Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060302/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_texas_redistricting_12" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200 60302/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_texas_redistricting_12</a> >>The Supreme Court had put the Texas cases on the fast track, scheduling an unusually long two-hour afternoon session. The subject matter was extremely technical, and near the end of the argument Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dozed in her chair. Justices David Souter and Samuel Alito, who flank the 72-year-old, looked at her but did not give her a nudge. The court has struggled in the past to define how much politics is acceptable when states draw new boundaries to reflect population shifts. "The only reason it was considered, let alone passed, was to help one political party get more seats than another," the justices were told by Paul M. Smith, a Washington lawyer who represents several groups challenging the plan. "That's a surprise," Justice Antonin Scalia joked. "Legislatures redraw the map all the time for political reasons." <<
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Darkbeer ^ FYI, I found the story from a link at the Drudge Report... The title the Drudge Report used for the link... "Justice Ruth Ginsburg dozed off during Supreme Court oral arguement..." It was in the upper left of the page, just below the main title for most of Wednesday night (PST).
Originally Posted By Darkbeer And what was dishonest... The thread subject matter was that Justice Ginsburg fell asleep while court was in session, and I quoted the part of the AP article that discussed the fact that she did.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder It is even more of a joke that you're using Drudge as a defense. Do you even read what you post, in that case?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Moreover, the item about Ginsburg was one sentence long in a story that contained over 20 paragraphs.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe 2--STPH--What is the significance of revealing David Michaels? Is he wanted for something? Just curious as I always am?
Originally Posted By woody >>Do you even read what you post, in that case?<< You use that line of attack on me before. It is rather a distraction. If you read Darkbeer, you would know what HE MEANT when HE POSTED this thread. Instead, you choose to read another thing into the posts, which is rather ridiculous since he referred to Drudgereport, not you. The subject matter of this thread was Justice Ginsberg slept in part of the hearings.
Originally Posted By trailsend >>>>The subject matter was extremely technical, and near the end of the argument Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dozed in her chair. Justices David Souter and Samuel Alito, who flank the 72-year-old, looked at her but did not give her a nudge.<<<<< Topic: Justice Ginsburg falls asleep during court hearing. Don't see a thing that is misleading.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 I just don't get the significance. So what if she fell asleep? She's 72 and it was boring. I would probably fall asleep too. Ok, ideally she should be awake, but what is the implied meaning of this article? What does it prove?
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF It may not be misleading, but given that Ginsburg doesn't sit well with conservatives, it doesn't take much of a stretch to conclude that this post is yet another example of deriding a person from the "opposition."
Originally Posted By woody >>deriding a person from the "opposition."<< Finally, we get the truth. As some will say, the conservatives have REVEALED themselves!!! What an indictment!
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF Oh come off it. You don't think Darkbeer would have posted this if it had been Scalia or Alito?
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 I still don't understand the significance...does it make her a bad person?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy When a supreme court justice FALLS ASLEEP during a hearing you have a problem. I can't wait till this ACLU liberal steps down in the near future. Also, the title of the thread is not misleading at all. The topic is set up to discuss the fact that she fell asleep. Why is that hard for anyone, even a lawyer to figure out?
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF Yes, I would have a problem if I were pleading a case to the court -- *any* court -- and the judge/justice fell asleep. All I'm saying is that it's more of an issue to someone who does little else but post excerpts from and links to articles that criticize those who aren't on the conservative side of things. I also know full well that if Scalia was dozing at the bench that this would be a non-story to him...and then someone else on the liberal side would have a field day. The divisiveness gets really tiring. The focus of the article in question wasn't Ginsburg's napping, so I can only conclude that the post was calculated to make some sort of jab at someone who is, more or less, an enemy of conservatives. How hard is that for anyone, even a lawyer, to understand?
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "Yes, I would have a problem if I were pleading a case to the court -- *any* court -- and the judge/justice fell asleep." I agree, but I still don't see how this is a blemish on her character or makes her unfit. Can anybody say they have not fallen asleep during something boring? She should not have fallen asleep, but I just see this article as nothing but devisive and pointless.
