.Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87
The late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's last wish was to not be replaced until a new president was sworn into office, NPR reports .
"My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed," Ginsburg told her granddaughter just days before her death, according to NPR.
The liberal icon's death Friday will ignite a political firestorm over whether a new Supreme Court Justice should be nominated and confirmed before the November election
Ginsburg's last wish was to 'not be replaced until a new president is installed': report
The late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told her granddaughter that her dying wish was not to be replaced until a new president is sworn into office, NPR reports.www.foxnews.com
Fat chance, Mitch McConnell will show his hypocrisy and Lindsey Graham will show himself to be a liar,
1. Her last wish regarding the filling of a SCOTUS seat is irrelevant.
2. It is not hypocritical to fill the seat, And the left would be doing the same if they were in such a position.
Well - McConnel had to lock-down his cat-herd from errant messaging or locking themselves into a position. Crass or not, I see why he did it, though I don't see why it wasn't done via private phone call.Will?
They hardly waited to catch their breath before announcing they were going to ram through a nominee despite the lying bull**** they spewed to justify stealing Garland's seat through a refusal to do their duty of providing advice and consent. All along I've been saying I did not think the Democrats should retaliate with anything like court-packing. I changed my mind. They should
Statehood for DC especially is a no-brainer. They've got to do it. Perhaps for PR too, as you mention.- Expand the number of justices to counter the effect of GOP scumbaggery (or possibly, go farther than countering, as punishment/retaliation);
- Admit Puerto Rico and D.C. as states;
- Pass legislation requiring 60 votes for judicial nominee, and set any limitations on when a nominee might not be voted on in stone. It's important that this is legislation, not tradition, for the modern GOP is without honor.
Trumpists spent the last decade and a half, perhaps two decades, telling "the left" (which these days means anyone who isn't a Trumpist) that it is an enemy to be fought, not a group of people with different policy opinions. Time we took them at their word.
Well - McConnel had to lock-down his cat-herd from errant messaging or locking themselves into a position. Crass or not, I see why he did it, though I don't see why it wasn't done via private phone call.
Statehood for DC especially is a no-brainer. They've got to do it. Perhaps for PR too, as you mention.
I'm not crazy of the politics of packing the court, but I might come along on it.
As for predictions: I believe it is in Trump & McConnel's interest to stage a rallying political battle over the nomination going into the election, but to have the appointment vote after.
Well - McConnel had to lock-down his cat-herd from errant messaging or locking themselves into a position. Crass or not, I see why he did it, though I don't see why it wasn't done via private phone call.
Statehood for DC especially is a no-brainer. They've got to do it. Perhaps for PR too, as you mention.
I'm not crazy of the politics of packing the court, but I might come along on it.
As for predictions: I believe it is in Trump & McConnel's interest to stage a rallying political battle over the nomination going into the election, but to have the appointment vote after.
1. Her last wish regarding the filling of a SCOTUS seat is irrelevant.
2. It is not hypocritical to fill the seat, And the left would be doing the same if they were in such a position.
While Nadler certainly called for such, I doubt it will happen.If they do, then the time is nye to stack the courts.
Hilarious. It is not an election of a national popular vote. Such has no real relevance to how the president is elected.Jredbaron96 said:Only in America can a leader whom the majority of voters did not select submit a high court judge and have them approved by a congress that does not represent the majority of the populace. Tyranny by majority.
What you think they argued and what they actually argued, are two differnt things.It is when only four short years ago you argued the exact opposite regarding an Obama pick..
I'm all-in. For political, as well as 'it's the right thing to do' reasons.Add DC and PR to my list of things Democrats can do if they take the Senate (the odds of this happening are roughly a toss-up. Cross your fingers).
While Nadler certainly called for such, I doubt it will happen.
Hilarious. It is not an election of a national popular vote. Such has no real relevance to how the president is elected.
The presidential election is done by the States. The majority of which were won by the current President.
You might want to do an exact quote (and show it in context) an then try to make the comparison.What is hypocritical is what McConnell said back in 2016. He and others stated that is was not a good idea to fill a SC vacancy before the election. An election that was 9 months out. So what changed Especially when the election is much closer this time?
One side apparently sees the filling of the seat as a far more critical thing for this nation's survival. The others can be dealt with.More critical is getting a budget passed by the end of September. There are fire crews (federal) deployed. The large fires will not be out by Oct. There is the CV pandemic. Congress get your act together.
While Nadler certainly called for such, I doubt it will happen.
Hilarious. It is not an election of a national popular vote. Such has no real relevance to how the president is elected.
The presidential election is done by the States. The majority of which were won by the current President.
So far, two GOP Sen's are out - Murkowski & Collins. I'm thinking Mittens may come along, but is unlikely due to the Mormon's wanting an anti-abortion Conservative judge. So Trump is likely good, until AZ (hopefully) can put a Dem Sen in for McSally.
While it's common knowledge Pence breaks Senate 'ties', has it been ascertained that applies to SCOTUS nominations? Never know.
No what exactly? Something that I said I doubted? iLOLYou certainly do not know that for a fact!
Your reply is dumb and only speaks to what you choose to believe. Not reality.This "president" openly and aggressively obstructed all investigation into his campaign's collaboration
with foreign governments strong evidence supports he eagerly invited the assistance of to "win" by pathetically tiny margins of votes in three states.
Irrelevant to anything I said.Obama won the majority of States in 2012. McConnell blocked Obama's SC nomination. Seems to me McConnell is playing games.
You know - Biden can place two, while negotiating legislation mandating a null window for appointing judges 'x' days before an election. If they (Repubs) don't go along, keep appointing until they do.Previously, I'd have said the main danger in court-packing is that they'll just do it when/if it's their turn again. But if they're seriously going to ignore the bull they cooked up to justify stealing Garland's seat to ram a nominee through, I'm not sure what the point of worrying about such what-ifs is anymore.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?