• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Justice Down! We have a Justice Down! RBG! Now with cancer

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Starbuck1975 said:
It’s the sensationalist nature of the reporting with no context as to the severity of her condition. Is this a routine scenario given her underlying medical history or something worst? The nature of the reporting is meant to create hysterics. I became aware of it because this thread shot right to the front page of the forum, which usually means she is sick again and I am sure for some the hope that it also means she passed away.

I for one hope she makes it to the end of Trump’s term, and put myself in her shoes as to the immense pressure she must feel just to stay alive. It’s absurd.
Click to expand...

You don't have to feel bad for her, it's self inflicted. She assumed that Clinton was going to be elected in 2016 and she preferred he appointment to be filled by a white woman rather than a black man. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Blackjack200 said:
You don't have to feel bad for her, it's self inflicted. She assumed that Clinton was going to be elected in 2016 and she preferred he appointment to be filled by a white woman rather than a black man. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Click to expand...
If she had retired during Obama's term we would have had two Garland vs. Gorsuch debacles instead of one. You have really turned into nothing more than an emotional shitposter. Sad.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
It’s the sensationalist nature of the reporting with no context as to the severity of her condition. Is this a routine scenario given her underlying medical history or something worst? The nature of the reporting is meant to create hysterics. I became aware of it because this thread shot right to the front page of the forum, which usually means she is sick again and I am sure for some the hope that it also means she passed away.

I for one hope she makes it to the end of Trump’s term, and put myself in her shoes as to the immense pressure she must feel just to stay alive. It’s absurd.
Click to expand...
Can you provide an example? The only thing I have seen is the post that bumped this thread where the headline includes "possible infection." Doesn't seem all that sensationalist to me. Are you conflating the thread title here, which is clearly sensationalist but has nothing to do with the latest reports?
 
FIVR said:
Why is the world run by these ancient geezers? All they've done for 80 years is F everything up.


Young people should rise up and take over. We are stronger than them. We can beat them up and take back the country. Physically.
Click to expand...
I suppose you don't realize that there is no fool like an old fool because young fools like you abound.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
It’s the sensationalist nature of the reporting with no context as to the severity of her condition. Is this a routine scenario given her underlying medical history or something worst? The nature of the reporting is meant to create hysterics. I became aware of it because this thread shot right to the front page of the forum, which usually means she is sick again and I am sure for some the hope that it also means she passed away.

I for one hope she makes it to the end of Trump’s term, and put myself in her shoes as to the immense pressure she must feel just to stay alive. It’s absurd.
Click to expand...

She has become a celebrity, with all that entails. The news stories about her hospitalization is really no different than the reporting about Beyoncé or other popular celebrities.
Is it too much for who she is? Is it unwarranted media sensationalism? I really don't know. What I can say is that the media is going to sensationalize those they raise up to stars, and in this day and age of autotuned popstars, millionaire sports ball players, and celebrities that are famous mostly for having become famous, I am not going to complain about one of the greatest legal minds of our nation being given the star treatment. We need more stars of her caliber, not less. Love her or hate her she has certainly contributed more to this nation than a hundred Katy Perrys.

Blackjack200 said:
You don't have to feel bad for her, it's self inflicted. She assumed that Clinton was going to be elected in 2016 and she preferred he appointment to be filled by a white woman rather than a black man. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Click to expand...

She has stated a number of times that she has no intention of ever stepping down as long as she feels she is capable of doing the job. She says she fully intends to die with those robes on.
 
Any justice getting replaced this late in the election cycle could be disastrous. I don't trust the Republicans not to cram a nomination in given the chance, and should they, I don't trust the Democrats not to pack the court in response if they win the presidency and the senate. That bleak future could lead to civil war or one party rule.
 
HurleyBird said:
Any justice getting replaced this late in the election cycle could be disastrous. I don't trust the Republicans not to cram a nomination in given the chance, and should they, I don't trust the Democrats not to pack the court in response if they win the presidency and the senate. That bleak future could lead to civil war or one party rule.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that many dems would want to do so, but I wonder if they would have enough votes in the Senate to pull it off. Even if they win the Senate, they are unlikely to have more than a 1-2 seat margin. It only takes a couple of Joe Manchins to pour cold water on an idea like that.

I say this as someone who doesn't support packing the court but does support ending the filibuster, and wonders if there will be enough votes to do it.
 
woolfe9998 said:
I have no doubt that many dems would want to do so, but I wonder if they would have enough votes in the Senate to pull it off. Even if they win the Senate, they are unlikely to have more than a 1-2 seat margin. It only takes a couple of Joe Manchins to pour cold water on an idea like that.
Click to expand...

That's true, and there's also a huge difference between, say, replacing a justice in the next few weeks vs. after a theoretical election that Trump has lost but prior to the new administration taking over. Still, I think appointing a new justice even in the first scenario is akin to playing with fire.
 
Blackjack200 said:
You don't have to feel bad for her, it's self inflicted. She assumed that Clinton was going to be elected in 2016 and she preferred he appointment to be filled by a white woman rather than a black man. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Click to expand...

You know this, of course, because of the tell all book she wrote where she said this, right?

You really have no clue as to how crazy you sound, do you?
 
HurleyBird said:
Any justice getting replaced this late in the election cycle could be disastrous. I don't trust the Republicans not to cram a nomination in given the chance, and should they, I don't trust the Democrats not to pack the court in response if they win the presidency and the senate. That bleak future could lead to civil war or one party rule.
Click to expand...
The only comfort I find in any scenario is that whenever one party opens a Pandora’s box in a stupor of power intoxication, it inevitably comes back to bite them.
 
dank69 said:
Can you provide an example? The only thing I have seen is the post that bumped this thread where the headline includes "possible infection." Doesn't seem all that sensationalist to me. Are you conflating the thread title here, which is clearly sensationalist but has nothing to do with the latest reports?
Click to expand...
The sequence of discovery for me was that I saw the thread title hit the forum front page, which prompted me to do a news search, which of course exposed me to the worst sentiments of political discourse: those who perceive her as a deity and feel entitled to her seat, and those wishing for her demise salivating at the prospect of claiming it.
 
Trying to bury that woman before she's gone has been an unproductive pastime for a number of people, some of whom have themselves shuffled off to the great beyond.
 
fskimospy said:
Of course they wouldn’t. So to be clear though we both admit that Republicans were lying when they said that adhering you precedent was the reason why they blocked Merrick Garland, right?

Click to expand...


What does "adhering you precedent" mean?

As I stated above:

My opinion is it is fine to hold off a SCOTUS appointment during an election year regardless of whom is in, office Rep or Dem.

In other words if something happened to RBG and her seat became open leave it open until after the election.
Is that clear enough for you?
 
ch33zw1z said:
Why wouldn't they? R's have shown exactly how much they care about working together since the black guy was elected. Answer? Not at all. Precedents don't matter, lying doesn't matter, projection matters tho, so you've got that going for ya.
Click to expand...


Do you have to use the word "black" in every response? 🙄

The D's have also shown how much they care about working together also. Hey this coin has two sides! Not at all.
 
zinfamous said:
Of course you have an idea. You have a very recent history of the actions of the relevant people to make an informed, adult guess of exactly how they would act. You have current, public declarations of exactly how they would act.

You seem to "not know what the republicans will do," but claim to have a very clear understanding of what the democrats would do. Why is it that you hold such differences in the ability to form a reasonable prediction, considering that the very same pools of information exist, yet your guess here aligns squarely with party lines.

How baffling!
Click to expand...


My other post:

pcgeek11 said:
OK, I don't know. However I don't think he would wait.
I don't think the dems would wait either if the roles were reversed, do you?
Click to expand...
 
pcgeek11 said:
Do you have to use the word "black" in every response? 🙄

The D's have also shown how much they care about working together also. Hey this coin has two sides! Not at all.
Click to expand...

What an odd response. In this thread, you were super concerned about false statements. And here, you make two obvious ones.

Your feels tho.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top