Ginsberg says she will stay till 2020...despite not able to show up.

[LeeOnLido]

so what is the average age women live to?

 

[DOTR]

There's a reason the Trump wimps hate Ginsberg. She's been kicking their Stalinist butts for years. If it wasn't for her, they might have been able to destroy Democracy in the USA and implement their Stalinist utopia.

The funny thing is that they think it isn't obvious. Raging butthurt is almost always what motivates Trumpflakes on every issue.

"butthurt"
"trumpflakes"
"utopia"

lol. Ok off to ignore. The cringe here is too unpleasant. Its like when grandpa tries to be cool.

 

[JLW]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg will stay on Supreme Court until after 2020 election and people are delighted

There is the source.
There needs to be able to be a change where someone who ages passed the point of ability.

She embodies why we need to pop the hood open on the Constitution and tinker with it.

20 year term? I don't think we can get away with age discrimination by putting an age limit on the term.

i don't think we should.

the new rage is to jack with the constitution and tweak it to how we "feel" and this is the worst state of mind to be in when making said changes. both sides would do it for THEIR side, not the collective whole that it was written for.

ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!
why? cause they think it will make their side win more often and more easily. however doing so negates the voice of many americans, both right and left minded but hey - the vocal juvenile leadership must have *their* way and the other side just needs to learn to deal with it. at least that how it comes across to me.

as for popping the hood of what has gotten us 243 years and "tinkering" - we're not collectively smart enough to do that right now as again, people who want to do this want to do it for selfish reasons, not collective.

That is why it is so hard to amend the constitution. And why the left now amends it by court fiat. It was designed to remain as it was written unless there was a huge and clear desire for a change that had been well thought out. For the left they know they are completely at odds with the country and New York and Kalifornia alone cant amend the constitution.
For instance the Founders, in their wisdom, did not provide for women voting. The nutty progressives of the early 20th century didnt like that. But give them this....they presented it to the people and changed the Constitution legally. So there you go. No sneaky court rulings (in fact the Supreme Court had already ruled that the Constitution did not provide for female suffrage Minor vs Happersett ). No end runs. Voila a new constitution!

I think this really started changing in the 1970's. The people rejected Equal Rights and defeated an amendment. So the liberals went to court and pretended that we had passed the amendment. And they said "hey this works better than facing the citizens in a vote!".

I think everyone realizes the only way to change or abolish the electoral college is through constitutional amendment. However how each state determines the allocation of its electoral vote is up that individual state. A state could divide it proportionately or winner take all, for example. All fifty states could, theoretically, agree that all their votes go to the winner of the popular vote. Whatever method the state chooses will ultimately be decided by the electorate in that state by whom they choose to put into office. I do not see any changes occurring in the system in the near future. I do not rule out that if we have a series of presidents losing the popular vote by 3 to 4 million but winning the presidency, public opinion may change.

 

[skews13]

57% of voters will not be voting for Trump in 2020.

Sorry but we’ll be building a wall. Those voters are never going to show up.

The wall isn't going to happen

Trump is getting ready to be indicted

Congress regulates the court

If necessary more Justices will be appointed to end conservative rule

This issue is a loser for right tard America

 

[BS Filter]

so what is the average age women live to?

I think it's around 77 for women, but I have no idea how long it is for Marxist trash.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

you have no fucking problem when the ideology comes from your side. you are a fraud

Isn't it a bit early in the morning for you to begin your "I'm an irrational , foaming at the mouth lunatic" Internet Comedy act? Perhaps you've begun guzzling those copious amounts of cocaine and quaaludes for breakfast instead of waiting for lunchtime?

Oh look, a new stalker! What fun!

 

[iceberg]

She embodies why we need to pop the hood open on the Constitution and tinker with it.

20 year term? I don't think we can get away with age discrimination by putting an age limit on the term.

i don't think we should.

the new rage is to jack with the constitution and tweak it to how we "feel" and this is the worst state of mind to be in when making said changes. both sides would do it for THEIR side, not the collective whole that it was written for.

ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!
why? cause they think it will make their side win more often and more easily. however doing so negates the voice of many americans, both right and left minded but hey - the vocal juvenile leadership must have *their* way and the other side just needs to learn to deal with it. at least that how it comes across to me.

as for popping the hood of what has gotten us 243 years and "tinkering" - we're not collectively smart enough to do that right now as again, people who want to do this want to do it for selfish reasons, not collective.

The Electoral College negates the voice of Americans who clearly wanted Al Gore and Hillary to be President

it negates mob rules.

pros and cons were heavily discussed when writing the constitution. not like your pre-filled out que cards are going to say something on this topic our founding fathers didn't already cover. so when you show you can comprehend WHY they made it this way, then you'd be qualified to discuss potential changes.

going WAH WE DIDN'T WIN isn't a valid reason to change the system.

It negates one man, one vote
Some votes count more than others and it encourages minority rule

again - you are not saying anything here that wasn't blown up day 1 of writing the constitution. you are sitting here parroting your party bullet points and when confronted, you just parrot another and pretend your side thought this out.

the left is all about WE DIDN'T WIN and that's it. period. end of story. now you must find excuses and consolation prizes and don't see your short term vision can and will backfire in time.

which is why the founding fathers didn't this the emo-way the left wants to redo it now.

 

[LeeOnLido]

so what is the average age women live to?

I think it's around 77 for women, but I have no idea how long it is for Marxist trash.

but dont most brains expire by 80?, I mean, look at Pelosi and Maxine Brown, i dont even think Duracell will help them

 

[iceberg]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg will stay on Supreme Court until after 2020 election and people are delighted

There is the source.
There needs to be able to be a change where someone who ages passed the point of ability.

She embodies why we need to pop the hood open on the Constitution and tinker with it.

20 year term? I don't think we can get away with age discrimination by putting an age limit on the term.

i don't think we should.

the new rage is to jack with the constitution and tweak it to how we "feel" and this is the worst state of mind to be in when making said changes. both sides would do it for THEIR side, not the collective whole that it was written for.

ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!
why? cause they think it will make their side win more often and more easily. however doing so negates the voice of many americans, both right and left minded but hey - the vocal juvenile leadership must have *their* way and the other side just needs to learn to deal with it. at least that how it comes across to me.

as for popping the hood of what has gotten us 243 years and "tinkering" - we're not collectively smart enough to do that right now as again, people who want to do this want to do it for selfish reasons, not collective.

That is why it is so hard to amend the constitution. And why the left now amends it by court fiat. It was designed to remain as it was written unless there was a huge and clear desire for a change that had been well thought out. For the left they know they are completely at odds with the country and New York and Kalifornia alone cant amend the constitution.
For instance the Founders, in their wisdom, did not provide for women voting. The nutty progressives of the early 20th century didnt like that. But give them this....they presented it to the people and changed the Constitution legally. So there you go. No sneaky court rulings (in fact the Supreme Court had already ruled that the Constitution did not provide for female suffrage Minor vs Happersett ). No end runs. Voila a new constitution!

I think this really started changing in the 1970's. The people rejected Equal Rights and defeated an amendment. So the liberals went to court and pretended that we had passed the amendment. And they said "hey this works better than facing the citizens in a vote!".

I think everyone realizes the only way to change or abolish the electoral college is through constitutional amendment. However how each state determines the allocation of its electoral vote is up that individual state. A state could divide it proportionately or winner take all, for example. All fifty states could, theoretically, agree that all their votes go to the winner of the popular vote. Whatever method the state chooses will ultimately be decided by the electorate in that state by whom they choose to put into office. I do not see any changes occurring in the system in the near future. I do not rule out that if we have a series of presidents losing the popular vote by 3 to 4 million but winning the presidency, public opinion may change.

well the rules for voting change from state to state in how it's done and counted. if we do 1 man 1 vote or try to "popularize" it, the problems you run into are not insignificant. you'd be creating a brand new system of complexities and compensations. you simply can't say "popular vote, you won" cause it's nowhere near that simple but so many on the left have not thought it through from stem to stern.

 

[JLW]

She embodies why we need to pop the hood open on the Constitution and tinker with it.

20 year term? I don't think we can get away with age discrimination by putting an age limit on the term.

i don't think we should.

the new rage is to jack with the constitution and tweak it to how we "feel" and this is the worst state of mind to be in when making said changes. both sides would do it for THEIR side, not the collective whole that it was written for.

ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!
why? cause they think it will make their side win more often and more easily. however doing so negates the voice of many americans, both right and left minded but hey - the vocal juvenile leadership must have *their* way and the other side just needs to learn to deal with it. at least that how it comes across to me.

as for popping the hood of what has gotten us 243 years and "tinkering" - we're not collectively smart enough to do that right now as again, people who want to do this want to do it for selfish reasons, not collective.

That is why it is so hard to amend the constitution. And why the left now amends it by court fiat. It was designed to remain as it was written unless there was a huge and clear desire for a change that had been well thought out. For the left they know they are completely at odds with the country and New York and Kalifornia alone cant amend the constitution.
For instance the Founders, in their wisdom, did not provide for women voting. The nutty progressives of the early 20th century didnt like that. But give them this....they presented it to the people and changed the Constitution legally. So there you go. No sneaky court rulings (in fact the Supreme Court had already ruled that the Constitution did not provide for female suffrage Minor vs Happersett ). No end runs. Voila a new constitution!

I think this really started changing in the 1970's. The people rejected Equal Rights and defeated an amendment. So the liberals went to court and pretended that we had passed the amendment. And they said "hey this works better than facing the citizens in a vote!".

I think everyone realizes the only way to change or abolish the electoral college is through constitutional amendment. However how each state determines the allocation of its electoral vote is up that individual state. A state could divide it proportionately or winner take all, for example. All fifty states could, theoretically, agree that all their votes go to the winner of the popular vote. Whatever method the state chooses will ultimately be decided by the electorate in that state by whom they choose to put into office. I do not see any changes occurring in the system in the near future. I do not rule out that if we have a series of presidents losing the popular vote by 3 to 4 million but winning the presidency, public opinion may change.

well the rules for voting change from state to state in how it's done and counted. if we do 1 man 1 vote or try to "popularize" it, the problems you run into are not insignificant. you'd be creating a brand new system of complexities and compensations. you simply can't say "popular vote, you won" cause it's nowhere near that simple but so many on the left have not thought it through from stem to stern.

I think everyone is aware, or should be aware, of the law of unintended consequences no matter what actions may be taken now or in the future. I also agree that terms need to be clearly defined.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg will stay on Supreme Court until after 2020 election and people are delighted

There is the source.
There needs to be able to be a change where someone who ages passed the point of ability.

People miss periods of work all the time. A co-worker had breast cancer and missed more than a month of work during recovery.

You people act like this is something that never happens.

Was your 'co-worker' in their mid eighties?????????? HAAAAAA HAAAAAA!
You make it too easy asshole!
I give Ruth about four months.
I bet the DEMs are PISSED OFF the old bitch didn't resign when BONOBO was President.

What fucking difference does that make? Many people in their 80s are vibrant people. My mom is in her 80s and still hikes the Smokey mountains trails even after her husband's death.

Based on his first two picks I would be more than happy for Trump to pick the next one as well. Both his picks were fairly moderate thinkers that will not put party loyalty before the Constitution.

 

[mamooth]

lol. Ok off to ignore. The cringe here is too unpleasant. Its like when grandpa tries to be cool.

Let me give you a helpful hint. A person can only pull off the condescending routine if they're actually smart. That means I can do it. You can't, because you're kind of dim.

Remember son, stupid, drunk and butthurt is no way to go through life. Unless you're part of the Trump cult, in which case you'll fit in perfectly.

 

[iceberg]

20 year term? I don't think we can get away with age discrimination by putting an age limit on the term.

i don't think we should.

the new rage is to jack with the constitution and tweak it to how we "feel" and this is the worst state of mind to be in when making said changes. both sides would do it for THEIR side, not the collective whole that it was written for.

ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!
why? cause they think it will make their side win more often and more easily. however doing so negates the voice of many americans, both right and left minded but hey - the vocal juvenile leadership must have *their* way and the other side just needs to learn to deal with it. at least that how it comes across to me.

as for popping the hood of what has gotten us 243 years and "tinkering" - we're not collectively smart enough to do that right now as again, people who want to do this want to do it for selfish reasons, not collective.

That is why it is so hard to amend the constitution. And why the left now amends it by court fiat. It was designed to remain as it was written unless there was a huge and clear desire for a change that had been well thought out. For the left they know they are completely at odds with the country and New York and Kalifornia alone cant amend the constitution.
For instance the Founders, in their wisdom, did not provide for women voting. The nutty progressives of the early 20th century didnt like that. But give them this....they presented it to the people and changed the Constitution legally. So there you go. No sneaky court rulings (in fact the Supreme Court had already ruled that the Constitution did not provide for female suffrage Minor vs Happersett ). No end runs. Voila a new constitution!

I think this really started changing in the 1970's. The people rejected Equal Rights and defeated an amendment. So the liberals went to court and pretended that we had passed the amendment. And they said "hey this works better than facing the citizens in a vote!".

I think everyone realizes the only way to change or abolish the electoral college is through constitutional amendment. However how each state determines the allocation of its electoral vote is up that individual state. A state could divide it proportionately or winner take all, for example. All fifty states could, theoretically, agree that all their votes go to the winner of the popular vote. Whatever method the state chooses will ultimately be decided by the electorate in that state by whom they choose to put into office. I do not see any changes occurring in the system in the near future. I do not rule out that if we have a series of presidents losing the popular vote by 3 to 4 million but winning the presidency, public opinion may change.

well the rules for voting change from state to state in how it's done and counted. if we do 1 man 1 vote or try to "popularize" it, the problems you run into are not insignificant. you'd be creating a brand new system of complexities and compensations. you simply can't say "popular vote, you won" cause it's nowhere near that simple but so many on the left have not thought it through from stem to stern.

I think everyone is aware, or should be aware, of the law of unintended consequences no matter what actions may be taken now or in the future. I also agree that terms need to be clearly defined.

to me, the left doesn't care about unattended consequences. they deal with them when they get there. the right, again to me, can see where things are headed and are more prone to try and drive, even if taking the long way, to get somewhere and land in a better place.

not mocking AOC but her statement of fact don't matter when i feel this way (paraphrased yes) sum up the left today to a T. i don't discount their emotional state as a driver, but i don't drive big matters by emotion. i tend to think them through and see where it would lead in the future.

 

[hadit]

57% of voters will not be voting for Trump in 2020.

Sorry but we’ll be building a wall. Those voters are never going to show up.

The wall isn't going to happen

Trump is getting ready to be indicted

Congress regulates the court

If necessary more Justices will be appointed to end conservative rule

This issue is a loser for right tard America

If Trump leaves, President Pence appoints Buzzy's replacement. That's how it works. Think he would pick a raging liberal when he has a chance to put an actual Constitution respecting justice on the bench?

If Buzzy leaves for any reason before 2020, a Republican picks her replacement. That's why the democrats panic every time she sneezes.

They will do full retard if Trump gets to replace her.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The "left" control nothing the Republicans do, the Democrats don't....The left is not the repubs or the dems since they are centrist. Where are these hard line communist and hard line socialist of the left that you keep claiming is in power?
Just like repubs -where is the KKK, white supremacist, fascist that are in power?

Fine. I will be less subtle.

The Democrats will try to pretend RBG is still alive if we do nothing about it.

I DEMAND weekly proof that she is alive.

.

 

[iceberg]

lol. Ok off to ignore. The cringe here is too unpleasant. Its like when grandpa tries to be cool.

Let me give you a helpful hint. A person can only pull off the condescending routine if they're actually smart. That means I can do it. You can't, because you're kind of dim.

Remember son, stupid, drunk and butthurt is no way to go through life. Unless you're part of the Trump cult, in which case you'll fit in perfectly.

people who are really smart don't have to tell people they are. it just shows.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I DEMAND weekly proof that she is alive.

.

Let me know how that works out for you!

 

[Conservative65]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg will stay on Supreme Court until after 2020 election and people are delighted

There is the source.
There needs to be able to be a change where someone who ages passed the point of ability.

Does she think she should stay even if her poor health causes her death before then?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

57% of voters will not be voting for Trump in 2020.

Sorry but we’ll be building a wall. Those voters are never going to show up.

The wall isn't going to happen

Trump is getting ready to be indicted

Congress regulates the court

If necessary more Justices will be appointed to end conservative rule

This issue is a loser for right tard America

If Trump leaves, President Pence appoints Buzzy's replacement. That's how it works. Think he would pick a raging liberal when he has a chance to put an actual Constitution respecting justice on the bench?

If Buzzy leaves for any reason before 2020, a Republican picks her replacement. That's why the democrats panic every time she sneezes.

They will do full retard if Trump gets to replace her.

I would guess Pence's pick would be much worse than Trump's Pence is a true hardcore right wing fundamentalist. Trump just plays one to get votes.

 

[Moonglow]

The "left" control nothing the Republicans do, the Democrats don't....The left is not the repubs or the dems since they are centrist. Where are these hard line communist and hard line socialist of the left that you keep claiming is in power?
Just like repubs -where is the KKK, white supremacist, fascist that are in power?

Fine. I will be less subtle.

The Democrats will try to pretend RBG is still alive if we do nothing about it.

I DEMAND weekly proof that she is alive.

.

You would better spend your time completing jigsaw puzzles than waiting with bated breathe on what a legislative body will accomplish..