Ginsburg's last wish was to 'not be replaced until a new president is installed': report

[Aunt Antifa]

Climate change catastrophe exclusively caused by man is not based on science. It's based on bad models and speculation.

Not according to the vast majority of the world’s scientists.

 

[tres borrachos]

The chickens have come home to roost and Obama’s profound observation that elections have consequences is being realized.

I know, right? Like the consequence of Obama winning the 2012 election and having the Constitutional authority to nominate a pick in 2016 and have his pick have a right to be reviewed by the Senate.

 

[Overitall]

I know, right? Like the consequence of Obama winning the 2012 election and having the Constitutional authority to nominate a pick in 2016 and have his pick have a right to be reviewed by the Senate.

I didn’t object to Obama nominating someone. It was his duty to do so. I didn’t agree with McConnell deciding not to allow the process to proceed with hearings to advise and consent. Even though the Constitution doesn’t specify when those hearings should take place. There is hypocrisy on both sides. If you don’t see that or admit it then you’re blind or dishonest. Elections have consequences.

 

[Tahuyaman]

I’ve been watching the news coverage of RBG. The common words bring used to describe her is “trailblazer” and “a woman of firsts”.

Exactly what trails has she blazed and what are these “firsts” she’s receiving credit for?


Why wasn’t the first woman on the Supreme Court honored one this manner when she passed away?

 

[Tahuyaman]

I know, right? Like the consequence of Obama winning the 2012 election and having the Constitutional authority to nominate a pick in 2016 and have his pick have a right to be reviewed by the Senate.

The senate elections also have consequences.

 

[goldkam]

Which are those precedents set by the Republicans?

The precedent that Mitch McConnell set in 2016. This was centralized on the principle that Obama was trying to select a nominee on an election year.

 

[goldkam]

Show where in The Constitution that rule instituted by the dems in the 1990s exists.

Which rule are you referring to in my previous answer?

The question was very unclear. I am not referring to any kind of rule, I am simply calling out inconsistencies in what has been said in the past, the actions that have been presented in the past and how these have been abandoned in favor of partisan politics.

You also still have not addressed the questions I posed in my answer.

 

[cabse5]

*SNIP*

Do you not agree that Mitch McConnell blocked President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the court on the grounds that it was an election year? <NO.>

*SNIP*.

Where do you get that there is a double standard with the Trump presidency or GOP Party concerning the nomination and confirmation of SCOTUS judges? In the history of the US, how many SCOTUS judges have been confirmed by Senates who aren't controlled by the president's party?https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/presidents-vs-opposing-senates-in-supreme-court-nominations/

But when the President belongs to one political party and the Senate is controlled by another, the process <of the Senate confirming a SCOTUS judge> is far from simple.
In recent years, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter were nominated by Republican Presidents and confirmed by a Democrat-controlled Senate. But to find a Supreme Court nominee from a Democrat President, approved by a Republican-controlled Senate, you need to go back to 1895.
The last Supreme Court nominee to come from a President whose party didn’t control the Senate was Clarence Thomas in 1991, who was nominated by President George H.W. Bush. The Democrats had 55 seats in the Senate, compared with the Republicans’ 45 seats, and it took 11 Democrats swinging their votes to Thomas for his successful nomination.
While party politics were in play for the Thomas nomination, Souter, Bush’s other Supreme Court nominee, had 90 yes-votes for his confirmation in 1990 by a Democratic-controlled Senate. In the last years of the Reagan administration, Robert Bork was rejected and Kennedy was overwhelmingly accepted by a Senate also controlled by Democrats.

In fact, all 13 of the Supreme Court nominations since 1945 that were eventually approved by an opposing party in the Senate were made by Republican Presidents. Familiar names such as Earl Warren, William Brennan and Potter Stewart were Eisenhower nominees approved by a Democrat-controlled Senate.
When President Eisenhower nominated Warren as Chief Justice in January 1954, the Democrats briefly controlled the Senate by one vote, but Warren’s nomination was easily approved in a voice vote. Eisenhower nominees like Stewart and John Harlan II also passed easily, getting at least 70 yes votes from the Democratic-controlled Senate.
But the past three Supreme Court nominees to be rejected in a Senate vote were also candidates proposed by a Republican President to a Democrat-majority Senate. Richard Nixon saw two nominees, Clement Haynsworth and Harold Carswell, get just 45 yes votes in the Senate (the GOP had 44 Senators at the time).
The well-publicized nomination of Bork to the Supreme Court by President Reagan in 1987 saw Bork get just 42 votes in the Senate, when the Republicans had just 45 seats.
Not surprisingly, in every instance since 1945 when the same party controlled the White House and the Senate, that nominee was approved. (There were two nominees in the Lyndon Johnson administration who didn’t make it to the voting stage in the Senate, partially due to a Republican filibuster.)
So what has happened when a Democrat in the White House asked a Republican-controlled Senate to approve a Supreme Court nominee? That is a rarity, because Democratic presidents such as Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter mostly dealt with a Senate controlled by their own party.
You have to go back to December 1895, when a Senate with a plurality of Republicans approved President Grover Cleveland’s nomination of Rufus Peckham to the Supreme Court in a voice vote. At that time, the Republicans had 44 Senate seats and the Democrats had 40 seats, with 6 other Senators belonging to other parties. (The Republican-controlled Senate during Cleveland’s first term in 1888 also approved two other nominees from the Democratic president: Melville Fuller and Lucius Lamar.)
In recent years, though, Presidents have made it a point to put up Supreme Court nominees when their party controlled the votes in the Senate. Since the Thomas nomination in 1991, the past six Supreme Court Justices won confirmation when the President’s party also controlled the Senate.
President Bill Clinton only had a Democratic-controlled Senate for his first two years in office, but he was able to get Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer confirmed in 1993 and 1994. President George W. Bush won his nomination battles for John Roberts and Samuel Alito, while President Barack Obama saw successful votes for Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

 

[goldkam]

Where do you get that there is a double standard with the Trump presidency or GOP Party concerning the nomination and confirmation of SCOTUS judges? In the history of the US, how many SCOTUS judges have been confirmed by Senates who aren't controlled by the president's party?https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/presidents-vs-opposing-senates-in-supreme-court-nominations/

But when the President belongs to one political party and the Senate is controlled by another, the process is far from simple.
In recent years, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter were nominated by Republican Presidents and confirmed by a Democrat-controlled Senate. But to find a Supreme Court nominee from a Democrat President, approved by a Republican-controlled Senate, you need to go back to 1895.
The last Supreme Court nominee to come from a President whose party didn’t control the Senate was Clarence Thomas in 1991, who was nominated by President George H.W. Bush. The Democrats had 55 seats in the Senate, compared with the Republicans’ 45 seats, and it took 11 Democrats swinging their votes to Thomas for his successful nomination.
While party politics were in play for the Thomas nomination, Souter, Bush’s other Supreme Court nominee, had 90 yes-votes for his confirmation in 1990 by a Democratic-controlled Senate. In the last years of the Reagan administration, Robert Bork was rejected and Kennedy was overwhelmingly accepted by a Senate also controlled by Democrats.

In fact, all 13 of the Supreme Court nominations since 1945 that were eventually approved by an opposing party in the Senate were made by Republican Presidents. Familiar names such as Earl Warren, William Brennan and Potter Stewart were Eisenhower nominees approved by a Democrat-controlled Senate.
When President Eisenhower nominated Warren as Chief Justice in January 1954, the Democrats briefly controlled the Senate by one vote, but Warren’s nomination was easily approved in a voice vote. Eisenhower nominees like Stewart and John Harlan II also passed easily, getting at least 70 yes votes from the Democratic-controlled Senate.
But the past three Supreme Court nominees to be rejected in a Senate vote were also candidates proposed by a Republican President to a Democrat-majority Senate. Richard Nixon saw two nominees, Clement Haynsworth and Harold Carswell, get just 45 yes votes in the Senate (the GOP had 44 Senators at the time).
The well-publicized nomination of Bork to the Supreme Court by President Reagan in 1987 saw Bork get just 42 votes in the Senate, when the Republicans had just 45 seats.
Not surprisingly, in every instance since 1945 when the same party controlled the White House and the Senate, that nominee was approved. (There were two nominees in the Lyndon Johnson administration who didn’t make it to the voting stage in the Senate, partially due to a Republican filibuster.)
So what has happened when a Democrat in the White House asked a Republican-controlled Senate to approve a Supreme Court nominee? That is a rarity, because Democratic presidents such as Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter mostly dealt with a Senate controlled by their own party.
You have to go back to December 1895, when a Senate with a plurality of Republicans approved President Grover Cleveland’s nomination of Rufus Peckham to the Supreme Court in a voice vote. At that time, the Republicans had 44 Senate seats and the Democrats had 40 seats, with 6 other Senators belonging to other parties. (The Republican-controlled Senate during Cleveland’s first term in 1888 also approved two other nominees from the Democratic president: Melville Fuller and Lucius Lamar.)
In recent years, though, Presidents have made it a point to put up Supreme Court nominees when their party controlled the votes in the Senate. Since the Thomas nomination in 1991, the past six Supreme Court Justices won confirmation when the President’s party also controlled the Senate.
President Bill Clinton only had a Democratic-controlled Senate for his first two years in office, but he was able to get Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer confirmed in 1993 and 1994. President George W. Bush won his nomination battles for John Roberts and Samuel Alito, while President Barack Obama saw successful votes for Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

You are ignoring or completely oblivious to the point I am making. For just one second don't look any further back than 2016. You can present all of the pre-2016 history, precedents and events but that is not my focus and never has, it is simply a distraction.

Do you not agree that Mitch McConnell said and acted in one way in 2016 and in 2020 has backflipped on that approach and is acting in a completely different manner?

*if you don't agree let's have a debate about the issues of what Mitch McConnell stated in 2016 and 2020.

 

[cabse5]

You are ignoring or completely oblivious to the point I am making. For just one second don't look any further back than 2016. You can present all of the pre-2016 history, precedents and events but that is not my focus and never has, it is simply a distraction.

Do you not agree that Mitch McConnell said and acted in one way in 2016 and in 2020 has backflipped on that approach and is acting in a completely different manner?

*if you don't agree let's have a debate about the issues of what Mitch McConnell stated in 2016 and 2020.

What's your obvious point? That you wish to rag on Trump and the Republicans?...A precedent of SCOTUS judge confirmation by the Senate be damned.

 

[tres borrachos]

I didn’t object to Obama nominating someone. It was his duty to do so. I didn’t agree with McConnell deciding not to allow the process to proceed with hearings to advise and consent. Even though the Constitution doesn’t specify when those hearings should take place. There is hypocrisy on both sides. If you don’t see that or admit it then you’re blind or dishonest. Elections have consequences.

So you admit the Republicans are hypocrites.

 

[tres borrachos]

I’ve been watching the news coverage of RBG. The common words bring used to describe her is “trailblazer” and “a woman of firsts”.

Exactly what trails has she blazed and what are these “firsts” she’s receiving credit for?


Why wasn’t the first woman on the Supreme Court honored one this manner when she passed away?

Sandra Day O'Connor is alive.

Your ignorance is astounding.

 

[cabse5]

So you admit the Republicans are hypocrites.

The Republicans in the Senate are following established precedent for the confirming of SCOTUS judges. Precedent established in the 1890s.

Just as the precedent has been established in the house of impeaching the president if the president's party doesn't control the house.

 

[tres borrachos]

The Republicans are following established precedent for the confirming of SCOTUS judges. Precedent established in the late 1800s. Just as the precedent has been established in the house of impeaching the president if the president's party doesn't control the house.

Funny they didn't follow that precedent in 2016.

Besides, precedent is irrelevant.

Glad you admit the right are hypocrites.

 

[cabse5]

Funny they didn't follow that precedent in 2016.

Besides, precedent is irrelevant.

Glad you admit the right are hypocrites.

Which precedent didn't the Senate follow in 2016?

 

[CanadaJohn]

Well, I'm actually trying to give you credit for your intelligence. I didn't think there was any sucker on Earth stupid enough to buy McConnell's new excuse.



Except McConnell set a new precedent after he blocked Garland. But lets cut the BS and just admit that Republicans and conservatives simply don't play by any rules whatsoever, have no shame, and therefore cannot be trusted, bargained with, or reasoned with.

Very funny - are you a stand-up comic in your spare time?

Democrats are famous for changing the rules in the Senate whenever the rules don't suit their agenda - Obamacare ring a bell for you?

As for McConnell's "excuse" - it was no such thing - it was, actually, an historical representation of Senate precedence as it relates to Supreme Court nominees - since 1880, I believe he noted, the process has been as he outlined the Republicans will follow this session.

I appreciate you don't like it - liberal/progressives are loathe to accept that anyone can have an agenda differing from their own - as I said previously, elections have consequences. Too bad you decided to nominate the corrupt Hillary Clinton and her pervert of a husband to run for the White House last time. Pretty bad that you couldn't find someone capable of beating Trump in 2016 but should be no surprise that the majority of Americans wanted nothing to do with a second showing of the Clintons.

And now, you've nominated Joe Biden, perhaps the most flawed of the candidates running this time around, and you'll be shocked when Americans reject the senile fool and scream stolen election. Truly pathetic.

 

[cabse5]

Very funny - are you a stand-up comic in your spare time?

Democrats are famous for changing the rules in the Senate whenever the rules don't suit their agenda - Obamacare ring a bell for you?

As for McConnell's "excuse" - it was no such thing - it was, actually, an historical representation of Senate precedence as it relates to Supreme Court nominees - since 1880, I believe he noted, the process has been as he outlined the Republicans will follow this session.

I appreciate you don't like it - liberal/progressives are loathe to accept that anyone can have an agenda differing from their own - as I said previously, elections have consequences. Too bad you decided to nominate the corrupt Hillary Clinton and her pervert of a husband to run for the White House last time. Pretty bad that you couldn't find someone capable of beating Trump in 2016 but should be no surprise that the majority of Americans wanted nothing to do with a second showing of the Clintons.

And now, you've nominated Joe Biden, perhaps the most flawed of the candidates running this time around, and you'll be shocked when Americans reject the senile fool and scream stolen election. Truly pathetic.

Dems don't like it. Dems refuse to see the precedent for the Senate not confirming SCOTUS nominees if the president is of a different political party than the Senate and call the GOP and Trump administration hypocrites.

 

[tres borrachos]

Which precedent didn't the Senate follow in 2016?

I'm not the one talking about precedent. That's you.

You should Google the words of some of the Senators in 2016 to catch up.

 

[Mason66]

I bet her last wish was to not die.

 

[cabse5]

I'm not the one talking about precedent. That's you.

You should Google the words of some of the Senators in 2016 to catch up.

What did some politicians say, then?

 

[Tahuyaman]

Sandra Day O'Connor is alive.

Your ignorance is astounding.

Answer my question. What trains did RBG blaze? What were these “firsts” she gets credit for?

Try to respond without trolling.

 

[foolardi]

What makes you think Democrats give a darn about Ginsburg, or what she would want? They haven't shown any inclination to do anything other than use her death as a political talking point.

How about them Democrats forcing her to stay alive even when her health
was critical.She should have retired years ago.I doubt she decided all on her own
to stay on the court.She was probably praised umpteen times by Democrats to
stay on the court.So yes,the Democrats dint give a squat about her health and
I doubt she decided these last 2 years to hang tough and stay on the court.
She must have been pressured by Democrat leadership to hang tough.

 

[tres borrachos]

Answer my question. What trains did RBG blaze? What were these “firsts” she gets credit for?

Try to respond without trolling.

You have to ask Mr. Google to answer your questions.

You should post and know your facts like the smart people do. Then you don't humiliate yourself by talking about the death of a woman who is very much alive. As the smart people knew.

 

[cabse5]

I know, right? Like the consequence of Obama winning the 2012 election and having the Constitutional authority to nominate a pick in 2016 and have his pick have a right to be reviewed by the Senate.

I thought you said this was about what some (GOP) politicians said and not what the precedent was concerning Senates controlled by other parties than the president's party's confirmation of SCOTUS nominees?

 

[foolardi]

Show where in The Constitution that rule instituted by the dems in the 1990s exists.

Obama didn't follow the 1992 Biden rule in 2016.The Biden Rule states that
" Once the political season is under way ... action on a Supreme Court nomination
must be put off until After the election campaign is over.
Obama in 2016 was desperate to fill the vacancy of Antonin Scalia with
his choice Merrick Garland.While Democrat Presidential candidate Hillary
was in full Campaign mode.
Howz Them Potatoes.