Here's what the poster said: Thomas doesn't ask questions or participate in cases. Therefore, if she isn't doing her job, neither is he. This isn't rocket science.
So you seized on an -example- "can't ask questions," instead of the main claim, "her ability to perform the job is greatly reduced," to found an inapt analogy. We don't ever see that here from the LW on this forum... 100 times a day.
Best worst ...I’ll give her that. How was your klan meeting? Call any African Americans lumps of coal today??
I replied to a poster who claimed that Ginsburg's inability to ask questions means she can't do her job. I demonstrated to him that he doesn't hold Thomas to the same standard. He affirmed that. His defense was that Thomas "upholds the constitution" or some dumb **** like that. Hilarious. A total double standard. Basically what I expect of conservatives. I didn't "seize" on an "example" (what an idiotic choice of words btw). I went out of my way to make a poster realize his own hypocrisy. It seems that was a waste of time because the poster was not only aware of his hypocrisy, but he fully embraced it. But it address your "main claim" (as I've already done in this thread), the fact that she's out sick this week and next week doesn't mean that "her ability to perform the job is greatly reduced." That's just idiocy. She's recovering from surgery. For all we know she'll be back at 100% in two weeks. Conservatives just have a hard-on for getting Ginsburg out of office. Just last week your kin were salivating at the prospect of her dying in office. Sickening.
She is expected to fully recover. There is no reason to step down. Justices are not expected to retire just because they have a medical problem. Permanent incapacitation or loss of mental function are the standards. Your conclusion of "dishonorable" is based in ignorance.
You responded to a poster who used not asking questions as an -example- within a larger claim, not that it "means she can't do her job." Get honest. Stopped reading there. Remember folks ALWAYS have a WRITTEN RECORD of ANY discussion attempted with a Leftist.
Yes. You tell the poster. There plenty of geniuses who want to SEE her back on the bench and have offered to donate their hearts, brains, liver, spleen ,,, all kinds of body parts so they can experience her return. We're not talking the sharpest tools in the shed and no one's told them that there won't be alot of SEEing going on after they're dead.
I don't think there are any rules per se. I thought I heard that a recent appointee did not participate in decisions for which they weren't present for oral arguments. Some justices in the past, like Rehnquist, worked from home and may have participated. During another absence Rehnquist abstained. While it may be unfair to the litigants, I feel more sorry for those consumed by hatred all the way to the grave. I don't want to go that way, but then I'm not a Liberal and, therefore, hatred is alien to me.