Telework? Is that FaceTime or echo show? Are they actually seeing her participate? Just asking because I’d hate to find out later that she was too sick to participate and everything was a fraud and some intern was doing her job? Sorry, just making sure I understand? Also has she actually started or participated in Telework yet?
You mean people didn't assume that you weren't actually losing your mind and that interns were doing your job for you?
Mr D Do you think if Husker was 85 y o, had suffered through life threatening illnesses and injuries including 3 bouts of cancer and is charged with the judicial power of our country there might have been questions concerning his ability to perform the job? Do you really think that is an unreasonable concern? sorry Sangre, couldn't let that not applicable comparison go.
I know it’s a thing. I have an Echo Show. Just wanting to know if teleworks are only video screen or is there other ways that fall under the “Teleworks” definition. But I’m thinking you don’t know the answer to the other question since you went “smart ***” on me with your first answer. Now can you verify through any reports that she has been “Teleworks” where she’s visibly doing it and where people are seeing her?
I've spoken many times with former SCOTUS clerks, and I've read several books about the Court's operations. Thus, while I'm no expert, I do have a pretty good idea of how the Court works on a day to day basis. Justices spend 95+% of their time holed up in their private office reading and writing. They pass extensive notes between chambers, typically in longhand. But the Justices rarely see each other face to face, other than for a weekly conference and open Court sessions. Ginsburg has been skipping the open Court sessions, but has been participating in the conferences. I don't know whether she's attending the conferences by video or voice only, but I'm pretty sure an intern isn't standing in for her. It certainly is conceivable that Justice Ginsburg is relying more on her interns than usual in preparing for the conferences. It's also possible that she's passing fewer notes than usual -- or maybe not. I suppose it's even conceivable that she is having interns write her notes, but I find it hard to believe that is happening.
If the work was getting done, no, they probably wouldn't care. And again, the judicial nature of her job makes her physical presence less critical than most jobs, not more.
I understand they don’t spend the day everyday ruling. All I’m asking is if she is functioning or not. It’s stupid to question people that want to know if she’s doing her job or not. They attempt to use the word “conspiracy” to stop the questioning. It wouldn’t be questioned if there was transparency. And coming from the most corrupt party ever how can anybody take them at their word.
They've been transparent, saying what she is participating in (conferences) and what she isn't (open Court sessions). The only issue is that you don't believe them. What do you want them to do -- release a video of the Court's deliberations?
Well seeing press releases would go a long way for assurance. I didn't find any up to date ones, concerning current decisions. SH can you provide a link to them . I appreciate it. NJ I also couldn't find any saying she is participating in conferences. I did read one from Roberts Jan 08 saying she would read transcripts. That of course is not the same as participating in a conference. Given how sneaky either party can be and given the extreme seriousness of a 3rd bout of cancer finding 2 malignant nodules. ( to borrow I35's point) It’s not stupid that people want to know if she’s doing her job or not.
SCOUS Press Releases: Press Releases - Supreme Court of the United States At some point HIPPA has to be considered too. That law keeps our health information private.
SH Thank you for that. Did you read the press release? It is dated Dec21,2018 and mentions nothing about her doing her duties. which is what I35 asked. No one is asking for HIPPA to be violated.
I'm actually going to agree with the libs/RINOs on this. I just don't see anything yet to be concerned about.
LOL! It's all about perspective. I see myself as a centrist but on this board I'm perceived as a "flaming liberal". As an aggregate, this board is pretty far right.
Just a few things off the top of my head: 1) The anti-Trump stuff. Being anti-Trump is not inherently left of center,especially when you make rational rational arguments about him. (personality, lying). However, some of the stuff you say is not close to being a rational conservative(Trump is building a wall to feed his ego or prove dick size). You also don't seem to be concerned with what we have seen from the Intel agencies either. 2) Some of your law interpretations are not how a conservative thinks. Before you say, "I interpret the law the way I see it", I think most lawyers do that. I'm not challenging whether you're wrong or right. I'm just saying if a case is 50/50 you have a tendency to go left. 3) Your ideas on no term limits are not conservative Don't get me wrong. I don't think you're a liberal. If you took offense to me calling you a RINO I apologize for that. I didn't mean to offend but I can't really think of a different word to describe more moderate republicans.
I wouldn't say you're a centrist but you're further right than most modern liberals. You're probably the 2nd most conservative liberal behind Crockett here on the board. What I consider the far right to be are the religious zealots or "Obama is a Manchurian candidate" crowd, which we don't have here. As you said it's all perspective.
LOL, these days if you disagree with a liberal you are far right wing and if you disagree with a conservative then you are far left wing. I believe most Americans are somewhere close to left or right of center, but get polarized and hard line when called out. People are too damned soft these days.
I hope you are correct, but there is a large percentage of Democrats that embrace socialism. That's a problem.
I think you're elevating style over substance. Distrust for Trump doesn't bear on one's conservatism or lack thereof. Staking out a position that is to the left of mainstream conservatism makes one moderate or liberal at least to a point. If a case is 50/50, I tend to go left? Have you read my commentary on constitutional jurisprudence? I'm a militant textualist. Can you specify the cases on which I've sided with the left? Really? I don't see term limits as a conservative or liberal issue. What core conservative principle is advanced by term limits? You do know that the GOP started advocating for term limits primary for self-serving partisan, not ideological, reasons, right? They pushed for it in the early '90s to try to eliminate southern Democrats whose seats they wanted to flip. You'll notice they don't make much of a push for it anymore. There's a reason for that. I'm not offended. I've heard the label before, though you're the first person who has ever applied it to me. I'm also not sure what liberal policy positions I have in common with moderate Republicans.
RBG is back at court. I may disagree with her on most issues especially her opinion of our constitution but she has my admiration for being one tough cookie.
