Chief Justice Roberts will allow Ginsburg to decide cases as long as she has breath

 

Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts is giving Ginsburg a pass unimaginable. The most important court in the land will find its oldest member, who cannot even remain awake at the State of the Union addresses, will be allowed to decide cases from home. Unable to participate in the questioning of those that appear before it, she will simply read transcripts. No doubt her student interns will be filling in for her, prepping her in retaining her radical agenda. In other words, as long as she has breath she will remain on the Court. It was reported that she cast the last vote while under heavy sedation from her hospital bed. Where is the reporting on this?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was on Monday missing supreme court arguments for the first time in more than 25 years, as she recuperates from cancer surgery last month, the court said.

Ginsburg was not on the bench as the court met to hear arguments. It was not clear when she would return to the court, which will hear more cases on Tuesday and Wednesday and again next week.

 

Chief Justice John Roberts said in the courtroom that Ginsburg would participate in deciding the argued cases “on the basis of the briefs and transcripts of oral arguments”.

More at the Guardian

Despite that participation, Ginsburg was not expected to be able to ask questions Monday. That is significant, since Ginsburg is one of the court’s most consistent questioners. Last term, Ginsburg spoke at least once during every oral argument, according to an analysis by Empirical SCOTUS, one of only three justices to do so.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reportedly voted against President Donald Trump’s proposed asylum restrictions from her hospital bed, where she was recovering from lung surgery.

NBC News and NPR reported that Ginsburg cast the vote during her stay at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, where she is recovering after two nodules were removed from her lungs.

“Unfortunately, lung cancer is usually caught in an advanced stage after it shows symptoms, after it has already spread to the lymph nodes and elsewhere, and by then it’s only curable in a small minority of cases,” Dr. John Heymach, chairman of thoracic, head and neck Medical Oncology at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told NBC News on Friday.

“It’s possible, without knowing the specifics of her case, that early detection because of those broken ribs saved her life,” said Heymach.

She has slept through many of the State of the Union speeches. from some years ago. Here is one of her excuses. Too much wine. Cute.
At a panel discussion on Thursday, Ruth Bader Ginsburg talked about nodding off during the State of the Union speech
.
Then we have this special moment.

As Pope Francis rose to address the assembled members of Congress and the justices of the Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s head dropped and her eyelids closed in a repeat performance of January’s State of the Union address.

And just like the time before, it didn’t go unnoticed and people took to social media with their observations, including one that summed it up pretty well: “What an embarrassment.”

Read more

Advertisements

Cass Sunstein, Supreme Ginsburg and the S. African Constitution

Why the South African Constitution is better than the U.S. goes on to describe the good news.  I have been scouting around in order to find out what Supreme Ginsburg had in mind for us as well as Egypt. What do you know, Cass Sunstein’s name crops up. Does anyone, can anyone not understand where we are headed with Obama? Here we go. A portion of the above link, then Sunstein.

Cass Sunstein said that the South African Constitution is “the most admirable constitution in the history of the world.” It contains a lengthy list of socio-economic rights, which the drafters hoped would protect and assist those disadvantaged by Apartheid and those who are poor and vulnerable. The relatively new South African Constitutional Court has required the government to implement these rights. Conversely, the United States Supreme Court has been unwilling to find socio-economic rights in the United States Constitution, in part because of separation of powers concerns.

This paper is divided into three parts. The first part describes some of the distinctive features of the South African Constitution, and compares these features with the United States Constitution. Part two discusses the South African socio-economic rights cases. Finally, part three critically examines American constitutional jurisprudence on socio-economic rights. This paper seeks to demonstrate that the South African Court has accomplished quite a feat: it has made clear that socio-economic rights are enforceable, but has interpreted economic rights in a way that limits separation of powers concerns. Moreover, this paper asserts that the United States Supreme Court should reconsider its separation of powers objections in light of these South African decisions Paper at above link.

Social and Economic Rights? Lessons from South Africa

Link below:

 –

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=269657#

Cass R. Sunstein


Harvard Law School

May 2001

U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 12; U Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 124 

 

Abstract:     
Do social and economic rights belong in a democratic constitution? Skeptics have wondered whether it is possible to constitutionalize such rights without imposing an untenable managerial responsibility on courts. In an extraordinary decision, the Constitutional Court of South Africa has provided a new approach to social and economic rights, one that respects the fact of limited resources while also requiring governmental attention to basic needs. This new approach might be called an administrative law model of constitutional rights. It contains considerable promise, because it recognize rights to reasonable programs, rather than to protection of each individual, a path that might well be beyond governmental capacities.

Why the South African Constitution is better than the U.S. goes on to describe the good news.

AG goes to the Supreme Court to Fast Track Obamacare ruling

Ever read a piece that just gets you riled up and brings back a bad memory? When I read that AG Cucinelli was heading to the Supreme Court to request an expedited hearing on Obamacare this week, the thought of the Ginsburg post I had done earlier brought my blood to a boil. She, who has Pancreatic Cancer, who has gotten the very best in Healthcare, would doom us to third world medicine. The nasty Progressive reveals herself and her belief in Eugenics in a recent interview discussed in the video below. Have at it.

“The court itself is a reactive institution,” Ginsburg said. “We don’t decide ‘we better get this or that case sooner rather than later.’” More at GW Hatchet

Check out an earlier post: Supreme Court Ginsberg says healthcare law will not be fast tracked

The healthcare reform law remains conspicuously absent from the Supreme Court’s judicial lineup, despite a request to expedite a ruling on the constitutionality of that crown jewel of the Obama presidency. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cucinelli, leading the 27-state charge against the Affordable Care Act, hopes to bypass the normal appeals process and fast-track the inevitable decision. The justices are scheduled to consider the request this week, but such exceptions are rare, and the White House has urged the Supreme Court to stay mum on the issue for the time being. Townhall

More at Bloomberg

Obama asks Judge to say Obamacare isn’t an option for states

This is good news. This could stop the process in its track. It will give the States cover to stop implementing the law I would think. However, don’t count on Justice Ginsberg to support any legal process other than a slow drone to her crib. Her quotes  follow. In case you thought she has any interest in keeping the old folks alive, I am including an earlier vid.

The Obama administration is asking a federal judge who struck down the healthcare reform law to clarify that states must still implement the overhaul as the appeals process plays out.

Some states are saying the Jan. 31 ruling relieves them from implementing the sweeping reform law because the federal judge in Florida found it to be unconstitutional.

The Obama administration, in a Thursday evening filing in a Northern Florida federal court, is asking the court to clarify that the 26 states who successfully challenged the law are still required to comply with it. The Hill

Supreme Court Ginsberg says no fast track:

 Ginsberg said: Americans should not expect a case examining the constitutionality of the health care law to be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in Lisner Auditorium Thursday night. (Previously posted)

Eugenics supporter Ginsberg, speaking with NPR’s legal correspondent Nina Totenberg, said any legal challenges to the law will have to work themselves up to the nation’s highest court through “the ordinary route.”

The issue has received national attention in the past week since a district court in Florida ruled the law unconstitutional Monday, leaving many speculating that a Supreme Court ruling might be expedited.

“The court itself is a reactive institution,” Ginsburg said. “We don’t decide ‘we better get this or that case sooner rather than later.’” More at GW Hatchet

Check out an earlier post: Supreme Court Ginsberg says healthcare law will not be fast tracked

Supreme Court Ginsburg: Health care law won’t be fast-tracked for review

Yes, the  Supreme Court Progressive who under our present Health Care System allows her to remain here on earth. Apparently she cares little for the rest of us. She has defied the odds with her Pancreatic cancer diagnosis. No doubt she has gotten the very best treatment. At 77, Obamacare would no doubt rule her treatment as not cost-effective for her age.

Ginsburg, the champion of Eugenics, no doubt would just as well see us “translate” sooner rather than later with the death panels. She would have us have less than she. Lets take a ride back and hear her words regarding the need to eliminate the undesirables. “Populations we don’t want too many of”. First the very young…next?

Americans should not expect a case examining the constitutionality of the health care law to be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in Lisner Auditorium Thursday night.

Ginsburg, speaking with NPR’s legal correspondent Nina Totenberg, said any legal challenges to the law will have to work themselves up to the nation’s highest court through “the ordinary route.”

The issue has received national attention in the past week since a district court in Florida ruled the law unconstitutional Monday, leaving many speculating that a Supreme Court ruling might be expedited.

“The court itself is a reactive institution,” Ginsburg said. “We don’t decide ‘we better get this or that case sooner rather than later.’” More at GW Hatchet

%d bloggers like this: