Then send Michelle a PM. She's the only one who would benefit from the comment.

Appreciate your take on RBG. I think great Americans should be respected and acknowledged. We can all learn from these fine individuals in a positive way.

Although I must admit in my original post I was more worried about the possible negative consequences of her passing in the make up of the supreme court justices.

My fears are fast becoming true. The appointment of another conservative right judge is all but assured for the supreme court.

Will do next time.

:thumbup:

I have also had to send her a PM or two in the past of thanks (and apology on one occasion).

Ok boys, back on topic or the thread gets closed. :rolleyes:

Sure thing. I think I have but one meaningful reply from Crystal on topic which I’ve responded. So please kindly close it in a few days if no other members wish to contribute about the passing of RBG.

Thanks again!

.

Perfect summary of what was the major problem with RBG philosophy....

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-t...stand-her-job/

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

I'm about half-way through this... and so far, all I've learned, is that the author is very long winded, and that he is a strict Constitutionalist. I am Constitution oriented (both parties are habitually violating it) as well but am also realistic enough to know that not everything can be enumerated in the original document.

But let me finish reading it and digest it. Seems to me he's complaining about a situation that applies to all the justices, but for different reasons (feminism in RBG's case).

I gave it a read as well. The author is entitled to his own take on how the supreme court judges should handle the cases that comes before them.

I think that's the only thing he's entitled to.

The judges always have differences in their opinions, and they are hand picked to best reflect the changing times of the American culture and society. To follow the original constitution strictly without making adjustments to suit the current needs of the American public would be both archaic and falls short of meeting the needs of our current generation.

As for grouping the 2 separate instances of the timing for new SCJ nominations, once with Obama and another after the passing of RBG.

He's right about one thing. The hypocricy is glaring.

But I do see the need to maintain the spirit of the original document, in as far as the work the Supreme Court does.

I think maybe instead of conforming strictly to the original document like the author believe we should do, we can prehaps find some ways of laying down guidelines for the SCJ to follow. That guideline could be voted on by the American public.