Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Ginsburg Claims "At Least Five More years!"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ginsburg Claims "At Least Five More years!"

    Affirming that her recently or soon-to-be retired Justice John Paul Stevens retired at a youthful 90 years old, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg states she, at only 85, has at least another 5 years on the High Court.

    According to CNN.com:

    New York, CNN-Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she hopes to stay on the Supreme Court until the age of 90.

    "I'm now 85," Ginsburg said on Sunday. "My senior colleague, Justice John Paul Stevens, he stepped down when he was 90, so think I have about at least five more years."
    She has already hired law clerks for at least two more terms.
    I assume she means unless she runs afoul of the Clintons and, then, vacations in Arizona.


  • #2
    Ginsburg reminds us of a problem.

    We've seen it, experienced it before.

    Odd that nothing has been proposed as a remedy for it.

    Isn't it ?

    But then what remedy for this troublesome thing ?

    I think we'd hear more about this issue if we had an elderly conservative member of the court experiencing the effects of old age and refusing to step down.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the past two months, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has fractured three ribs and had two cancerous nodules removed from her left lung. She was absent from oral argument last week and will miss this weeks arguments as well. Doctors say they expect her to be back on the bench in February, and until then she will review transcripts from her home and participate in the courts decision-making remotely. But her return to work has not quieted critics who say that Ginsburg should have retired long ago and that her health issues are the latest evidence that justices should not be allowed to serve for life.

    Ginsburg, who is 85, suggested this summer that she intends to serve at least five more years on the court.

    She is far from the first justice to linger on the bench into advanced age.

    John Paul Stevens retired at 90 in 2010, making him the oldest serving justice since Oliver Wendell Holmes stepped down from the bench two months shy of his 91st birthday in 1932. Stevens extended tenure produced significantly less hand-wringing than Ginsburgsa contrast partly attributable to Stevens hale health but also possibly driven by the gender bias that Ginsburg has battled throughout her career. Yet while the focus on Ginsburg may be out of proportion, the concerns generated by a graying judiciary cannot be blithely dismissed. Fears of judicial gerontocracy have flared at several earlier points in American history, including long before the court had any female members.

    The late Antonin Scalia waved off the idea of limiting the terms of justices as a solution in search of a problem, but the problem is not an imaginary one:

    Some justices really have clung to their positions long after their mental faculties have left them.

    Justice Henry Baldwin remained on the court for nearly a dozen years after his 1832 hospitalization for incurable lunacy.

    One of Justice Nathan Cliffords colleagues described him as a babbling idiot in the final years before his death in 1881.

    Justice Stephen Field in the mid-1890s and Justice Joseph McKenna in the early to mid-1920s each reportedly spent the end of their tenures in a haze.

    Mental decrepitude on the Supreme Court has continued into the modern era, as historian David Garrow has documented. Frank Murphy, who served in the 1940s, was likely addicted to illegal drugs by the end of his tenure, and his biographer wrote that on at least one occasion, with Murphy in absentia, his law clerk and two fellow justices jointly decided what Murphys votes should be. Justice Charles Whittaker teetered on the brink of nervous breakdown for much of his five-year stint on the court in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Hugo Black stayed on for more than two years after his wife concluded in 1969 that his mentality has been impaired.


    Nor was Black the last justice whose mind slipped while he was still on the bench.

    In 1975, his last year on the court, William O. Douglas was so severely disabled by a stroke that his fellow justices agreed to delay any decision in which Douglas vote could swing the outcome. Justice William Rehnquist developed a dependence on a sedative that caused him to experience hallucinations during withdrawal; at one point in late 1981, he tried to escape from George Washington University Hospital in his pajamas. Rehnquist recovered, but two of his colleaguesLewis Powell and Thurgood Marshallfaced doubts about their mental capacities at the tail end of their careers.

    The history of cognitive decline on the high court teaches two lessons. First, there is a real risk of a substantial time lag between the onset of mental deterioration and a justices retirement.

    But second, and as important, this is a risk that can be contained. No justiceno matter how derangedcan do serious doctrinal damage without the acquiescence of at least half his colleagues. And when a justice is so utterly incapacitated that he is unable to break 4-4 ties, the court can continue to function with an even number of active members. Originally, the court had only six justices; during the Civil War, it had 10; and it has functioned fine with eight members during prolonged vacancies. Indeed, there are notable virtues to having an even number of justicesone of them being that it then takes more than a knifes-edge majority to overturn a lower court decision or strike down a law nationwide.

    The proposed solutions to mental decrepitude on the Supreme Court each come with flaws of their own. A common proposal is to fix the lengths of justices terms, with 18 years being the number most often suggested. Yet 18-year terms would not lay to rest the problem of mental decline. Murphy had been on the court for only eight years when his apparent drug dependence reached its height. Whittaker finally suffered a nervous breakdown less than five years into his term. And the Rehnquist pajama incident occurred just nine years into his 33-year tenure. Granted, the risk of mental disability increases with advanced age, and 18-year term limits might on balance lead to a younger bench. Or they might not. Presidents might be inclined to select older nominees if justices could serve for only 18 years rather than for life.

    Other ostensible benefits of 18-year terms are also likely to prove illusory. Advocates argue that a fixed term length will lower the stakes of confirmation battles. Perhaps, but fights over open court seats will be fierce whether the appointee wields influence over abortion and the death penalty for 18 years or for longer. What fixed term lengths will do, without a doubt, is to ensure that these fights occur more frequently. If the goal is to defuse some of the tension surrounding Supreme Court confirmations, then creating more vacancies is a curious choice.



    https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-health-224014

    ?


    • #3
      She can still be impeached, though...

      im just not sure anyone has the cajones to tu an 85 year old hero to the left, but old woman through all that.

      ?


      • #4
        Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
        She can still be impeached, though...

        im just not sure anyone has the cajones to tu an 85 year old hero to the left, but old woman through all that.
        It would definitely be different if, as I said, this were someone else.

        Like say Sam Alito was undergoing similar issues as Ginsburg is.

        Only a fool would propose that todays "media" would handle and present this in the same way !

        We'd hear never-ending stories of "calls for him to retire" and "calls for him to step down" and calls for him to "do the honorable thing and retire."

        Not with Ginsburg though. Very different story.

        ?


        • #5
          Ginsberg may soon be on her way out

          Expect a liberal generated Apocalypse like we've never seen !

          What's it all about ? One thing.

          Abortion. Abortion is treated with the same reverence as a religious rite in America.

          A ritual so worshiped, that involves killing, IS a religious rite. That it involves the murder of the most innocent, tells us who is really behind it.

          That people defend the sacrifice of infants so aggressively, proves who is behind it.

          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          The Left is already manning the barricades. The resulting hearing will make the Brett Kavanaugh fiasco, a dark moment in U.S. history, look like a charming affair.

          In the event that President Donald Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett, as many conservatives hope, this hearing will be a preview of the Apocalypse.

          The rise of hatred on the Left, aided by years of persistent media bias and leftist propaganda, has created a rolling tidal wave of hate ready to crash on shore in violence.

          The two most likely triggering events that would cause that crash are the re-election of President Trump and the next opening on the Supreme Court, particularly to fill Ginsburg's seat. It's an increasingly good bet that the latter will come first.

          There are a few reasons why Barrett generates so much fear and hatred among Democrats.

          The first reason is the routine hatred liberals reserve for all conservative-minded minorities and women, particularly if they are also people of faith. This is why Miguel Estrada's nomination to the federal bench was torpedoed in 2001, to prevent the possibility of a young Hispanic conservative rising to the Supreme Court. It is why Sarah Palin was mocked so relentlessly and unfairly. Any conservatives who challenge the liberal narrative demanding that minorities and women pledge fealty to liberal orthodoxy must be destroyed, lest other people start getting ideas.

          Democrats also know they will have a more difficult time disqualifying Barrett and will have to reach deeper into their toxic playbook than saying she is a secret pedophile who likes gang rape and nice walks on the beach.

          Barrett is also young, meaning she could be on the Court for decades.

          For Democrats, these Supreme Court wars boil down to abortion, the issue that most excites their perverse passion. It is a sad state of affairs when a major political party so champions the killing of the most vulnerable Americans as a mythical foundational right that they feel they must destroy anyone who could threaten this. They also understand that the fragile Roe v. Wade decision is built on a non-existent foundation.

          As John Adams presciently observed, "our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." But most people of faith recoil in horror at abortion, so Democrats are highly suspicious of faith-abiding Americans. Democrats will then resort to ever more outrageous accusations, hoping something sticks.

          ...the nomination of any of the judges on the list produced by the Federalist Society will result in a liberal meltdown.


          What can we expect?

          If and when the vacancy occurs, Democrats will first argue that any nomination should be put off until after the 2020 election. Senator Mitch McConnell will reject this outright, since he is too smart to fall for this trap. Failing at winning this argument, media-aided liberals will try to leverage it to argue for a more palatable (liberal) nominee in the interest of compromise, which will be rejected.

          Once the nomination is made, the Left will go to war.

          Mobs will gather outside the homes of targeted Republican senators to intimidate and threaten them and their family members. Death threats will become ubiquitous background noise. Just imagine the recent protest outsideMcConnell's house when a participant cheerily threatened to stab him through the heart. Now multiply that evil intensity by a thousand.

          The entire leftstream media will blanket the airwaves and papers with around-the-clock condemnation of the nominee as being out of the mainstream, joined by academia and the entertainment industry. They will justify every outrage as part of the resistance, a euphemism to cover all evil acts.

          Republicans must expect this and be prepared for the coming fight. No matter how bad they think it will get, it will be worse. But, if Republicans stand together, victory is assured.

          Liberal anger and hatred have been building toward this moment. All that is left is to wait for the right event to light the fuse. That may be coming soon.



          https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...eme_court.html

          ?


          • #6
            I wish Ginsberg all the best, and hopefully a speedy recovery from her cancer. After all Alex Trebek beat his cancer. Hope Ginsberg does as well. To me, it's a non-partisan issue, beating cancer, being kinds to someone who has cancer.

            ?


            • #7
              Justice Ginsburg explains to our tantrum throwing three year olds, why the electoral college is going no where

              It's time to grow up & be big boys and girls !

              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              On Monday, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg strongly opposed far-left socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's call to abolish the electoral college. Instead, the Supreme Court Justice urged Americans to focus on change.

              "It's largely a dream because our Constitution is … hard to amend," Ginsburg said during an event at the University of Chicago. "I know that from experience."

              Although she said the idea was "more theoretical than real," Ginsburg has supported the idea in the past.

              "There are some things I would like to change, one is the Electoral College," she said during a speech at Stanford in 2017. "But that would require a constitutional amendment, and amending our Constitution is powerfully hard to do."

              President Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in a landslide victory in 2016 even though he had less votes than her in the popular vote.

              Ginsburg hammered then candidate Trump.

              "I can't imagine what this place would be – I can’t imaging what the country would be – with Donald Trump as our president," she said. "For the country, it could be for years. For the court, it could be – I don't even want to contemplate that."

              Ginsburg has since taken back her comments on President Trump and has also voiced her support for the President's justice picks, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.



              https://trendingpolitics.com/ginsbur...edium=manychat

              ?

              Working...
              X