"I was so pleased that this year I couldn't see that I was slipping in any respect."
She's 80, and she can't see that she's slipping in any respect. And who would say otherwise about Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
July 4, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
28 comments:
Well, that should get the Lefties in an uproar.
Aren't they holding vigils for her to do something that would allow Choom to appoint somebody younger?
Those cantankerous old folks!
Ah yes. Old Ruth.
Frequently wrong, never in doubt.
It is quite despicable that the lefties are pressuring her to resign.
Maybe she doesn't trust Der Leader.
Smart girl.
She's hanging on just to spite them!
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...
Ah yes. Old Ruth.
Frequently wrong, never in doubt.
But do you want a replacement that's going to be as bad (if not worse) for another 40 years?
Aging gracefully is difficult for some people - especially those in a position of power and prestige.
Presenting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg - then and now.
But do you want a replacement that's going to be as bad (if not worse) for another 40 years?
That's what we're going to get. Suppose a Republican wins in November 2016. What keeps Ginsburg from resigning, and Obama from nominating a replacement, in the two months between then and the end of his term? Tradition?
"I was so pleased that this year I couldn't see that I was slipping in any respect."
Interesting wording there. Not that she's pleased that she's not slipping, but that she's pleased that she couldn't see it.
But slipping or not slipping, who could tell? At her "best," she had a distorted concept of law and constitutionality.
Interesting that Souter and Stevens, both Rep appointees, made sure that a Dem president would appoint their successors -- that was surely a priority for them -- while Ginsberg seems less concerned. But she's got at least two more years before she really has to choose. A vacancy created by a resignation in June 2015, at the end of OT 2014-15, would still give O another appointee. Even if the Reps control the Senate, they could not block a credible nominee.
gadfly must we subscribe to the New Yorker to view the slideshow? It's showing the first image and that's it.
Which makes it one of the most BORING slide shows on earth. A picture of an old lady sitting on a chair in the center of a large room, thinking, "Help, I died and I can't get up."
What a meglo. Oh Damn! I forgot my pencil. I must now walk to the other side of the room and get the pencil. Here I go, step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step rests in chair step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step rests in another chair step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step Oh good, here's the pencil. Boy, that sure took a long time. Now I must head back to my desk, step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step step and so on throughout the day.
As a conservative, there is no point in getting excited about Supreme Court retirements. You will either get a straight up liberal or a stealth liberal. Clarence Thomas has been a shining exception.
Hang in there Ruth. And spend more time with Clarence and Nino, just to spite them.
You mean Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg AKA Sleepy Ruth Ginsberg?
The one who finds a constitutional right to _____ but not to own a firearm.
I know that Justice Ginsburg drives many conservatives batshit crazy (e.g Bill O'Reilly).
While I have no animus against the woman, I've got a lot of problem with whoever said:
Yet, one observer says, “she’s very cautious, conservative in a Burkean sense.”
"Burkean"?! Uhhhmmm, any evidence of this Burkean reticence in any recent rulings that this "one observer" would like to share with us?
Regardless, she'll get out in time to give O another nominee. That's a safe bet.
the last one to know that the mind is slipping is the one with the slipping mind
bgates said...
But do you want a replacement that's going to be as bad (if not worse) for another 40 years?
That's what we're going to get. Suppose a Republican wins in November 2016. What keeps Ginsburg from resigning, and Obama from nominating a replacement, in the two months between then and the end of his term? Tradition?
That doesn't seem to be the way they think - and don't forget the Lefties have been throwing dirt on her for 2 years, so she really doesn't owe them anything.
Over the years, most of these Lefty Justices have seemed intent on dying with their boots on. They don't want to deprive the world of their brilliance.
Good for her. 90 is the new 80.
Am I equipped to do the job?...I was so pleased that this year I couldn't see that I was slipping in any respect.
She wasn't equipped to do the job when she started, and she hasn't slipped a bit.
How would you like for Debbie Wassermann Schultz to replace her?
Right after Liberals finish their prayers for the early demises of the "Conservative" justices on the court, then Leftists say a brief prayer wish for older "Liberal" justices to fall ill and resign. BUT they don't wish the "Liberal" justices terminal illnesses so the Lefties know they are good people.
"How would you like for Debbie Wassermann Schultz to replace her?"
I'm keeping hope alive for Justice Lois Lerner.
"How would you like for Debbie Wassermann Schultz to replace her?"
Ha, or Stephanie Cutter.
ah Fantasyland...must be nice.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg said...
I was so pleased that this year I couldn't see that I was slipping in any respect.
machine said...
ah Fantasyland...must be nice.
Wow. For once I agree with machine.
Hagar said...
How would you like for Debbie Wassermann Schultz to replace her?
No, that would be Hillary!
Choom has to clear the way for Moochelle in '16.
You go, RBG!!!!!
Vicki from Pasadena
Post a Comment