1. Jimmy Carter

[Joey Russ 7,223]

 

[Miranda lass 98]

Partly thinking it's a early prank and they just couldn't wait until Saturday 

[Miranda lass 98]

On 28/03/2023 at 14:37, Putin said:

Just wanna say that march 22 was it was 4 years since Carter surpassed GHWB final age and took over the title as the longest lived US president. So am wondering how long he will have that title before someone will surpass his age. Biden is the oldest after Carter now. So unless someone that is older then Biden becomes president later on, he have to live 18 years and 51 days after Carter dies to surpass him, if Biden lives that long then.

Most likely of the current living presidents to surpass Carter GWB and maybe Obama since he is just 61 years now.

Carter is almost 98.5 years now, and am not sure if any of the current US will reach that age, and it can take a long time before that record will be broken. Probably not so long as John Adams who was the longest lived president from when he surpassed George Washington age in 1803, untill Ronald Reagan surpassed him in 2001 after 198 years. But I can imagine it can take 50+ years before someone else surpassas Carters age.

Just wanted to share that thought, and what others on community think about this.

Is there an oldest àge you could be president or.. can you be (in theory) 103 and still sworn into office? When should the line be drawn with it?

[Joey Russ 7,223]

 

[lilham 752]

6 hours ago, Miranda lass said:

Is there an oldest àge you could be president or.. can you be (in theory) 103 and still sworn into office? When should the line be drawn with it?

you could in theory be 103 and sworn in.
there should be no line drawn. that would require amending the Constitution which is difficult and it's a waste of time on this issue.
I'm more interested in getting something like equal rights for women added to the Constitution.

[arrowsmith 445]

36 minutes ago, lilham said:

you could in theory be 103 and sworn in.
there should be no line drawn. that would require amending the Constitution which is difficult and it's a waste of time on this issue.
I'm more interested in getting something like equal rights for women added to the Constitution.

Just going to leave this here: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/#amendment-14-section-1

[lilham 752]

5 minutes ago, arrowsmith said:

Just going to leave this here: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/#amendment-14-section-1

yeah, and when Justice Scalia taught my Constitutional Law class about a decade ago, he clarified that the Federalist/Originalist point of view is that that amendment only applies to former slaves and descendents, not women. There are currently 6 Federalists on the Court. I will leave this here in response: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

 

Also proof he said that: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/scalia-says-constitution-doesn-t-protect-women-from-gender-discrimination/342789/

[arrowsmith 445]

16 minutes ago, lilham said:

yeah, and when Justice Scalia taught my Constitutional Law class about a decade ago, he clarified that the Federalist/Originalist point of view is that that amendment only applies to former slaves and descendents, not women. There are currently 6 Federalists on the Court. I will leave this here in response: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

 

Also proof he said that: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/scalia-says-constitution-doesn-t-protect-women-from-gender-discrimination/342789/

Reread your comment. Something like equal rights for women is already there. 
 

Regardless of what Justice Scalia said in an interview, I know of no opinion of his or anyone else’s that presumes Reed v. Reed to be an incorrect judgement. 
 

Also, the concept of sex has even been expanded by this court to include sexual orientation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County#Majority_opinion

 

Go back to law school. 

[lilham 752]

17 minutes ago, arrowsmith said:

Reread your comment. Something like equal rights for women is already there. 
 

Regardless of what Justice Scalia said in an interview, I know of no opinion of his or anyone else’s that presumes Reed v. Reed to be an incorrect judgement. 
 

Also, the concept of sex has even been expanded by this court to include sexual orientation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County#Majority_opinion

 

Go back to law school. 

A Republican Senator issued a press release last year saying women were not guaranteed equal rights: https://www.murkowski.senate.gov/press/op-ed/opinion-cnn-the-us-constitution-does-not-guarantee-women-equality-we-intend-to-change-that This was prior to the leaking of overturning Supreme Court precedent to preserve women's rights. (Although she surely knew the opinion was coming down as we all did). You're doing a "just trust the precedent" regarding these people? When they have told us explicitly not to? And they spelled out explicitly what we needed: an amendment? While I would very much argue in my own interpretation of the Constitution, that it confers equal rights on all citizens: it is clearly not everyone's belief, particularly some rather important decision-makers. I maintain it's a false sense of security. And I don't like relying on a false sense of security when we have the 28th Amendment ready to go. What damage would passing the 28th cause, besides your belief of redundancy? Marginalized people need loopholes closed.

You've engaged me in this thread before, regarding impeachment. That's fine. But I'm not interested in continuing discussions with people who needlessly take to personal insults. So I'm out if that continues.

[arrowsmith 445]

16 minutes ago, lilham said:

A Republican Senator issued a press release last year saying women were not guaranteed equal rights: https://www.murkowski.senate.gov/press/op-ed/opinion-cnn-the-us-constitution-does-not-guarantee-women-equality-we-intend-to-change-that This was prior to the leaking of overturning Supreme Court precedent to preserve women's rights. (Although she surely knew the opinion was coming down as we all did). You're doing a "just trust the precedent" regarding these people? When they have told us explicitly not to? And they spelled out explicitly what we needed: an amendment? While I would very much argue in my own interpretation of the Constitution, that it confers equal rights on all citizens: it is clearly not everyone's belief, particularly some rather important decision-makers. I maintain it's a false sense of security. And I don't like relying on a false sense of security when we have the 28th Amendment ready to go. What damage would passing the 28th cause, besides your belief of redundancy? Marginalized people need loopholes closed.

You've engaged me in this thread before, regarding impeachment. That's fine. But I'm not interested in continuing discussions with people who needlessly take to personal insults. So I'm out if that continues.

Fair point. Apologies for the dig. 
 

I don’t agree that I’m merely relying on precedent. This court has shown itself to have its fair share of textualists and pragmatists and I absolutely do not believe that Reed would be overturned. Further more the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act along with many other congressional acts would remain in place which ban sex discrimination in both the public and private spheres. 
 

The ERA that we have now “ready to go” is both redundant and poorly thought out. No one has ever done a decent job explaining how it would not create a sex-blind jurisprudence. Laws meant to support the advancement of women in society would be undermined; just as anti-discrimination statutes are being used to dismantle affirmative action. Even Title IX would be compromised by the ERA. Furthermore the ERA only bans discrimination by the government. It’s a lousy law. Even Justice Ginsburg thought it should be thrown out in favor of something more nuanced. There are many sexual disparities in US society but the ERA won’t fix them, and it may even exacerbate them. 

[InquilineKea 75]

98.5 years, halfway point

[Dead Wait 1,129]

15 minutes ago, InquilineKea said:

98.5 years, halfway point

Easy. 49.25 years.

[Miranda lass 98]

Eventually Jimmy will likely do a Churchill, I reckon and moan "urghh I'm bored of this" yes this was the last thing he was thought to have said

[coolman5464 24]

I just realized that Carter is the last living cold war leader.

[arrowsmith 445]

1 hour ago, coolman5464 said:

I just realized that Carter is the last living cold war leader.

No. He’s not. 
 

 

[coolman5464 24]

On 06/04/2023 at 19:42, arrowsmith said:

 
o

 

He is the last major living leader of the cold war. The rest aren't well know in the cold war.

 

[dimreaper 697]

43 minutes ago, coolman5464 said:

He is the last major living leader of the cold war. The rest aren't well know in the cold war.

 

Nikolai Ryzhkov who was premier of the Soviet Union from 1985 to 1991. That classifies him as a state leader regardless of how well known he is.

[The Daredevil 1,189]

BIden’s upcoming trip to Ireland left in doubt, as all are wondering whether Jimmy Carter will survive the week. Sounds like everyone is expecting him to go any day now.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11945217/Ireland-prepares-welcome-Biden-keeping-eye-health-Jimmy-Carter-Pope.html

[DoffinCodger 13]

4 hours ago, The Daredevil said:

BIden’s upcoming trip to Ireland left in doubt, as all are wondering whether Jimmy Carter will survive the week. Sounds like everyone is expecting him to go any day now.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11945217/Ireland-prepares-welcome-Biden-keeping-eye-health-Jimmy-Carter-Pope.html

Doesn’t really read like that at all, reads like the Irish talking about death, and the Daily Mail being the Daily Mail- I mean they’ve even thrown in the Pope! Which is like the English talking about the weather. 
 

When the White House says something then we’ll think he’s close to “any day” now. Cue death announcement in 10…. 9…. Etc. 

[Lafaucheuse 4,046]

Fuuuuck I thought it was it for a minute, the picture didn’t charge and I just saw the comments « RIP, prayers for his family »…. but it’s just Oz Nelson

 

[gcreptile 10,970]

Joe Biden arrives in Ireland today, so I would assume that Jimmy is (presumed to be) safe at least for the next days:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/apr/11/joe-biden-northern-ireland-ireland-rishi-sunak-conservatives-uk-politics-latest

[Sean 6,315]

George W Bush was abroad when Reagan died to commemorate the 60th anniversary of D-day. Presidents don`t cancel major trips just because their predecessor is on their last legs. It makes no difference where in the world you are especially in terms of addressing the nation as can be done technologically and that address will already be planned and ready to go.

[Spade_Cooley 9,525]

43 minutes ago, Sean said:

George W Bush was abroad when Reagan died to commemorate the 60th anniversary of D-day. 

 

Odd way of marking the occasion.

[Bibliogryphon 9,577]

2 hours ago, Spade_Cooley said:

 

Odd way of marking the occasion.

 

Major contribution to World Peace

[The Old Crem 3,585]

3 hours ago, Sean said:

George W Bush was abroad when Reagan died to commemorate the 60th anniversary of D-day. Presidents don`t cancel major trips just because their predecessor is on their last legs. It makes no difference where in the world you are especially in terms of addressing the nation as can be done technologically and that address will already be planned and ready to go.

Trump was in Argentina when G H W Bush died. Nobody would cancel a major trip in case someone died when they not close enough to be at the death bed only for them of course to then not die at that point.