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

[cabse5]

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.

I think Ginsburg was involved in some decision making in staying on even though her health was bad. There are reports of her reviewing cases while in the hospital.

 

[cabse5]

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.

Not in The Constitution. A precedent of congress, I guess?

 

[foolardi]

I think Ginsburg was involved in some decision making in staying on even though her health was bad. There are reports of her reviewing cases while in the hospital.

The New Rule should be.
DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE Trust what Democrats say.
They Lie as a matter of course.They are hypocritical as a matter of course.
They are the ones who Play The Blame Game,The Cancel Culture Game a
the Woke Game.They are adulterated Miscreants poising as American Pols.

 

[foolardi]

Not in The Constitution. A precedent of congress, I guess?.

That is correct the 1992 Biden rule was of Biden's own making.
As Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee { 1987-1995 }.

 

[Tahuyaman]

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.

So, you have no idea what trails she supposedly blazed or what “firsts” she can take credit for?

You sure do have a habit of trolling though.

 

[Anthony60]

You are actually joking right?

Obama made a nomination, yes that is correct. Why did McConnell feel it was best to wait? Surely that would not be a politically driven decision intended to benefit the Republican Party......To be clear there is no guarantee someone is out until after the election, that argument is flawed and poor attempt to distort the reality. That is the reality that Mitch McConnell applies one principle for the Republicans in 2016 and another principle for the Republicans in 2020. Inconsistent and partisan politics this old man plays.

It was a poor choice, there was no need to go any further. It only made sense to wait and see if Trump won, then they would get a better nominee.

Do you not agree that different principles are being applied. One for 2016 and one for 2020?

It's a different situation now, isn't it?

No it is not different. That is simply untrue and a lie. Its election year and a Supreme Court justices position is vacant. The same principle should be applied.

No, it's quite different. Tell me why that Trump should be the first President ever to not make a nomination in this situation.

Trump is going to win the election right.....so why can't he select a person after he wins the election and is once again mandated by the American people.

No reason at all to wait. As Ginsburg said, he's elected for four years, not three.

The crux of what I am saying is this.....the Supreme Court justices that are selected should represent the Presidency that was mandated by the people. This is about representing the people and the values they hold. If the people mandate a more progressive agenda from Biden the nominee should embody that. If the people mandate a more conservative agenda from Trump the nominee should embody that.

Then why didn't Obama wait? The people voted for Trump, he's the person that was elected to be President. It's literally his job to nominate someone.

 

[Metric Mouse]

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.

Ginsburg worked literally until she was unable to. She kicked cancer's rear multiple times. I can't imagine criticizing a woman who dedicated her life to public service the way she had for "working too long." She made her choices about when to leave the court, and I would never feel it my place to say she made the wrong ones. I doubt she caved to any pressure from anyone, as much as they may have tried to pressure her.

 

[Anthony60]

I agree Obama made the nomination. I agree Obama was from the opposing side. I agree they were not to McConnell's liking.

I am not in denial about the facts. I pointing out to you that the principle/precedent that McConnell set in 2016 is now been abandoned in favor of partisan politics. What if Biden gets in, in November. How is a Republican endorsed and selected judge representative of the mandate made by the American people for a more progressive agenda? If Trump is so confident and if his supporters are so confident he will be elected again, why can he not select the nominee once he has been mandated by the American people again?

And I'm pointing out that there was no precedent set. It's a totally different situation. If HRC had won the election, McConnell would wait. But, not in this situation, because it is different.

 

[Metric Mouse]

So, you have no idea what trails she supposedly blazed or what “firsts” she can take credit for?

You sure do have a habit of trolling though.

Some people only post drive by attacks, and offer nothing to the forum. Smart people block them and do not feed them; it honestly makes a better experience.

 

[tres borrachos]

So, you have no idea what trails she supposedly blazed or what “firsts” she can take credit for?

You sure do have a habit of trolling though.

Why are you asking me to answer questions you have? Google it for yourself. I'm not your research assistant.

Why did you not know that Sandra Day O'Connor was live?

 

[Tahuyaman]

Why are you asking me to answer questions you have? Google it for yourself. I'm not your research assistant.

Why did you not know that Sandra Day O'Connor was live?

If you’re just going to troll, nip at someone else’s ankles.

 

[Tahuyaman]

Some people only post drive by attacks, and offer nothing to the forum. Smart people block them and do not feed them; it honestly makes a better experience.

Sometimes a troll might stop trolling if they are encouraged to actually participate in a discussion.

I still wish someone could tell me what made RGB a trailblazer abd what “first” was she credited with? The first Roman to die while on the court?

 

[tres borrachos]

If you’re just going to troll, nip at someone else’s ankles.

Pointing out how ignorant your post is was not "trolling". If you can't handle it you shouldn't be on a debate board. This isn't a garden party.

You were trolling by whining about Sandra Day O'Connor not being treated like RBG when she passed away. She didn't pass away. You just whined and trolled.

 

[trouble13]

I agree Obama made the nomination. I agree Obama was from the opposing side. I agree they were not to McConnell's liking.

I am not in denial about the facts. I pointing out to you that the principle/precedent that McConnell set in 2016 is now been abandoned in favor of partisan politics. What if Biden gets in, in November. How is a Republican endorsed and selected judge representative of the mandate made by the American people for a more progressive agenda? If Trump is so confident and if his supporters are so confident he will be elected again, why can he not select the nominee once he has been mandated by the American people again?

The simple answer is that neither side is confident of their chances to win. Most realistic people expect the election to be very close and it can swing in either direction.
Republicans wont wait for a couple of reasons.
1. A bird is in hand is better than 2 in the bush.
2. The attention the nominations will receive and the implications of it serve as good political ammunition to fire up the party's turn out in Nov.
If the republicans buckle and wimp out on this, they run the risk of their base turning on them. They are as much hostage to their base as democrats are to their base.

 

[trouble13]

Sometimes a troll might stop trolling if they are encouraged to actually participate in a discussion.

I still wish someone could tell me what made RGB a trailblazer abd what “first” was she credited with? The first Roman to die while on the court?

She is revered by the left because she was a reliably partisan vote in favor of progressives. Her title as a trail blazer is about as genuine as obamas nobel peace prize.

 

[trouble13]

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.

Yet you dont object to the democrat majority house of repersenitives exercising their constitutional authority to obstruct Trumps agenda. If it wasnt for double standards you would not have any at all.

 

[tres borrachos]

Yet you dont object to the democrat majority house of repersenitives exercising their constitutional authority to obstruct Trumps agenda. If it wasnt for double standards you would not have any at all.

The Congress doesn't exist to support a "President's agenda". Or were you posting that when the Republicans were obstructing Obama's agenda? I can't remember.

 

[trouble13]

The Congress doesn't exist to support a "President's agenda". Or were you posting that when the Republicans were obstructing Obama's agenda? I can't remember.

Im not sure what you mean by objecting but my position has always been that whoever wins the presidency, as a matter of policy the opposition party should agree to pass any policy that the president campaghined on. If they are odeologically opposed to something, they should vote present. People deserve the gov they vote for.

 

[tres borrachos]

Im not sure what you mean by objecting but my position has always been that whoever wins the presidency, as a matter of policy the opposition party should agree to pass any policy that the president campaghined on. If they are odeologically opposed to something, they should vote present. People deserve the gov they vote for.

So you think the Republicans should have agreed with Dodd-Frank, the ACA, and everything else Obama proposed. Because he campaigned on them - and the Republicans obstructed him at every turn. And boasted about the fact that they all voted "no" on both of them.

 

[trouble13]

So you think the Republicans should have agreed with Dodd-Frank, the ACA, and everything else Obama proposed. Because he campaigned on them - and the Republicans obstructed him at every turn. And boasted about the fact that they all voted "no" on both of them.

Yes i do and i think if biden wins they should allow anything he is running on to pass. People should be given what they voted for. New legislation is a different animal but things ran on should be passed.

 

[tres borrachos]

Yes i do and i think if biden wins they should allow anything he is running on to pass. People should be given what they voted for. New legislation is a different animal but things ran on should be passed.

Sorry. I missed all of your posts criticizing the Republicans for obstructing Obama's agenda.

So if Biden runs on Medicare for all and wins, you want the Republicans to pass it. Right?

 

[Tahuyaman]

Yet you dont object to the democrat majority house of repersenitives exercising their constitutional authority to obstruct Trumps agenda. If it wasnt for double standards you would not have any at all.

I’m a conservative. I have no problem with the congress exercising their constitutional authority and opposing a president. Sometimes I agree with them and sometimes I don’t.

That’s how I base my vote.

 

[Casper]

The New Rule should be.
DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE Trust what Democrats say.
They Lie as a matter of course.They are hypocritical as a matter of course.
They are the ones who Play The Blame Game,The Cancel Culture Game a
the Woke Game.They are adulterated Miscreants poising as American Pols.

Except that there was 11 Months before a new President would be sworn in and today we are Already Voting.
I love it when you guys defend your Lying Reps especially since they are All on tape saying the complete opposite of what they are currently doing.
New Rule, never trust and Republicant/Trump Sycophant on anything, they Lie, they have no Honor, their Word is Worthless, and they are Hypocrites, every last one.

 

[Tahuyaman]

I like watching liberals cry about receiving the same treatment they dish out when they’re in charge.

 

[cabse5]

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

So it's settled, then? Is that how science works? (The answer is no.) Especially not established science.