Ruth Bader Ginsburg? (1 Viewer)

[trouble13]

i could have added more, sure, but the point was when will she go, she refuses to go under Trumps first term, however health may dictate if he has a second term. i believe she will seek to go if a democrat is elected in 2020.

if trump is in office i see continued protest and outrage by the left and the media

if a democrat is in office i see the right in state of disappointment .

I'm not wishing her any I'll will but she may not make it through his first term either.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

 

[Master PO]

I don't know her health well enough to predict when she will retire. At the very most I think she can last is another 10 years. I don't see her voluntarily retiring if trump is in office.

If trump does get to nominate her replacement it will depend on which party holds the Senate. If republicans hold the majority another judge from his last will be put on the bench

If dems control the senate they hold the seat open if they think they can hold the majority until they get another Democrat in the WH. If it looks like they are in jealousy of losing the majority with an open seat on the bench they might settle for a moderate. of course then trump may not nominate anyone till after the midterms if it looks like the go will win control of the senate.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

thanks, thats a well formed opinion

 

[Master PO]

I'm not wishing her any I'll will but she may not make it through his first term either.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

she is 85 and in poor health and with age that is sure to decline

 

[RetiredUSN]

If Ginsburg checked out tomorrow, Debate Politics would be even more entertaining than it already is over the next few months.

 

[Master PO]

trump won’t serve through 2020. Numerous gop posters on this board openly wish for the death of RBG. Thats a fact. That’s just another example of what the gop has become, the party of Charlottesville.

:lamo...now this is something one can laugh about!

 

[Master PO]

Yup its a complex question for a poll

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

not really , poll question :will she go now or later.. ............ and how will the media and left and right respond

 

[trouble13]

If Ginsburg was wanting to keep the balance of the court she would have resigned during Obama's 1st term. I don't think she will leave the SCOTUS unless a Democrat is there to replace her. I think it's highly likely she'll die on the court. Stephen Breyer is also one to consider too as he is 79. Both should just retire gracefully.

Yup its possible trump will get to replace both of them which will be a nuclear level meltdown on the left.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Funny stuff (but didn’t feel that he could get someone she’d approve of through the Senate) A new requirement for a justice... approval from Ginsburg? What a hoot!
The republicans will control the senate after the next election so I don't see her going anywhere by her choice.

I don't think Kenedy would of stepped down if trump had not put gorsuch on the bench.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

 

[Master PO]

Yup its possible trump will get to replace both of them which will be a nuclear level meltdown on the left.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

well thats a very good assessment.

i think the right would be very disappointed if they don't get to replace her but nothing on the scale of an outrage.

 

[trouble13]

not really , poll question :will she go now or later.. ............ and how will the media and left and right respond

I get it but it really depends on who controls the Senate and who is nominated. It may also depend if trump it happens after trump has won his second term. There's lots of things to consider

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

 

[Master PO]

I get it but it really depends on who controls the Senate and who is nominated. It may also depend if trump it happens after trump has won his second term. There's lots of things to consider

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

well i dont see her around to 2024, and when she goes i see a firestorm from the left and a disappointment from the right.

 

[trouble13]

well thats a very good assessment.

i think the right would be very disappointed if they don't get to replace her but nothing on the scale of an outrage.

The right was very uneasy about it when scalia passed. It's an important issue

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

 

[Master PO]

The right was very uneasy about it when scalia passed. It's an important issue

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

oh i know, the right was scare

 

[gulfman]

Ruth Ginsburg already looks dead to me.She just hasn't got into the casket yet.

 

[concernedpuma]

Ruth Ginsburg already looks dead to me.She just hasn't got into the casket yet.

Was there an autopsy? I'm thinking she went from too much goofiness. She reminds me of a Great Grandmother who just plain lost it.
Regards,
CP

 

[JMR]

The right was very uneasy about it when scalia passed. It's an important issue

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

True and then they came up with the novel idea of not confirming nominations from democratic presidents. McConnell is on the record that Garland's seat would be kept open for four years if Clinton won in 2016.
Subverting the Constitution and the rule of law and precedent of 250 years is nothing to the right it seems. But I guess it's OK since they were "uneasy"

 

[lurchadams]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85 and her time on the court is drawing close to an end, like everyone else you know the ramifications of her leaving.

do you see her leaving during Trump's term in office, which could [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]be until 2024 or she will leave if a democrat is elected in 2020 ........ its not likely for her to be on the court in 2024[/FONT]

what will be the fallout of her leaving if Trump is still in office, what will we see in the media and among the people?

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]this thread is looking to peoples opinions, what they think will happen and not what they want to happen.


[/FONT]

Hang in there, Ruthie! You're the only thing standing between Trump and the transitioning of this nation into a real-life "Handmaid's Tale"!

 

[ataraxia]

If Ginsburg was wanting to keep the balance of the court she would have resigned during Obama's 1st term. I don't think she will leave the SCOTUS unless a Democrat is there to replace her. I think it's highly likely she'll die on the court. Stephen Breyer is also one to consider too as he is 79. Both should just retire gracefully.

If they do, be ready to return to “ traditional conservative American values”, like trial by ordeal and burning witches at the stake again! MAGA!

 

[Lovebug]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85 and her time on the court is drawing close to an end, like everyone else you know the ramifications of her leaving.

do you see her leaving during Trump's term in office, which could [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]be until 2024 or she will leave if a democrat is elected in 2020 ........ its not likely for her to be on the court in 2024[/FONT]

what will be the fallout of her leaving if Trump is still in office, what will we see in the media and among the people?

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]this thread is looking to peoples opinions, what they think will happen and not what they want to happen.


[/FONT]

She'll keep on even if they have to prop her up and move her lips. She is a feisty one and will stay out of spite.

 

[Cardinal]

True and then they came up with the novel idea of not confirming nominations from democratic presidents. McConnell is on the record that Garland's seat would be kept open for four years if Clinton won in 2016.
Subverting the Constitution and the rule of law and precedent of 250 years is nothing to the right it seems. But I guess it's OK since they were "uneasy"

The idea was voiced by McCain as well. The notion that Democratic Presidents just wouldn't be allowed to appoint Supreme Court Justices at all anymore was sold as a way to placate Republicans who believed they'd have no choice but to vote for Trump just because of the SCOTUS issue. It was Plan B in case McConnell's Plan A didn't work.

And there's absolutely zero reason to think it wouldn't have gone down exact like that. Trump is already conditioning his base to believe that Russian interference was a good thing because it helped prevent a Clinton Presidency, and therefore a Clinton SC appointment. We've already seen that argument multiple times on this forum, and as Russian interference and hacking finally becomes undeniable even by Trump's most ardent supporters, that argument will become mainstream on the Right.

Republicans would be happy to nuke every city in the country if it meant they'd control the Supreme Court.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I had since edited my post since we can't really know of her humility. My perception of her though due to her comments about Trump are that she is an entirely biased judge, I think it's highly likely that she uses her political bias to warp the laws of our country with her judicial rulings. She stays on the court to be a critical liberal vote.

1. The irony of a rabid Trump supporter complaining about a perceived lack of humility on the part of a Supreme Court Justice.

2. Every single judge is biased. Every single judge on the court legislates from the bench. Every single judge on the court is an activist. All of them are at times. There is both liberal and conservative activism by different justices on the court and always has been.

You want her to resign because you want a liberal activist judge replaced by a conservative activist judge.

 

[trouble13]

True and then they came up with the novel idea of not confirming nominations from democratic presidents. McConnell is on the record that Garland's seat would be kept open for four years if Clinton won in 2016.
Subverting the Constitution and the rule of law and precedent of 250 years is nothing to the right it seems. But I guess it's OK since they were "uneasy"

It cuts both ways

I certainly didn't hear anyone on the left voicing concerns about the balance of the court when they were trying to replace scalable with a left leaning justice.

I didn't hear any complaints from the left when Reid got rid of the long standing filibuster rule for circuit judges.

I also don't believe trump will get any of his nominees up for a vote if he gets any more and the Democrats control the Senate,

Funny how it's only an issue for people when it works to their disadvantage but when it favors them we get crickets.

Neither side has room to complain.

I'll prefer to see judges appointed who show no ideological preferences. It's their job to call balls and strikes not decide which laws they like and don't.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

 

[ALiberalModerate]

If they do, be ready to return to “ traditional conservative American values”, like trial by ordeal and burning witches at the stake again! MAGA!

One only has to look at the fact that it was just 2003 when sodomy laws were finally struck down by SCOTUS, and the right wing's two model justices, Thomas and Scalia, dissented.

 

[Trippy Trekker]

I had since edited my post since we can't really know of her humility. My perception of her though due to her comments about Trump are that she is an entirely biased judge, I think it's highly likely that she uses her political bias to warp the laws of our country with her judicial rulings. She stays on the court to be a critical liberal vote.

How do you rate Clarence Thomas' proclivity to warp Laws?

I rate it much higher than Ginsburg.

 

[JMR]

It cuts both ways

I certainly didn't hear anyone on the left voicing concerns about the balance of the court when they were trying to replace scalable with a left leaning justice.

I didn't hear any complaints from the left when Reid got rid of the long standing filibuster rule for circuit judges.

I also don't believe trump will get any of his nominees up for a vote if he gets any more and the Democrats control the Senate,

Funny how it's only an issue for people when it works to their disadvantage but when it favors them we get crickets.

Neither side has room to complain.

I'll prefer to see judges appointed who show no ideological preferences. It's their job to call balls and strikes not decide which laws they like and don't.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

Just FYI.... Scalia's confirmation was unanimous. Ginsberg was 96 -3. Roberts 78 -22. There was a time that the Senate did their job. Advise and consent.

It might help to remember that Thurgood Marshall, a uniquely liberal justice was replaced by Clarence Thomas by HW Bush. It is not unique to Scalia's replacement that he would be replaced by a president from an opposite party.

It obvious that this new game being played by the right is going to be defended by gun enthusiasts, religious zealots and various others. But this is not how it's always been.