process.

[Plantagenet]

NPR just said Ruth Bader Ginsberg has lung cancer.

supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-85--undergoes-lung-cancer-surgery

A surgeon removed two malignant growths from her lung---both cancerous. Apparently the cancer has already metastasized.

Presumably Judge Ginsberg will now require bed rest and subsequent rounds of chemo and/or radiation therapy.

She needs to concentrate on her recovery now. Its time for her to resign her SCOTUS seat.

Trump is going to get another SCOTUS appointment sooner then anyone ever thought. AND he has a very qualified woman jurist on his list of potential appointments.

[vtsnowedin]

NPR just said Ruth Bader Ginsberg has lung cancer.

supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-85--undergoes-lung-cancer-surgery

A surgeon removed two lobes from her lung---both cancerous.

Presumably Judge Ginsberg will require some bed rest and a subsequent round of chemo or radiation therapy.

Its time for her to resign her SCOTUS seat.

Trump is going to get another SCOTUS appointment sooner then anyone ever thought. AND he has a very qualified woman jurist on his list of potential appointments.

Ahh don't count your chickens before they hatch. She is a tough old bird and with state of the art health care might well last longer then the Trump presidency.

[Plantagenet]

She is a tough old bird and with state of the art health care might well last longer then the Trump presidency.

Thats certainly possible.

Time will tell.

Cheers!

[Cog]

Well she has survived colon cancer and pancreatic cancer so far, in addition to fracturing multiple ribs. Maybe she is too ornery to die.

[Cog]

[Newfie]

Any particular news or just bored?

[Cog]

Bored I guess. I just have a feeling, based on nothing, she will be out soon.

[Newfie]

Better be soon, McConnel said he would not move on a new justice once the race began and Warren has already declared.

[Cog]

Better be soon, McConnel said he would not move on a new justice once the race began and Warren has already declared.

McConnell said he would consider it. He did not outright reject consent to another nominee during the campaign. McConnell isn't going to let precedent stop him from another SCOTUS nominee based on what year it is.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 563328002/



WASHINGTON – Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is not ruling out a third Supreme Court seat being filled by President Donald Trump – even if a vacancy does not open up until 2020.

Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace expressed surprise that McConnell would allow a 2020 nomination to go through because the Republican leader refused to consider President Barack Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, after former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016. At the time, McConnell argued that the vacancy should not be filled in an election year.

But when asked on Sunday, McConnell pointed to history and precedent.

"Maybe I have this wrong, but when you blocked Merrick Garland's nomination from President Obama you basically said we don't do this in a presidential election year and that we wait until the election," Wallace said. "But what you just said now was it's a question of whether or not the party in control of the Senate is different from the president."

"What I told you is what the history of the Senate has been," McConnell replied. "You have to go back to 1880 to find the last time a vacancy created in a presidential election year, on the Supreme Court, was confirmed by a Senate of a different party than the president."

Wallace pressed McConnell to explicitly say whether or not he would go forward with a Trump nomination in 2020.

"We'll see whether there's a vacancy in 2020," McConnell said.

Republican President Rutherford Hayes' nominee William Woods was confirmed 39-8 by a Democrat-controlled Senate in 1880. Although 1880 was an election year, Woods was not nominated until December, after the election.

[Outcast_Searcher]

She is a tough old bird and with state of the art health care might well last longer then the Trump presidency.

Thats certainly possible.

Time will tell.
Cheers!

I still think its madness not to have a mandatory retirement age for the SCOTUS.

Do we really want the supremes making critical decisions based on complex legal considerations past when they're relatively healthy?

I'm not talking about Ginsberg specifically, but about the principle.

With an average life expectancy near 80, age 70 or 75 would both seem reasonable mandatory retirement age choices to me (unlike age 60 for commercial jet pilots, for example).

It could be phased in, etc. to try to minimize the short term political consequences, which would be sure to emerge as an issue.

[Cog]

Once in a while I like reading parts of the Constitution, with an aim to see what things Trump can do to make the left outraged. I think I have found something:

US Constitutions Article 2, Section 2

2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:

I see nothing in this section which would prohibit Trump from nominating a new Supreme Court Justice right now. Since the government is shut down more or less, the Senate could do their hearings and usual investigation of the nominee and then send it to the Senate for a vote. Mitch McConnell could then just sit on the final confirmation vote until the buzzards start to fly around Ginsberg's house and vote in the new Justice. I like this plan and I think I'll mention to Trump in an email.

[Subjectivist]

Once in a while I like reading parts of the Constitution, with an aim to see what things Trump can do to make the left outraged. I think I have found something:

US Constitutions Article 2, Section 2

2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:

I see nothing in this section which would prohibit Trump from nominating a new Supreme Court Justice right now. Since the government is shut down more or less, the Senate could do their hearings and usual investigation of the nominee and then send it to the Senate for a vote. Mitch McConnell could then just sit on the final confirmation vote until the buzzards start to fly around Ginsberg's house and vote in the new Justice. I like this plan and I think I'll mention to Trump in an email.

IMO that takes things a step too far. The White House can easily work up a list of names and fully vet them for issues and observed rulings while on lower courts. Properly done when the time comes the President can call in the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and share the 'short list' of three to five names and ask which candidate is preferred by said chairman and why. This was the practice up til around 1964 when LBJ inherited the office. The Chairman or sometimes the chairman and leading opposition would be solicited for opinions once a short list existed, the President would usually go along with the short list candidate most favored by the committee leaders, and the nomination would sail through in two or three weeks.

Today we get stuck with a rgetorical circus that might last two months or more, which is pathetic and serves nobody well. I think if this or any POTUS did as you suggest it would be a political disaster, described to the voters as an attempt to 'stack the court' and any other negative connotations they could tie to it.

[Cog]

Vetting Kavanaugh didn't help when a member of the other party held onto information which should been disclosed early on. Information, which by the way which was created by someone of ill-will

[Cog]

Before you crack the champagne, this was a graphic accidently released live on Fox and Friends this morning. They have apologized for the error.

[Newfie]

Were they quoting BuzzFeed?

[Cog]

Were they quoting BuzzFeed?

LOL I suspect that Fox had this graphic pre-loaded for when she does die and some tech threw it up on the screen by accident. Or they know she is dead but have no official confirmation of it.

But if you fall and break several ribs, have half a lung removed due to cancer, and do no further treatment, you aren't long for this world.

[Newfie]

You would be amazed at what life support can achieve.

[yellowcanoe]

I still think its madness not to have a mandatory retirement age for the SCOTUS.

Just for comparison, the Canadian Supreme Court has had a mandatory retirement age of 75 since 1927.

[Cog]

You would be amazed at what life support can achieve.

To a point. Cancer usually wins that battle. Most post-op surgical cancer patients have some chemo or radiation therapy as part of their treatment. They didn't do that in her case. That makes me think she might not be strong enough to endure either one. Pneumonia is always a risk for lung cancer patients who are more or less bed-ridden.

But who knows. She might surprise us.