Ruth Bader Ginsburg RIP

Vaca wrote:

My theory:

RBG, like a lot of people, just "knew" HRC would win in 2016. She was just sure of it. She was so sure, she didn't step down during BHO's second term because, being the "pioneering feminist" that she was, she wanted HRC to be the first woman President to nominate a women to serve on SCOTUS. I mean, how cool would that be: Triple Double - first female President, first female President to nominate a female Justice, and another female Justice.

I bet she was as horrified as HRC was when she lost. Damn, "I have to last at least 4 more years and maybe as many as 8." As is usually the case, greed did her in (as far as a progressive Justice is concerned).

Let's go back 29 or 30 years. Thurgood Marshall was getting old. Thurgood Marshall thought as many did post 1990-1991 Gulf War that H.W. Bush was certain to win re-election, 1992. Thurgood Marshall did not believe he could hold on to third week of January, 1997. Thurgood Marshall cut a deal with H.W. Bush. Marshall told H.W. Bush he would step down, but Marshall wanted assurance he would be replaced by a Black man. Turned out, H.W. Bush did not win re-election. Marshall died 4 days after William Clinton assumed office. It turned out, Marshall did not need to cut a deal with H.W. Bush. Marshall did not do a selfish act as did R.B.G., but he thought his years as a lawyer and a judge gave him good political instincts. R.B.G. spent her entire life up and down I-95 (I know she was born before there was I-95). R.B.G. had no idea how much citizens up and down Mississippi River and citizens in Great Lake States had disdain for H.R.C. If court goes 6-3 soon and Affordable Care Act is dismantled, R.B.G. will go down in history for nothing else besides her failure to quit. As I stated previously, R.B.G. was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2009. Please note: Affordable Care Act is in WAY MORE danger than Roe v. Wade of being overturned (I wouldn't care - it would be state by state as it was before). Republicans send their teenage daughters and Republicans send their mistresses to abortion clinics to terminate. Libertarians-Republicans want to terminate Affordable Care Act. I do not know what will stop them now.

further left than V.I.U. wrote:

Libertarians-Republicans want to terminate Affordable Care Act. I do not know what will stop them now.

If they wanted ACA gone, it would be gone. From 2016-2018, they held control of congress and the presidency. They could have enacted any policy they wanted to. They chose not to....

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

further left than V.I.U. wrote:

Libertarians-Republicans want to terminate Affordable Care Act. I do not know what will stop them now.

If they wanted ACA gone, it would be gone. From 2016-2018, they held control of congress and the presidency. They could have enacted any policy they wanted to. They chose not to....

Do you mean Jan,, 2017 to Jan., 2019?

Affordable Care Act as gone in front of federal courts in numerous states since Affordable Care Act was enacted. Affordable Care Act will be brought before courts again and most certainly before U.S. Supreme Court. You did not know that Affordable Care Act has been brought before federal courts numerous times? You seem to be confusing your branches of government.

lowest iq president ever, trust me wrote:

It would almost be like making an executive order that your opponent couldn’t hold office ever. Something like that dictatorship we are already spiraling towards.

Agreed that Biden would probably be the lowest IQ president ever, kind of by default since his brain is functioning at only the basic level to survive. That aside, Trump will stop the dictatorship and intentional ruining of the country the Democraps are trying to achieve, although they've already done considerable damage.

boaster wrote:

BLtheKid wrote:

They aren't going to be allowed to make a complete mockery of this country by doing that. And I think we are getting closer and closer to the time where Democraps are finally going to face serious consequences for their actions.

This would be a response to the Republicans mockery. Republicans are changing the “rules” that they argued against in 2016. So it would be right for Democrats to respond.

Uh, no - Democraps have been threatening to pack the court for around a year now, not to mention getting rid of the filibuster and the electoral college. As if the Democraps wouldn't be putting up a nominee if they had control. Democraps are getting very close to the line and they had better not step over it.

Collins and Murkowski will not vote to confirm. I doubt Romney will. I bet at least 1-2 more will not confirm based on principle alone.

Alan

Mancin and a few Dems will.

BLtheKid wrote:

boaster wrote:

This would be a response to the Republicans mockery. Republicans are changing the “rules” that they argued against in 2016. So it would be right for Democrats to respond.

Uh, no - Democraps have been threatening to pack the court for around a year now, not to mention getting rid of the filibuster and the electoral college. As if the Democraps wouldn't be putting up a nominee if they had control. Democraps are getting very close to the line and they had better not step over it.

All we ever hear from the right is “if Democrats has the chance, they would do the same”... but we never see the left so these things. Republicans strike first all the time.

I was aware of the merit of the argument Libertarians & Republicans have made in federal courts for ten plus years before they made their arguments. Justice John Roberts in so many words stated he agreed with Libertarians & Republicans in court cases that Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional but he did not want to take health care away from U.S. citizens. As of today, there are not four votes on U.S. Supreme Court arguing that Affordable Care Act IS Constitutional. For over 10 years, Biden may have been the one holding Obama back from Austrian-style Government Sponsored Single Payer Government Health Care from day one. If Affordable Care Act is ruled Unconstitutional by U.S. Supreme Court, would Biden swallow his pride and push for Austrian-style Government Sponsored Single Payer Government Health Care? Since U.S. Government has authority to draft anyone into military service, U.S. may mandate a government sponsored healthcare plan. There have been federal law suits for 9 or 10 years because Affordable Care Act mandates citizens purchase private insurance.

Umm, I thought the Obama/Biden Presidency tried putting Garland forward under the same basic circumstances? Ginsburg, the SCOTUS who turned political wen the Judicial Branch core value is to not be, supported putting someone forward in an election year.

Thus, you are simply wrong.

Sally Vix wrote:

joedirt wrote:

If CDC accounting practices hold true, it will be counted as a COVID death. It doesn't matter that she had three bouts of cancer, heart issues, etc. If someone dies at 87, the left will try to convince you they were robbed of 10 years of life and that we need to lock everyone down.

I believe she was first diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2009. It was not advanced cancer back then but overall the survival rate for pancreatic cancer is 2% for 5 years. Yes, 98 of 100 of those diagnosed with pancreatic cancer die within 5 years. So, she was definitely a fighter and a strong lady.

If the Dems are mad at anyone over this opening on the SC, they should be mad at RBG. She had cancer multiple times and should have resigned for the good of the Democratic Party back in 2014 so that Obama could be guaranteed to pick a successor. Instead, she had to glory boy it to a coffin under Trump. Nice hubris, Ruth, good way to let down all of your fellow ProChoicers. Like you were going to live to 2025, anyways.

In case it hasn't been posted yet:

https://twitter.com/MaybeAmes/status/1307181505572212736

Noyankee wrote:

Umm, I thought the Obama/Biden Presidency tried putting Garland forward under the same basic circumstances? Ginsburg, the SCOTUS who turned political wen the Judicial Branch core value is to not be, supported putting someone forward in an election year.

Thus, you are simply wrong.

Consensus was that we would observe the no nomination in an election year rule and Democrats let it go. I’m right. Now, after not nominating in an election year, Republicans want to nominate in an election year.

Tbh, if Republicans play this with integrity, they maintain an advantage in the Supreme Court and would help clean up their reputation.

Example —Scenarios for right:

1. (Best case) Republicans say they wont nominate or at least won’t confirm until after a presidential announcement has been made. Trump wins. Nominates 6th conservative judge. This would make 6 conservative judges and everyone would say it happened the right way.

2. (Second best case) Republicans say they won’t nominate. Democrats win and then nominate a 4th liberal judge. Republicans maintains 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court.

3. (Worst case) Republicans nominate a 6th conservative judge without letting the American people make the decision. Democrats win senate and White House. Democrats expands the court to 13 or some other number above the threshold where Democrats would have the majority. And this is largely seen as retaliation.

So, IMO, best case is to not nominate and avoid a nuclear reaction from the left.

The procedures for getting people on the supreme court are well defined. Like them or not, they are what they have been for generations, and it works. Now the Democrats want to change them because they are sore losers (and because their person on the court was dumb enough not to resign when their party held all the cards to choose their successor). Any time something goes a way they disagree with (at the time), they want to change the constitution. Adding seats to the court and packing it with individuals that fit their point of view goes entirely against the idea of checks and balances. If the Dems do take power in the fall elections and expand the court, it sets up a path to tyranny for future generations. Kennedy should be ashamed of himself for even suggesting the idea.

Ok. If you spin the fact that the Dems did not have the vote as, “letting it go”, then you can be right. However, no matter, Obama and Slow Joe did in fact put thru a nomination that Ginsburg herself went on record agreeing with, in the face of Judicial non bias.

Having said that, any Republican WH would be on the correct side of ethics and in line with Democratic admins in putting forth a nomination. Good for the goose...

This is why we vote every four years. Get as much as you can accomplished in line with the vote, and go back to the ballot box and do it again. It’s a simple method, brilliant in its inception.

steaks r awesom wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

I believe she was first diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2009. It was not advanced cancer back then but overall the survival rate for pancreatic cancer is 2% for 5 years. Yes, 98 of 100 of those diagnosed with pancreatic cancer die within 5 years. So, she was definitely a fighter and a strong lady.

If the Dems are mad at anyone over this opening on the SC, they should be mad at RBG. She had cancer multiple times and should have resigned for the good of the Democratic Party back in 2014 so that Obama could be guaranteed to pick a successor. Instead, she had to glory boy it to a coffin under Trump. Nice hubris, Ruth, good way to let down all of your fellow ProChoicers. Like you were going to live to 2025, anyways.

It's also worth noting that Sandra Day O'Connor, the true pioneering female on the supreme court (appointed by Reagan) is still alive. Unlike RBG, she saw the writing on the wall. Her husband had dementia and her own health was declining, so she retired 14 years ago because she wanted her replacement named by a Republican. RBG won't see her dying wish honored (anyone want to tell me where a dying wish is in the constitution?) because of her hubris.

BLtheKid wrote:

Uh, no - Democraps have been threatening to pack the court for around a year now, not to mention getting rid of the filibuster and the electoral college. As if the Democraps wouldn't be putting up a nominee if they had control. Democraps are getting very close to the line and they had better not step over it.

Why? What are the consequences for crossing these lines? How many of them have the republicans crossed and nobody cared?

This thing is only an issue because of 2016. The sitting president should nominate supreme court justices and the senate should vote them up or down. This is only an issue because the republicans crossed the line in 2016 and didn't vote on the presidents suggestion. But it is hard to argue that it is the right thing to do now when you argued 4 years ago that it was the wrong things. You would have to be borderline insane to think it make sense.

I would also be a fan of 11 judges just to dilute the power each of them has but I have no clue how to get there these days.

YMMV wrote:

In case it hasn't been posted yet:

https://twitter.com/MaybeAmes/status/1307181505572212736

This woman seems insane. I think she posts here.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Collins and Murkowski will not vote to confirm. I doubt Romney will. I bet at least 1-2 more will not confirm based on principle alone.

Alan

That is probably it for the "no" votes from Republicans. Lamar Alexander committed to ramming through the pick. He was about the only other possible swing vote.

But, if Mark Kelley beats Martha McSally in a special election in AZ, Kelley would be seated Nov. 30. That would mean that it would only take three "no" votes from Republicans to make it 51/49 and take a Pence tie-breaker out of the equation. I think Romney will hold out until the last minute so he can have his thumbs down moment versus Trump like McCain did on the ACA repeal vote.

RBG should have retired back in 2014, but it really isn't her fault. Dems have been very soft on protecting their supreme court seats. Republicans are the exact opposite. J. Kennedy was all but told that he had to resign if he knew what was good for him and struck a deal with Trump to get to pick his replacement. Dems had lots of nuclear buttons to push (court fight to establish constitutional duty to proceed with nomination, etc.) after Republicans refused to move on the Garland nomination, but were too chicken and thought that it would be a good campaign issue instead of something worth fighting for (it was not).

If Dems are not willing to push every nuke button available to hold this seat, then they deserve to have a 6-3 pro-corporate majority undo every pro-environment, consumer and labor legislation and regulation on a warped re-interpretation of the Commerce (this is what Kavanaugh and Thomas are wanting to do).