Notorious RBG dead at 87

[Deathproof]

Only problem with your prediction is that we're not losing the White House or the Senate

So no need to break the mcconnell rule and rush it through within 50 days then?

I don't feel 50 days is a "rush".

Then you are ignorant of the process. Moscow mitch has to flat out rush to get it done without doing it in the lame duck recess. And he has to prove his reasons for blocking garland were flat out bullshit, though he's already covered that one.

The republicans claimed they had to block an Obama nominee for 10 months because it was the job of the next president, now they say it has d to be done in 50 days because the current president, projected to lose, is the current president. Literally no one is fooled, your refusal to admit the difference is solely in political party just exposes you as a hack liar. Are you seriously going to advance the latest talking points as an excuse? Just admit you want different rules for your party, at least you'd be honest.

I've never denied it. They did the right thing blocking a Hussein nominee, because he would doubtless have tried to install yet another liberal legislate-from-the-bench activist instead of an actual justice. We stopped that. Problem solved.
Now we have a chance to install a Conservative who will actually do the job correctly. They absolutely should do it as soon as possible. The election is immaterial; President Trump is going to be re-elected, that's just a fact. They should install a new justice now, because the executive branch isn't going to change.

Righties go on about judicial activism but I bet they have to google to find examples to support their argument; it’s mostly a talking point they heard on tv.

Factually untrue, even by Vader Ginsburg's own admission. For instance, in her infamous Madison Lecture, the dried-up old cunt said, "judges do and must legislate". She later described herself as the "leader of the liberal opposition", which should have immediately led to her dismissal, and said the Supreme Court at the time (2013) was "the most activist court in history" because of her dimwitted decisions.
She also was noted for having imposed rules about what words the other justices could and could not use in arguments, dissents, and opinions. I dont know why the other justices didnt tell her to sit down and shut up, but they obeyed when she mandated that they could not use the terms "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant" ("undocumented" was what she chose to allow), she ruled that unborn babies could not be called "babies" but rather must be known as "fetuses", and that any so-called "gendered" words were forbidden. For instance, she famously tore into Justice Clarence Thomas for saying "postman" and decreed that "letter carrier" was the allowable terminology. Again, why he and the other justices didnt tell her "go brush your tooth, you old crypt keeper-looking seahag", I have no idea.
Let's not forget the time she voted to uphold Affirmative Action at the University of Michigan, despite it being unconstitutional by both federal constitutional standards and state constitutional standards. She decided it was okay to make a blatantly activist ruling because "“We are not far distant from an overtly discriminatory past", as she put it. She therefore decided discriminating against white people is okay because things were bad for black people a century ago. Thankfully, a majority of the other, more correct justices put a stop to that shit.

I could go on, but her record of goofy, out-of-her-jurisdiction legislation from the bench speaks for itself. She was an evil, biased, partisan scumbag and we're better off without her.

[Stapes]

So no need to break the mcconnell rule and rush it through within 50 days then?

I don't feel 50 days is a "rush".

Then you are ignorant of the process. Moscow mitch has to flat out rush to get it done without doing it in the lame duck recess. And he has to prove his reasons for blocking garland were flat out bullshit, though he's already covered that one.

The republicans claimed they had to block an Obama nominee for 10 months because it was the job of the next president, now they say it has d to be done in 50 days because the current president, projected to lose, is the current president. Literally no one is fooled, your refusal to admit the difference is solely in political party just exposes you as a hack liar. Are you seriously going to advance the latest talking points as an excuse? Just admit you want different rules for your party, at least you'd be honest.

I've never denied it. They did the right thing blocking a Hussein nominee, because he would doubtless have tried to install yet another liberal legislate-from-the-bench activist instead of an actual justice. We stopped that. Problem solved.
Now we have a chance to install a Conservative who will actually do the job correctly. They absolutely should do it as soon as possible. The election is immaterial; President Trump is going to be re-elected, that's just a fact. They should install a new justice now, because the executive branch isn't going to change.

Righties go on about judicial activism but I bet they have to google to find examples to support their argument; it’s mostly a talking point they heard on tv.

Factually untrue, even by Vader Ginsburg's own admission. For instance, in her infamous Madison Lecture, the dried-up old cunt said, "judges do and must legislate". She later described herself as the "leader of the liberal opposition", which should have immediately led to her dismissal, and said the Supreme Court at the time (2013) was "the most activist court in history" because of her dimwitted decisions.
She also was noted for having imposed rules about what words the other justices could and could not use in arguments, dissents, and opinions. I dont know why the other justices didnt tell her to sit down and shut up, but they obeyed when she mandated that they could not use the terms "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant" ("undocumented" was what she chose to allow), she ruled that unborn babies could not be called "babies" but rather must be known as "fetuses", and that any so-called "gendered" words were forbidden. For instance, she famously tore into Justice Clarence Thomas for saying "postman" and decreed that "letter carrier" was the allowable terminology. Again, why he and the other justices didnt tell her "go brush your tooth, you old crypt keeper-looking seahag", I have no idea.
Let's not forget the time she voted to uphold Affirmative Action at the University of Michigan, despite it being unconstitutional by both federal constitutional standards and state constitutional standards. She decided it was okay to make a blatantly activist ruling because "“We are not far distant from an overtly discriminatory past", as she put it. She therefore decided discriminating against white people is okay because things were bad for black people a century ago. Thankfully, a majority of the other, more correct justices put a stop to that shit.

I could go on, but her record of goofy, out-of-her-jurisdiction legislation from the bench speaks for itself. She was an evil, biased, partisan scumbag and we're better off without her.

What right wing shit hole website did you get that crock of crap....... I can't find any information that backs up what you just put on there.....

[Antknot]

I don't feel 50 days is a "rush".

Then you are ignorant of the process. Moscow mitch has to flat out rush to get it done without doing it in the lame duck recess. And he has to prove his reasons for blocking garland were flat out bullshit, though he's already covered that one.

The republicans claimed they had to block an Obama nominee for 10 months because it was the job of the next president, now they say it has d to be done in 50 days because the current president, projected to lose, is the current president. Literally no one is fooled, your refusal to admit the difference is solely in political party just exposes you as a hack liar. Are you seriously going to advance the latest talking points as an excuse? Just admit you want different rules for your party, at least you'd be honest.

I've never denied it. They did the right thing blocking a Hussein nominee, because he would doubtless have tried to install yet another liberal legislate-from-the-bench activist instead of an actual justice. We stopped that. Problem solved.
Now we have a chance to install a Conservative who will actually do the job correctly. They absolutely should do it as soon as possible. The election is immaterial; President Trump is going to be re-elected, that's just a fact. They should install a new justice now, because the executive branch isn't going to change.

Righties go on about judicial activism but I bet they have to google to find examples to support their argument; it’s mostly a talking point they heard on tv.

Factually untrue, even by Vader Ginsburg's own admission. For instance, in her infamous Madison Lecture, the dried-up old cunt said, "judges do and must legislate". She later described herself as the "leader of the liberal opposition", which should have immediately led to her dismissal, and said the Supreme Court at the time (2013) was "the most activist court in history" because of her dimwitted decisions.
She also was noted for having imposed rules about what words the other justices could and could not use in arguments, dissents, and opinions. I dont know why the other justices didnt tell her to sit down and shut up, but they obeyed when she mandated that they could not use the terms "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant" ("undocumented" was what she chose to allow), she ruled that unborn babies could not be called "babies" but rather must be known as "fetuses", and that any so-called "gendered" words were forbidden. For instance, she famously tore into Justice Clarence Thomas for saying "postman" and decreed that "letter carrier" was the allowable terminology. Again, why he and the other justices didnt tell her "go brush your tooth, you old crypt keeper-looking seahag", I have no idea.
Let's not forget the time she voted to uphold Affirmative Action at the University of Michigan, despite it being unconstitutional by both federal constitutional standards and state constitutional standards. She decided it was okay to make a blatantly activist ruling because "“We are not far distant from an overtly discriminatory past", as she put it. She therefore decided discriminating against white people is okay because things were bad for black people a century ago. Thankfully, a majority of the other, more correct justices put a stop to that shit.

I could go on, but her record of goofy, out-of-her-jurisdiction legislation from the bench speaks for itself. She was an evil, biased, partisan scumbag and we're better off without her.

What right wing shit hole website did you get that crock of crap....... I can't find any information that backs up what you just put on there.....

https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/f ... 059254.pdf

[Stapes]

Then you are ignorant of the process. Moscow mitch has to flat out rush to get it done without doing it in the lame duck recess. And he has to prove his reasons for blocking garland were flat out bullshit, though he's already covered that one.

The republicans claimed they had to block an Obama nominee for 10 months because it was the job of the next president, now they say it has d to be done in 50 days because the current president, projected to lose, is the current president. Literally no one is fooled, your refusal to admit the difference is solely in political party just exposes you as a hack liar. Are you seriously going to advance the latest talking points as an excuse? Just admit you want different rules for your party, at least you'd be honest.

I've never denied it. They did the right thing blocking a Hussein nominee, because he would doubtless have tried to install yet another liberal legislate-from-the-bench activist instead of an actual justice. We stopped that. Problem solved.
Now we have a chance to install a Conservative who will actually do the job correctly. They absolutely should do it as soon as possible. The election is immaterial; President Trump is going to be re-elected, that's just a fact. They should install a new justice now, because the executive branch isn't going to change.

Righties go on about judicial activism but I bet they have to google to find examples to support their argument; it’s mostly a talking point they heard on tv.

Factually untrue, even by Vader Ginsburg's own admission. For instance, in her infamous Madison Lecture, the dried-up old cunt said, "judges do and must legislate". She later described herself as the "leader of the liberal opposition", which should have immediately led to her dismissal, and said the Supreme Court at the time (2013) was "the most activist court in history" because of her dimwitted decisions.
She also was noted for having imposed rules about what words the other justices could and could not use in arguments, dissents, and opinions. I dont know why the other justices didnt tell her to sit down and shut up, but they obeyed when she mandated that they could not use the terms "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant" ("undocumented" was what she chose to allow), she ruled that unborn babies could not be called "babies" but rather must be known as "fetuses", and that any so-called "gendered" words were forbidden. For instance, she famously tore into Justice Clarence Thomas for saying "postman" and decreed that "letter carrier" was the allowable terminology. Again, why he and the other justices didnt tell her "go brush your tooth, you old crypt keeper-looking seahag", I have no idea.
Let's not forget the time she voted to uphold Affirmative Action at the University of Michigan, despite it being unconstitutional by both federal constitutional standards and state constitutional standards. She decided it was okay to make a blatantly activist ruling because "“We are not far distant from an overtly discriminatory past", as she put it. She therefore decided discriminating against white people is okay because things were bad for black people a century ago. Thankfully, a majority of the other, more correct justices put a stop to that shit.

I could go on, but her record of goofy, out-of-her-jurisdiction legislation from the bench speaks for itself. She was an evil, biased, partisan scumbag and we're better off without her.

What right wing shit hole website did you get that crock of crap....... I can't find any information that backs up what you just put on there.....

https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/f ... 059254.pdf

No shit grandpa I can look that up...... Where is it that she made the other justices use the word undocumented immigrant instead of illegal....where did she insist on fetuses instead of babies the Clarence Thomas.... Where did she decree that you had to use the word mail carrier instead of postman..... A big bunch of s***


I'll wait for WUt who was an actual lawyer

[VinceBordenIII]

By controlling the language they begin to control the argument. I’m surprised the other justices didn’t understand that?

[Antknot]

I've never denied it. They did the right thing blocking a Hussein nominee, because he would doubtless have tried to install yet another liberal legislate-from-the-bench activist instead of an actual justice. We stopped that. Problem solved.
Now we have a chance to install a Conservative who will actually do the job correctly. They absolutely should do it as soon as possible. The election is immaterial; President Trump is going to be re-elected, that's just a fact. They should install a new justice now, because the executive branch isn't going to change.

Righties go on about judicial activism but I bet they have to google to find examples to support their argument; it’s mostly a talking point they heard on tv.

Factually untrue, even by Vader Ginsburg's own admission. For instance, in her infamous Madison Lecture, the dried-up old cunt said, "judges do and must legislate". She later described herself as the "leader of the liberal opposition", which should have immediately led to her dismissal, and said the Supreme Court at the time (2013) was "the most activist court in history" because of her dimwitted decisions.
She also was noted for having imposed rules about what words the other justices could and could not use in arguments, dissents, and opinions. I dont know why the other justices didnt tell her to sit down and shut up, but they obeyed when she mandated that they could not use the terms "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant" ("undocumented" was what she chose to allow), she ruled that unborn babies could not be called "babies" but rather must be known as "fetuses", and that any so-called "gendered" words were forbidden. For instance, she famously tore into Justice Clarence Thomas for saying "postman" and decreed that "letter carrier" was the allowable terminology. Again, why he and the other justices didnt tell her "go brush your tooth, you old crypt keeper-looking seahag", I have no idea.
Let's not forget the time she voted to uphold Affirmative Action at the University of Michigan, despite it being unconstitutional by both federal constitutional standards and state constitutional standards. She decided it was okay to make a blatantly activist ruling because "“We are not far distant from an overtly discriminatory past", as she put it. She therefore decided discriminating against white people is okay because things were bad for black people a century ago. Thankfully, a majority of the other, more correct justices put a stop to that shit.

I could go on, but her record of goofy, out-of-her-jurisdiction legislation from the bench speaks for itself. She was an evil, biased, partisan scumbag and we're better off without her.

What right wing shit hole website did you get that crock of crap....... I can't find any information that backs up what you just put on there.....

https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/f ... 059254.pdf

No shit grandpa I can look that up...... Where is it that she made the other justices use the word undocumented immigrant instead of illegal....where did she insist on fetuses instead of babies the Clarence Thomas.... Where did she decree that you had to use the word mail carrier instead of postman..... A big bunch of s***


I'll wait for WUt who was an actual lawyer

"Grandpa" is an unusual insult from someone who himself retired to Florida.

Does the warmer weather help your lumbago?

[Stapes]

Factually untrue, even by Vader Ginsburg's own admission. For instance, in her infamous Madison Lecture, the dried-up old cunt said, "judges do and must legislate". She later described herself as the "leader of the liberal opposition", which should have immediately led to her dismissal, and said the Supreme Court at the time (2013) was "the most activist court in history" because of her dimwitted decisions.
She also was noted for having imposed rules about what words the other justices could and could not use in arguments, dissents, and opinions. I dont know why the other justices didnt tell her to sit down and shut up, but they obeyed when she mandated that they could not use the terms "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant" ("undocumented" was what she chose to allow), she ruled that unborn babies could not be called "babies" but rather must be known as "fetuses", and that any so-called "gendered" words were forbidden. For instance, she famously tore into Justice Clarence Thomas for saying "postman" and decreed that "letter carrier" was the allowable terminology. Again, why he and the other justices didnt tell her "go brush your tooth, you old crypt keeper-looking seahag", I have no idea.
Let's not forget the time she voted to uphold Affirmative Action at the University of Michigan, despite it being unconstitutional by both federal constitutional standards and state constitutional standards. She decided it was okay to make a blatantly activist ruling because "“We are not far distant from an overtly discriminatory past", as she put it. She therefore decided discriminating against white people is okay because things were bad for black people a century ago. Thankfully, a majority of the other, more correct justices put a stop to that shit.

I could go on, but her record of goofy, out-of-her-jurisdiction legislation from the bench speaks for itself. She was an evil, biased, partisan scumbag and we're better off without her.

What right wing shit hole website did you get that crock of crap....... I can't find any information that backs up what you just put on there.....

https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/f ... 059254.pdf

No shit grandpa I can look that up...... Where is it that she made the other justices use the word undocumented immigrant instead of illegal....where did she insist on fetuses instead of babies the Clarence Thomas.... Where did she decree that you had to use the word mail carrier instead of postman..... A big bunch of s***


I'll wait for WUt who was an actual lawyer

"Grandpa" is an unusual insult from someone who himself retired to Florida.

Does the warmer weather help your lumbago?

And Stapes is a Grandpa.

My 3rd one is getting induced on Tuesday...lol. 3rd girl.

[Biker]

If the GOP push through a nominee in under 50 days after all that derping about needing to wait 10 months, there's no real argument for the dems not just pushing through legislation to expand the number of justices and packing the court when they hold the executive, house and senate. Not like there are rules anymore. Get it to 11, then see if the GOP want to talk to set up some rules they can't break later using the threat of 15.

Gingsberg was pushed through in 45 days, dipshit

[WestTexasCrude]

Just what the world needs in the year 2020...some ultra conservative ultra religious Catholic female. If the Republicans put her on the bench or someone like her it most certainly come back to bite them in the ass. Women start seeing their equality rights start being chipped away at... Access to birth control and abortions...... You might just see a blue tsunami not a blue Wave. Then they can start changing how the supreme Court works...
Term limits.... Adding justices. Be careful what you wish for conservatives

BLOODBATH

[Reservoir Dog]

Man, just drove by a "Trump Train" rally downtown. What a crowd.

Funny how not a single word about that event has made it into the Kerrville news.

It's almost like it didn't really happen.

[WestTexasCrude]

[Wut]

So no need to break the mcconnell rule and rush it through within 50 days then?

I don't feel 50 days is a "rush".

Then you are ignorant of the process. Moscow mitch has to flat out rush to get it done without doing it in the lame duck recess. And he has to prove his reasons for blocking garland were flat out bullshit, though he's already covered that one.

The republicans claimed they had to block an Obama nominee for 10 months because it was the job of the next president, now they say it has d to be done in 50 days because the current president, projected to lose, is the current president. Literally no one is fooled, your refusal to admit the difference is solely in political party just exposes you as a hack liar. Are you seriously going to advance the latest talking points as an excuse? Just admit you want different rules for your party, at least you'd be honest.

I've never denied it. They did the right thing blocking a Hussein nominee, because he would doubtless have tried to install yet another liberal legislate-from-the-bench activist instead of an actual justice. We stopped that. Problem solved.
Now we have a chance to install a Conservative who will actually do the job correctly. They absolutely should do it as soon as possible. The election is immaterial; President Trump is going to be re-elected, that's just a fact. They should install a new justice now, because the executive branch isn't going to change.

Righties go on about judicial activism but I bet they have to google to find examples to support their argument; it’s mostly a talking point they heard on tv.

Factually untrue, even by Vader Ginsburg's own admission. For instance, in her infamous Madison Lecture, the dried-up old cunt said, "judges do and must legislate". She later described herself as the "leader of the liberal opposition", which should have immediately led to her dismissal, and said the Supreme Court at the time (2013) was "the most activist court in history" because of her dimwitted decisions.
She also was noted for having imposed rules about what words the other justices could and could not use in arguments, dissents, and opinions. I dont know why the other justices didnt tell her to sit down and shut up, but they obeyed when she mandated that they could not use the terms "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant" ("undocumented" was what she chose to allow), she ruled that unborn babies could not be called "babies" but rather must be known as "fetuses", and that any so-called "gendered" words were forbidden. For instance, she famously tore into Justice Clarence Thomas for saying "postman" and decreed that "letter carrier" was the allowable terminology. Again, why he and the other justices didnt tell her "go brush your tooth, you old crypt keeper-looking seahag", I have no idea.
Let's not forget the time she voted to uphold Affirmative Action at the University of Michigan, despite it being unconstitutional by both federal constitutional standards and state constitutional standards. She decided it was okay to make a blatantly activist ruling because "“We are not far distant from an overtly discriminatory past", as she put it. She therefore decided discriminating against white people is okay because things were bad for black people a century ago. Thankfully, a majority of the other, more correct justices put a stop to that shit.

I could go on, but her record of goofy, out-of-her-jurisdiction legislation from the bench speaks for itself. She was an evil, biased, partisan scumbag and we're better off without her.

In her Madison lecture she discussed the foundation of interpretation of laws by the judiciary as coming from the founders themselves, including Hamilton. It is a recognition that the norms of America would change, regarding women’s rights, slavery, etc.; that the expectations of the Constitution would change over time. It is an accepted practice fundamental to the justice system that judges will interpret laws. It’s when they interpret them contrary to someone’s beliefs that they bitch about judges doing so.

Her voting against the majority in the Michigan case ? So what? Judges disagree, that’s why there are 9 of them.

Conservatives bitch about activism when they don’t agree with the result. Citizens United and Heller overturn past precedent but conservatives don’t complain because they like the result. They are what could be defined as decisions made by activist judges, in these instances conservative justices.

There are historic cases wherein rights are established which are not specifically stated in the Constitution. Miranda is an good example; reading a suspect their rights is an accepted procedure not specified in the document, but it is a means of protecting rights defined in the Constitution. Gideon established the right to an attorney in state prosecutions, a right not specified in the Constitution. Escobedo established a right to counsel during interrogation, again a right not specifically set forth in the Constitution. Each of these decisions establish accepted norms for criminal prosecution, norms accepted by liberals and conservatives, but each could be criticized as activist rulings.

Activism is in the eye of the beholder and is just another conservative bogeyman.

[Charliesheen]

Keep that up and I may have to rethink my take on activist judges being solely on the left.

Still makes me sad that snuffing out a viable person is a constitutional right.

[Wut]

Keep that up and I may have to rethink my take on activist judges being solely on the left.

Still makes me sad that snuffing out a viable person is a constitutional right.

And capital punishment is not cruel and unusual punishment as the constitution is interpreted. There are objections to interpretation no matter what side you are on.

[AnalHamster]

If the GOP push through a nominee in under 50 days after all that derping about needing to wait 10 months, there's no real argument for the dems not just pushing through legislation to expand the number of justices and packing the court when they hold the executive, house and senate. Not like there are rules anymore. Get it to 11, then see if the GOP want to talk to set up some rules they can't break later using the threat of 15.

Gingsberg was pushed through in 45 days, dipshit

Ginsburg wasn't 'pushed through at all' , she was supported by both sides. Only 3 senators objected.

You supported the gop blocking a vote for 10 months with the stated objection that the next president should pick, now you support pushing one through in under 50 days. This is because you are a hypocritical lying fuck, and thus a republican. Qed.

With no rules remaining the dems have no rules to respect. Stick a couple extra justices in there then see if the despicable hypocritical lying fucks on the other side want to agree to some binding rules.

Your country is basically fucked at this point anyway. You need to split up.

[Cassandros]

She has remained alive through sheer willpower for months now, easily.

Honestly thought she would die right after the election results came in.

Rest in Peace.

[CaptQuint]

Fuck!!!

May she burn in hell. Probably hasn't been a SC justice in history that has caused more damage to this country ever. Let me know the burial site. I'll piss on it every year. Perfect example of why SC age limits need to be enacted. Couldn't even be conscious during legal arguments not that it mattered. The Supreme Court is supposed to be non-partisan. She was the exact opposite, when your whole legal goal is to outlive the current Administration. Well, the Bitch lost. Now, when Trump romps in 6 weeks, its- 7-2 for decades. Best news this week.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery

Go try to piss there, watch some jarhead in Dress Blues beat you into jelly

[WestTexasCrude]

Fuck!!!

May she burn in hell. Probably hasn't been a SC justice in history that has caused more damage to this country ever. Let me know the burial site. I'll piss on it every year. Perfect example of why SC age limits need to be enacted. Couldn't even be conscious during legal arguments not that it mattered. The Supreme Court is supposed to be non-partisan. She was the exact opposite, when your whole legal goal is to outlive the current Administration. Well, the Bitch lost. Now, when Trump romps in 6 weeks, its- 7-2 for decades. Best news this week.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery

Go try to piss there, watch some jarhead in Dress Blues beat you into jelly

Thanks, I will. Annually

[Reservoir Dog]

Fuck!!!

May she burn in hell. Probably hasn't been a SC justice in history that has caused more damage to this country ever. Let me know the burial site. I'll piss on it every year. Perfect example of why SC age limits need to be enacted. Couldn't even be conscious during legal arguments not that it mattered. The Supreme Court is supposed to be non-partisan. She was the exact opposite, when your whole legal goal is to outlive the current Administration. Well, the Bitch lost. Now, when Trump romps in 6 weeks, its- 7-2 for decades. Best news this week.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery

Go try to piss there, watch some jarhead in Dress Blues beat you into jelly

Thanks, I will. Annually

No. You won't.

[Whackov]

The hypocrisy is equal on both sides of this issue. The biggest difference is that in 2016, there was definitely going to be a new president because Obama was a lame duck (not that that matters). This time around, the Dems are pretending that there will be a new president but, as in 2016, it’s not over until the Fat Lady sings.

It is Trump’s job to nominate a replacement regardless of whether you like it or not.

[megman]

Fuck!!!

May she burn in hell. Probably hasn't been a SC justice in history that has caused more damage to this country ever. Let me know the burial site. I'll piss on it every year. Perfect example of why SC age limits need to be enacted. Couldn't even be conscious during legal arguments not that it mattered. The Supreme Court is supposed to be non-partisan. She was the exact opposite, when your whole legal goal is to outlive the current Administration. Well, the Bitch lost. Now, when Trump romps in 6 weeks, its- 7-2 for decades. Best news this week.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery

Go try to piss there, watch some jarhead in Dress Blues beat you into jelly

Thanks, I will. Annually

No. You won't.

Exactly.

The world roamer has never been out of Texas.

[CHEEZY17]

Fuck!!!

May she burn in hell. Probably hasn't been a SC justice in history that has caused more damage to this country ever. Let me know the burial site. I'll piss on it every year. Perfect example of why SC age limits need to be enacted. Couldn't even be conscious during legal arguments not that it mattered. The Supreme Court is supposed to be non-partisan. She was the exact opposite, when your whole legal goal is to outlive the current Administration. Well, the Bitch lost. Now, when Trump romps in 6 weeks, its- 7-2 for decades. Best news this week.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery

Go try to piss there, watch some jarhead in Dress Blues beat you into jelly

Thanks, I will. Annually

No. You won't.

Exactly.

The world roamer has never been out of Texas.

And he'd have a hard time getting back. I'm sure quite a few folks would have issue with that action. Myself included.

[Charliesheen]

[img] https://s1.r29static.com/bin/entry/547/ ... ge.jpg[img]

[CaptQuint]

[Stapes]