Ruth Bader Ginsberg has pancreatic cancer

[Foxx]

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

I agree. While many have said the Dems were keeping her “on ice” until after the election I’m thinking they wised up and “killed her off” early. 😉

there is the thinking that she has been dead for sometime and the hidden hand was waiting for the right time to unveil it.

 

is this meant to be the distraction from Durham's reveal this week? or, another gambit to get Trump?

[BillsFanNC]

2 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Ask yourself what Schumer would do if the Democrats held the Senate and there was a Democratic President. Think he'd say, "Let's wait!" If you do, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

Republicans keep playing by one set of rules, and the Democrats play by another set of rules, and pretty soon you have riots in the streets, mass election cheating, and... oh.



 

 

Another thought along these lines..

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

16 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Wait until you hear the full throated decrees that Catholics are not qualified to be on the Court.

 

I would love to see her seated before October ends.

Considering how many Catholics are currently on the Supreme Court, that would really be something.
 

[Just Joshin']

2 hours ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

I think the high ground is an important place to start. However the left has made it clear they will do everything in their power to destroy anyone who disagrees with them. The people and cities they've destroyed over the past four years is undeniable...all in the name of gaining power. They've played dirty from the moment Trump was elected. They would NEVER afford anyone the high ground. Ever.

 

Take the medium ground; praise RBG, nominate her replacement with a conservative female and do everything you can to get her on the bench. Especially because it's clear Roberts is no longer a reliable right-leaning judge.

 

You don't let moments like this go by for the sake of being a nice guy.

 

Just my cents.

Thank you and this is where I am.  If all parties worked to the same set of rules, I might say delay the nomination.  However, look at what the libs will do to get and hold power.  Was the Kavanaugh character assassination required or legit?  The fake impeachment?  The reps lying to the public when the testimony they took shows the opposite?  A coup by the FBI/CIA on a candidate/President?  Quietly backing riots and calling them peaceful protests?  The list is longer than I care to write.

 

Trump should push this through and not wait.

[Hedge]

4 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said:

Justice Ginsburg dictated a statement before her death: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed." https://t.co/XLzhPiLSng

 

"New president" "installed."

 

That's why I won't mourn her death. She was evil.

I don’t think we can discount the possibility that RBG never even actually said this. The Ds have long shown that damaging the current administration is a much higher priority than being the tellers of truths.

 

And Graham is apparently on board with a replacement:

 

 

 

 

[IDBillzFan]

7 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Considering how many Catholics are currently on the Supreme Court, that would really be something.
 

 

Kamala Harris has been very clear; Catholics have no place in any court. This should surprise no one given the amount of money she receives from PP. 

 

At least she is clear, unlike Biden, who claims to be a Catholic but fully supports late-term abortions.

[LB3]

Prayers for her family.

 

Fill the seat.

[TakeYouToTasker]

25 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Considering how many Catholics are currently on the Supreme Court, that would really be something.
 

Before Kavanaugh was appointed, and she had emerged on the short list, her “devout Catholicism” was used as an attack intended to disqualify her.

[Nanker]

3 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Ask yourself why would America have to wait four and a half years to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court? 
 

2 hours ago, GG said:

No reason for the nomination to wait.   Confirmation can be held after the election.  

This is the way to go.
 

1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

So, I will not go into this not being "her" seat, it is the people's seat. I want to dwell on the statement, supposedly from Ruth Ginsberg,  released by her granddaughter. I decided to look up the granddaughter. Clara Spera has ties to Lawfare and Brookings Institute.   Infer from that what you will.

 

I’ll be kind and will try to think that Ms. Spera took license with the verbiage. Presidents aren’t “installed,” they’re voted into office. 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Capco]

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

My question(s)...was her decision to hold on purely political, was her statement about waiting on her successor unnecessarily incendiary and finally, why on earth would any president pass up the opportunity to nominate their choice for justice regardless of timing?  DJT was elected for a reason, and the SC was a big part of that reason.  

Good afternoon leh-nerd.  Thank you for your comments and questions.  I'll offer my perspective on them.

 

Firstly, it's hard to say what was going on in her head, but if I had to guess I don't think she was playing politics as much as she felt like she was doing the morally "right" thing.  I think she felt like her being on the Court was a net positive influence on the well-being of the country's citizenry.  I've had the chance to read some of her opinions this semester and she was simply an excellent and talented jurist.  

 

Secondly, I took her statement about a successor to be a piggyback on my earlier statement:  waiting until after the election is, in her opinion, the morally "right" thing to do and best for the country as a whole.  

 

Finally, I think there was traditionally something to be said for decorum in politics.  I know that's hard to believe considering how the last 20-30 years have transpired politically, but politics wasn't as cutthroat and divisive as it is today.  I think Trump could make a pivotal statement for the election by promising not to nominate a judge until after the election.  That way he could put his money where his mouth is.  If he gets re-elected and the Senate holds its majority, then they still get their pick anyway AND get to hold the moral high ground.  

[spartacus]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

THOUGHTS ON THE PASSING OF RUTH BADER GINSBURG

by Paul Mirengoff

 

 

President Trump got it right last night when he called the late Justice Ginsburg an amazing woman with an amazing life. She is the foremost female the American legal profession has produced to date, and it’s unlikely that she will be surpassed any time soon.

 

Ginsburg was fierce partisan and liberal ideologue. Yet, she is said to have forged and maintained a strong friendship with the late Justice Scalia. This speaks to the grace and character of both jurists.

 

I don’t know how Ginsburg’s passing and the ensuing battle to replace her will effect the election. My sense is that it will have little direct impact on the presidential election, where the battle lines are set.

 

The future of the Supreme Court is a big deal, of course. Indeed, there is no issue in the presidential race that is more important. But both sides are about equally passionate on the matter, it seems to me.

 

If there is an impact on the presidential election, it might come if/when the Supreme Court decides the outcome. Things were setting up for a 5-4 decision, with Chief Justice Roberts as the swing vote.

 

Now, the alignment might end up being 4-3-1 (with conservatives in the plurality). If so, Roberts would still be the key vote. He could join the strong conservatives in a 5-3 majority or join the liberals, making the vote 4-4. A tie would mean leaving in place whatever decision was reached below. Would Roberts want a president to take office by virtue of a deadlocked Supreme Court and a lower court ruling?

 

I should emphasize, however, that facts will matter if the case is before the Supreme Court. Both sides will probably need a decent case for the potential deadlock I have suggested to occur.

 

If there is a direct electoral effect from Ginsburg’s passing, it might occur in tight Senate races involving endangered incumbents like Susan Collins, Thom Tillis, and Cory Gardner. That effect could vary from race to race, and will depend, in part, on what the candidates say and/or promise regarding filling the vacancy.

 

As for having a vote before Election Day, that seems unlikely to me for logistical and political reasons. The calendar, in the context of an election, seems highly problematic.

 

Confirmation before the election would be, as well. Sens. Collins, Murkowski, and Romney seem certain not to vote for confirming a Justice pre-election. Embattled incumbents might think they would be giving their job away by voting to confirm a strong, controversial conservative.

 

As for confirming a nominee if Trump loses, I think that’s unlikely too. Again, three no votes seem cast in stone. Good luck herding the remaining 50 GOP Senators, including lame ducks, into the fold.

Confirmation of a Justice by a lame duck Senate would increase the likelihood that Democrats will succeed in packing the Court at the first available opportunity. This, too, might deter a few Republican Senators.

 

As for whom Trump will nominate, I expect him to pick the person he concludes will maximize his reelection chances — maybe Judge Amy Barrett who might galvanize conservatives and evangelicals. This seems especially true if he believes the likelihood of confirming anyone he nominates is low, in the event Biden wins.

 

More at the link

"packing the court"- is such a copout to not push to fill the seat

after trying to execute a coup- who in their right minds doesn ot thing the D's will pack the court at the next avaialble opportunity

 

 

[Dr. Who]

8 minutes ago, spartacus said:

"packing the court"- is such a copout to not push to fill the seat

after trying to execute a coup- who in their right minds doesn ot thing the D's will pack the court at the next avaialble opportunity

 

 

When a Democrat is telling you to take the moral highground, they are asking you to make a tactical mistake for the applause of the corrupt media that is, of course, a reliably leftist megaphone. When you go high, they go low. When you play smart, they go lower. When they go really low, they call it high, because the left has its own sharia law where evil is okay if it results in liberal power.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Dr. Who

[snafu]

1 hour ago, RiotAct said:

Trump is toast either way this November.

 

If that’s the case, then get on with the replacement. 

I don’t think that’s the case, however.  I doubt Trump thinks he’s toast.

 

[SoCal Deek]

I thought I read her last statement was “Go Bills!” but I may be wrong. 

[Capco]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

When a Democrat is telling you to take the moral highground, they are asking you to make a tactical mistake for the applause of the corrupt media that is, of course, a reliably leftist megaphone. When you go high, they go low. When you play smart, they go lower. When they go really low, they call it high, because the left has its own sharia law where evil is okay if it results in liberal power.

 

None of this applies to me and I'm about as left as they come.  Don't paint with such broad brushstrokes.  

[BillsFanNC]

 

[snafu]

3 hours ago, GG said:

No reason for the nomination to wait.   Confirmation can be held after the election.  

 

Unless the Senate flips in early November.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

4 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

You guys regretting the nuclear option yet?

 

It's hilarious to watch the left get hoisted by their own petard over and over again. 

 

3 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

As a staunch conservative let me go on record by saying that RBG’s replacement should wait until after the election. However, I believe it’s important that BOTH Trump and Biden put forth their top three potential candidates within the next two weeks. 

 

Understandable and even commendable. But honest question, if the left were in the position Trump is today, do you think they would hesitate or ram someone through? This is the party that wants power at any cost. If you want to beat them, you have to FIGHT them on their terms. That means doing things like this. 

3 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Ask yourself what Schumer would do if the Democrats held the Senate and there was a Democratic President. Think he'd say, "Let's wait!" If you do, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

Republicans keep playing by one set of rules, and the Democrats play by another set of rules, and pretty soon you have riots in the streets, mass election cheating, and... oh.



 

 

Beat me to it.  

13 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

None of this applies to me and I'm about as left as they come.  Don't paint with such broad brushstrokes.  

 

But it does apply to the political class of your chosen party. They're the ones who count since they're the ones making the call, no? 

9 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Unless the Senate flips in early November.

 

 

That's not possible now with this news. RBG's death tilts the Senate races that might have gone blue back into firm red territory.

[Foxx]

1 hour ago, Capco said:

Good afternoon leh-nerd.  Thank you for your comments and questions.  I'll offer my perspective on them.

 

Firstly, it's hard to say what was going on in her head, but if I had to guess I don't think she was playing politics as much as she felt like she was doing the morally "right" thing.  I think she felt like her being on the Court was a net positive influence on the well-being of the country's citizenry.  I've had the chance to read some of her opinions this semester and she was simply an excellent and talented jurist.  

 

Secondly, I took her statement about a successor to be a piggyback on my earlier statement:  waiting until after the election is, in her opinion, the morally "right" thing to do and best for the country as a whole.  

 

Finally, I think there was traditionally something to be said for decorum in politics.  I know that's hard to believe considering how the last 20-30 years have transpired politically, but politics wasn't as cutthroat and divisive as it is today.  I think Trump could make a pivotal statement for the election by promising not to nominate a judge until after the election.  That way he could put his money where his mouth is.  If he gets re-elected and the Senate holds its majority, then they still get their pick anyway AND get to hold the moral high ground.  

the moral high ground? 😄

 

she expired on Trump's watch, it is his solemn duty to nominate a replacement.

[Capco]

11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

But it does apply to the political class of your chosen party. They're the ones who count since they're the ones making the call, no? 

 

So the people don't count but the political class does?  Isn't that the opposite of your own stance?  

 

And I wouldn't even acknowledge your first sentence as truthful or accurate.  That lens only applies in the sense that it's the lens that people who irrationally dislike Democrats use to view them through.  

 

That guy thinks that Democrats think "evil is okay if it results in liberal power."  There's something seriously wrong with assuming roughly half the civil servants in this country believe those words.  It's indicative of how sick and ill our country is, if anything.  

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Capco said:

Good afternoon leh-nerd.  Thank you for your comments and questions.  I'll offer my perspective on them.

 

Firstly, it's hard to say what was going on in her head, but if I had to guess I don't think she was playing politics as much as she felt like she was doing the morally "right" thing.  I think she felt like her being on the Court was a net positive influence on the well-being of the country's citizenry.  I've had the chance to read some of her opinions this semester and she was simply an excellent and talented jurist.  

Secondly, I took her statement about a successor to be a piggyback on my earlier statement:  waiting until after the election is, in her opinion, the morally "right" thing to do and best for the country as a whole. 

 

Finally, I think there was traditionally something to be said for decorum in politics.  I know that's hard to believe considering how the last 20-30 years have transpired politically, but politics wasn't as cutthroat and divisive as it is today.  I think Trump could make a pivotal statement for the election by promising not to nominate a judge until after the election.  That way he could put his money where his mouth is.  If he gets re-elected and the Senate holds its majority, then they still get their pick anyway AND get to hold the moral high ground.  

 

Capco, thanks for you comments so far on Justice Ginsberg.

 

Am curious about the bolded.  She didn't seem to hold this same opinion back in 2016.  With that being the case, her view that a D should pick her replacement (let's be honest about why she was so adament about staying on the SC until 2021) sure seems to be based on politics rather than morals.

 

Why do you view it as a moral stance rather than a political one?

[Uncle Joe]

9 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

So the people don't count but the political class does?  Isn't that the opposite of your own stance?  

 

And I wouldn't even acknowledge your first sentence as truthful or accurate.  That lens only applies in the sense that it's the lens that people who irrationally dislike Democrats use to view them through.  

 

That guy thinks that Democrats think "evil is okay if it results in liberal power."  There's something seriously wrong with assuming roughly half the civil servants in this country believe those words.  It's indicative of how sick and ill our country is, if anything.  

Capco I appreciate your dialogue. However, after watching the defamation hearings of Brett Kavanaugh the political class of the Democrats was truly classless.

[Capco]

Just now, Taro T said:

 

Capco, thanks for you comments so far on Justice Ginsberg.

 

Am curious about the bolded.  She didn't seem to hold this same opinion back in 2016.  With that being the case, her view that a D should pick her replacement (let's be honest about why she was so adamant about staying on the SC until 2021) sure seems to be based on politics rather than morals.

 

Why do you view it as a moral stance rather than a political one?

 

Simply put, I think she felt her political views were morally right and legally sound. 

 

For example, both sides on the abortion debate believe they are acting on morality.  Some say it is immoral to take away a woman's right to bodily autonomy.  Others say it is immoral to prevent a fetus from becoming a human being.  Morality and politics often intersect.  

 

When she made that dying statement, I believe she was doing it with regards to what she thought is best for the country as a whole.  Roe v. Wade is in extreme jeopardy of being overturned if the balance of the Court swings 6-3 in favor of the conservatives. 

 

The politics are just the path to the moral end-game, if that makes sense.  

[whatdrought]

5 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

Simply put, I think she felt her political views were morally right and legally sound. 

 

For example, both sides on the abortion debate believe they are acting on morality.  Some say it is immoral to take away a woman's right to bodily autonomy.  Others say it is immoral to prevent a fetus from becoming being a human being.  Morality and politics often intersect.  

 

When she made that dying statement, I believe she was doing it with regards to what she thought is best for the country as a whole.  Roe v. Wade is in extreme jeopardy of being overturned if the balance of the Court swings 6-3 in favor of the conservatives. 

 

The politics are just the path to the moral end-game, if that makes sense.  

 

Fixed. 

[Capco]

13 minutes ago, Uncle Joe said:

Capco I appreciate your dialogue. However, after watching the defamation hearings of Brett Kavanaugh the political class of the Democrats was truly classless.

 

I know it was Harry Reid who went nuclear, but it was Mitch McConnell who extended that to the SCOTUS.  I think for the sake of not politicizing the most respected of the three branches of government, SCOTUS appointments should require a 60 vote minimum.  Regardless of who is to blame for this change, let me ask you this:

 

Could Brett Kavanaugh have been confirmed with a 60 vote majority?  

 

Personally, I don't think so.  The Republicans are politicizing the Court by nominating someone who would never have gotten in under the old standard.  And if the Republicans were required to nominate someone with a 60 vote majority in mind, they would have selected a much less controversial candidate; one that would have politicized the Court to a significantly lower degree.  

 

I think the Court is at it's best when the Justices aren't ideologues and their rulings on a given case are far more unpredictable than their political views might suggest.  

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Alaska Darin]

4 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

I know it was Harry Reid who went nuclear, but it was Mitch McConnell who extended that to the SCOTUS.  I think for the sake of not politicizing the most respected of the three branches of government, SCOTUS appointments should require a 60 vote minimum.  Regardless of who is to blame for this change, let me ask you this:

 

Could Brett Kavanaugh have been confirmed with a 60 vote majority?  

 

Personally, I don't think so.  The Republicans are politicizing the Court by nominating someone who would never have gotten in under the old standard.  And if the Republicans were required to nominate someone with a 60 vote majority in mind, they would have selected a much less controversial candidate; one that would have politicized the Court to a significantly lower degree.  

 

I think the Court is at it's best when the Justices aren't ideologues and their rulings on a given case are far more unpredictable than their political views might suggest.  

The old standard where Democrats weren't completely corrupt?  There was NO reason Kavanaugh shouldn't be confirmed.   That entire circus was as corrupt and fake as anything in recorded history.   Anyone involved in it should be drawn and quartered.

[Capco]

7 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

There was NO reason Kavanaugh shouldn't be confirmed.   That entire circus was as corrupt and fake as anything in recorded history.   

 

Brett Kavanaugh, just like Clarence Thomas, has no place on the Court.  And for the same reasons.  

 

7 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

The old standard where Democrats weren't completely corrupt?... Anyone involved in it should be drawn and quartered.

Sentiments like these are again indicative of a very serious illness that has infected this country.  

Edited September 19, 2020 by Capco

[Alaska Darin]

13 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

Brett Kavanaugh, just like Clarence Thomas, has no place on the Court.  And for the same reasons.  

 

Sentiments like these are again indicative of a very serious illness that has infected this country.  

Absolute, utter nonsense.  Kavanaugh is SO squeaky clean that liberals had to go back to 1982 to make up something you fools could believe.  Even then, they had to use the tired "he had sex with someone non-consensually" and parade the least likely coed at the college.   To top it off, the got a couple more losers to try to pile on, which completely backfired when they were debunked in about 3 minutes.  Guess they couldn't find anyone with even a minor amount of credibility to label him a racist, so they had to go all the way to page 2 of their playbook. 

 

You can call it an illness but allowing political operatives to smear good people should be a death penalty offense, if for no other reason than to completely discourage it. It is treasonous behavior in the name of political power and it is NEVER ok.  Liberals love to pass laws and use garbage reasons like "if it affects one child" yet they have no issue ruining ANYONE's good name to keep power.

 

Off the cliff, lemmings.

[TakeYouToTasker]

22 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

I know it was Harry Reid who went nuclear, but it was Mitch McConnell who extended that to the SCOTUS.  I think for the sake of not politicizing the most respected of the three branches of government, SCOTUS appointments should require a 60 vote minimum.  Regardless of who is to blame for this change, let me ask you this:

 

Could Brett Kavanaugh have been confirmed with a 60 vote majority?  

 

Personally, I don't think so.  The Republicans are politicizing the Court by nominating someone who would never have gotten in under the old standard.  And if the Republicans were required to nominate someone with a 60 vote majority in mind, they would have selected a much less controversial candidate; one that would have politicized the Court to a significantly lower degree.  

 

I think the Court is at it's best when the Justices aren't ideologues and their rulings on a given case are far more unpredictable than their political views might suggest.  

Here’s the problem I see with your logical process.

 

Legislative norms are legislative norms because they are the way things are always done.

 

They protect the process because no one is willing to do something that simply isn’t done.

 

Things That Simply Are Not Done, are never done.  It’s essentially a self-protecting suit of armor.

 

However, once such a thing IS done, it is much easier to do again. 

[Capco]

1 minute ago, Alaska Darin said:

Absolute, utter nonsense.  Kavanaugh is SO squeaky clean that liberals had to go back to 1982 to make up something you fools could believe.  Even then, they had to use the tired "he had sex with someone non-consensually."  To top it off, the got a couple more losers to try to pile on, which completely backfired when they were debunked in about 3 minutes.  Guess they couldnt' find anyone with even a minor amount of credibility to label him a racist. 

 

Off the cliff, lemmings.

 

If he was so squeaky clean, he would have gotten more than 1 Democratic vote.  This was literally the narrowest appointment in the history of the Court.  

 

By comparison, RBG was appointed with a vote of 96-3.  That confirmation represented someone with an actual squeaky clean record.  

[Alaska Darin]

1 minute ago, Capco said:

 

If he was so squeaky clean, he would have gotten more than 1 Democratic vote.  This was literally the narrowest appointment in the history of the Court.  

 

By comparison, RBG was appointed with a vote of 96-3.  That confirmation represented someone with an actual squeaky clean record.  

Way to read the tea leaves on how politics currently works.  One party is literally willing to allow their own cities to burn because it looked like it might help get the vote out on election day, yet you're sitting here pretending that same mentality played NO part in a SCJ confirmation of a known conservative justice.  You are either naive or dumb as hell.. 

 

You don't have to worry about replying to this, you're just another lemming who can't see what's going on right in front of your face.  You aren't worth the time.

[Taro T]

23 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

I know it was Harry Reid who went nuclear, but it was Mitch McConnell who extended that to the SCOTUS.  I think for the sake of not politicizing the most respected of the three branches of government, SCOTUS appointments should require a 60 vote minimum.  Regardless of who is to blame for this change, let me ask you this:

 

Could Brett Kavanaugh have been confirmed with a 60 vote majority?  

 

Personally, I don't think so.  The Republicans are politicizing the Court by nominating someone who would never have gotten in under the old standard.  And if the Republicans were required to nominate someone with a 60 vote majority in mind, they would have selected a much less controversial candidate; one that would have politicized the Court to a significantly lower degree.  

 

I think the Court is at it's best when the Justices aren't ideologues and their rulings on a given case are far more unpredictable than their political views might suggest.  

 

Thanks for your response to my question in the other post. 

 

Your question about COULD a nominee reach 60 isn't quite the appropriate one now, unfortunately.  Because pretty sure there isn't a single judge on the SC bench that would get to 60 TODAY.  Though believe that all of them that were SCJ's 2 days ago (w/ the possible exception of Sotomayer) SHOULD recieve near unanimous approval were they coming up for nomination today.  The appropriate Q IMHO is SHOULD the nominee get to 60.

 

The system for selecting judges has become broken.  IMHO the biggest part of that is due to Harry Reid's hubris, though that's not the entirety of it.

 

Need to look closer at Barrett's or the judge from Miami's history, but right now expect either SHOULD be approved should she be nominated.  (44's last nominee probably should've been approved as well, though truth be told am glad he wasn't.)

[Capco]

1 minute ago, Alaska Darin said:

Way to read the tea leaves on how politics currently works.  One party is literally willing to allow their own cities to burn because it looked like it might help get the vote out on election day, yet you're sitting here pretending that same mentality played NO part in a SCJ confirmation of a known conservative justice.  You are either naive or dumb as hell.. 

 

You don't have to worry about replying to this, you're just another lemming who can't see what's going on right in front of your face.  You aren't worth the time.

 

Well, okay then.  It was nice chatting with you!  Take care.  

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, Capco said:

 

If he was so squeaky clean, he would have gotten more than 1 Democratic vote.  This was literally the narrowest appointment in the history of the Court.  

 

By comparison, RBG was appointed with a vote of 96-3.  That confirmation represented someone with an actual squeaky clean record.  

Imagine thinking not getting votes from a group of rigid partisans who voted in lock step to impeach the President on the back of a stack of lies that they knew were untrue was a valid critique of a person that same President nominated.

 

The truth, and you know it’s the truth, is that Democrats weren’t going to vote to confirm anyone but Merrick Garland, and some would have voted against even him for no other reason than Trump had appointed him.

[Capco]

2 minutes ago, Taro T said:

The system for selecting judges has become broken.  IMHO the biggest part of that is due to Harry Reid's hubris, though that's not the entirety of it.

 

You have no idea how much I hate Harry Reid for this.  I remember calling it out when it happened and that it would come back to bite this country (not just the party, but the country) right in the a$$.  Hubris indeed.  

 

You're right though.  The system right now is broken.  And unfortunately I think the situation is still going to get worse before it gets better.  

[Doc Brown]

5 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

I think there’s a fairly sound argument to be made that the Court should be at full compliment for the inevitable challenges to the upcoming election results.

There doesn't even need to be a rationale.  All the whataboutisms, hypocrisy, increased polarization in Congress, and politicization of the Supreme Court won't matter.  McConnel is the majority leader of the Senate who was elected by voters and has every right under the constitution to do whatever he wants with a president's nominee.  It's as true now as it was when Obama nominated Garland.  Just really bad luck for the Democrats.

 

Just as an observation it's somewhat depressing that the Supreme Court has become so politicized to the point where people (especially pro life activists in this case) cheered internally that another human being died because it was before the election.  It's simple human nature when you care that deeply about something and you don't know that person personally.  How did we get to this point?

[Alaska Darin]

7 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Imagine thinking not getting votes from a group of rigid partisans who voted in lock step to impeach the President on the back of a stack of lies that they knew were untrue was a valid critique of a person that same President nominated.

 

The truth, and you know it’s the truth, is that Democrats weren’t going to vote to confirm anyone but Merrick Garland, and some would have voted against even him for no other reason than Trump had appointed him.

From the party that chose Joe Biden, who literally has video of consistent abhorrent behavior towards women.  Boundless hypocrisy, with frightening consistency, all made possible by a media so compliant that even Hitler would be proud.

[Capco]

10 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

The truth, and you know it’s the truth, is that Democrats weren’t going to vote to confirm anyone but Merrick Garland, and some would have voted against even him for no other reason than Trump had appointed him.

 

And there was no rigid partisanship on behalf of the Republicans during the nomination of Merrick Garland?  Republicans don't vote in lock step either?  

 

Again, I'm trying to avoid piling blame on one side but most of the people here keep playing politics.  It's not just the Democrats that are partisan.  

 

Nothing is going to get better if all we do is point fingers at each other.  This is starting to look like the 1850s all over again.