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

[Jack Hays]

'Dems started down this road...'

Total BS.

You're talking about a pretense of ethics and standards. McConnell would have done this regardless using any number of excuses, or none at all. There was never a 'Biden rule'. Nor is there a 'Mitch McConnell' or 'Lindsey Graham' rule. They blocked Merrick Garland, and like the garbage-faced weasels they are, Republicans have decided to ignore their own justification with regard to the replacement of RBG.

I have no use for anyone who plays this game. Republicans are successful because they cheat, have no shame or standards of ethics or morality. It's easy to get ahead in politics by being the biggest slimeball(s) on the planet.

Lindsey Graham's tape will be played, he will shrug and say, 'So what?' and Trump will engage in another egregious act of power or standards-breaking that would bring any non-cult leader-president, and things will continue like this until he is removed and the Republican party is ended.

By your own words you show yourself to be a product of the erosion of Senate collegiality begun by Biden and Reid, and consummated by McConnell.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Elections have consequences.

Yes. Someday people will understand that. I'm not hopeful that they will ever go one step further and consider what those consequences may be

 

[ludin]

Libel. You would accuse me of libel.

calling someone a rapist who is not a rapist is very much slander and libel and whatever other else you want to call it.

what you are saying is not true. you know it is not true and yet here you are lying about it.

i thought leftists hated lies yet the lie so much it isn't funny.

 

[Metric Mouse]

~ Seems selfish of Ginsberg. Not very judge-like. But then she was always fairly political in her views - especially at the end. ´

I'm coming to the opinion that this story is a misqoute or a straight up lie. Having read RBGs reactions to the Merrick Garland nomination, and her general temperament, I'm far more comfortable calling her granddaughter a liar than calling RBG a hypocrite.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Have you seen the tape of Graham promising this would not happen?

I don't see the guilt of the Democrats on this issue. 10 months left of the Obama presidency a nominee is refused a hearing by GOP.
44 days before the presidential election the same GOP promises a new justice.

The only hypocrites looking for a power grab are the GOP.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Dems doing the exact opposite of what they did in 2016. It would make the head spin if it wasn't so predictable.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

calling someone a rapist who is not a rapist is very much slander and libel and whatever other else you want to call it.

what you are saying is not true. you know it is not true and yet here you are lying about it.

i thought leftists hated lies yet the lie so much it isn't funny.

*Nothing* I just did is slander.

 

[Whythink]

Dems doing the exact opposite of what they did in 2016. It would make the head spin if it wasn't so predictable.

"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination," he said four years ago when arguing against then-President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Biden's accuser has more substantiation (especially contemporaneous to the event) for her claims than Christine Fake-Mousy Ford ever managed to muster, yet you say not a peep about your boy Biden.

Because she wasn’t credible. Kavanaugh’s accuser is. And Bart all but confirmed it.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

"religious extremist lunatic" - i.e. she holds a different view than you on abortion, therefore she's the extremist even though you are the one who supports the slaughter of unborn children.

No, her ant—choice views are bad enough, what I”m referring to is she thinks she’s here to help build a kingdom of heaven. She’s coocoo.

 

[Metric Mouse]

"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination," he said four years ago when arguing against then-President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Maybe Republicans have, after years of deep reflection, come to the understanding that they were wrong and now agree with the Democrats that supreme court nominations should be considered even in election years? Surely the Democrats should be cheering this change of heart and eagerly pushing for a timely nomination and Senate consideration?

Oh... wait...

 

[Aunt Antifa]

"ignore the hypocrites on my side, because they magically don't count!" Get over yourself.

There is no hypocrisy from the Dems on this issue. GOP said 4 years ago that you cannot hold a vote on an SC nom at this stage in the game.

GOP lied and they’re getting destroyed on it.

 

[Whythink]

Maybe Republicans have, after years of deep reflection, come to the understanding that they were wrong and now agree with the Democrats that supreme court nominations should be considered even in election years? Surely the Democrats should be cheering this change of heart and eagerly pushing for a timely nomination and Senate consideration?

Oh... wait...

You realize Lindsey Graham declared that the Republicans were setting a precedent.

Apparently not a new one, lie and hypocrisy.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[Metric Mouse]

You realize Lindsey Graham declared that the Republicans were setting a precedent.

Apparently not a new one, lie and hypocrisy.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

So, we can agree that Republicans are hypocrites and that a new supreme court nominee should be considered this year?

 

[beerftw]

Well, obviously in any practical sense what Ginsburg's last wish was doesn't really matter. What will matter is what the Democratic response to her replacement will be.

The abolishment of the legislative filibuster has already entered the Democratic mainstream. And now so has adding seats to the courts. Replacing Ginsburg was the final straw required in order to radicalize the Democrats in this sense. Without this, it's unlikely that enough Democrats could have been brought on board with the idea of expanding the courts.

Of course, in the governing sense, what "radicalize" means for a Republican is very different than what it means for a Democrat.

Packing the courts though is an aweful idea, this like the nuclear option that bit democrats in the ass was an off limits type of thing, kind of like an agreement between opposing sides never to cross that line. With the whole nuclear option thing the taboo was broken, and it ended up working against democrats.

With court packing the same taboo being broken will hurt democrats in the long term, as it would be expected if democrats raised the number of judges to pack the courts, republicans would simply do the same as soon as they gained power, and 20 years from now we might have 3000 justices on the supreme court and counting because one side threw a hissy fit over not getting their way and wanted to break the unspoken rule making it ok for the other side to do it as well.

 

[Cardinal]

Packing the courts though is an aweful idea, this like the nuclear option that bit democrats in the ass was an off limits type of thing, kind of like an agreement between opposing sides never to cross that line. With the whole nuclear option thing the taboo was broken, and it ended up working against democrats.

With court packing the same taboo being broken will hurt democrats in the long term, as it would be expected if democrats raised the number of judges to pack the courts, republicans would simply do the same as soon as they gained power, and 20 years from now we might have 3000 justices on the supreme court and counting because one side threw a hissy fit over not getting their way and wanted to break the unspoken rule making it ok for the other side to do it as well.

We're a thousand miles past worrying over which actions are considered "nuclear." It's all power dynamics from here on out.

And before you tell me who started it...don't. I've lost all interest in that line of discussion. I have also lost all interest in what is considered "hypocritical." Both of these topics are boring beyond belief. And they're completely irrelevant anyway.

Anyway, back to pure power dynamics, if Democrats win the Senate and the WH, then they could add PR and DC, pass HR1 and effectively cut off Republicans' ability to get power and repack the courts again. Theoretically speaking, adding seats to the courts would be a last and permanent solution.

 

[beerftw]

We're a thousand miles past worrying about which actions are considered "nuclear." It's all power dynamics from here on out.

And before you tell me who started it...don't. I've lost all interest in that line of discussion. I have also lost all interest in what is considered "hypocritical." Both of these topics are boring beyond belief.

Anyway, back to pure power dynamics, if Democrats win the Senate and the WH, then they could add PR and DC, pass HR1 and effectively cut off Republicans' ability to get power and repack the courts again.

Yeah it does not work that way, democrats already are butt hurt over the nuclear option backfiring, but somehow now you believe if you repeat the same mistakes the same results will not happen? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results, it appears the democrat leadership by that standard is fairly insane.

Also short of literally pulling some dictator level crap democrats constantly accuse trump of, they will not be able to prevent republicans from gaining power. This was the literal mindset of when schumer went with the nuclear option, like he thought democrats had an indefinate hold on power, I said then as did others it would bite them and it did, HARD! Now people like you think repeating the same thing will somehow work great, but then you top it off thinking you will somehow get one party rule preventing republicans from turning this around, talk about delusional.

 

[Cardinal]

Yeah it does not work that way, democrats already are butt hurt over the nuclear option backfiring, but somehow now you believe if you repeat the same mistakes the same results will not happen? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results, it appears the democrat leadership by that standard is fairly insane.

Also short of literally pulling some dictator level crap democrats constantly accuse trump of, they will not be able to prevent republicans from gaining power. This was the literal mindset of when schumer went with the nuclear option, like he thought democrats had an indefinate hold on power, I said then as did others it would bite them and it did, HARD! Now people like you think repeating the same thing will somehow work great, but then you top it off thinking you will somehow get one party rule preventing republicans from turning this around, talk about delusional.

"Butt hurt" has nothing to do with it, nor does "dictator level crap" rhetoric.

The fact is that as it stands, 100% of Democratic policies, bills and executive orders are going to die in the courts. That's just a fact. So Democrats can choose to be completely impotent for the next two or four years or they can add court seats and actually get their legislation passed.

Not a difficult choice.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Yeah it does not work that way, democrats already are butt hurt over the nuclear option backfiring, but somehow now you believe if you repeat the same mistakes the same results will not happen? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results, it appears the democrat leadership by that standard is fairly insane.

Also short of literally pulling some dictator level crap democrats constantly accuse trump of, they will not be able to prevent republicans from gaining power. This was the literal mindset of when schumer went with the nuclear option, like he thought democrats had an indefinate hold on power, I said then as did others it would bite them and it did, HARD! Now people like you think repeating the same thing will somehow work great, but then you top it off thinking you will somehow get one party rule preventing republicans from turning this around, talk about delusional.

I think history of this shows us that, as hard as they try, Democrats are too stupid to succeed in their rush to authoritarian strangle on power. It gives me hope that the country will continue to remain relatively balanced and allow progress to be made. But, as you pointed out, that clearly doesn't stop Democrats from doubling down on stupid.

 

[Metric Mouse]

"Butt hurt" has nothing to do with it, nor does "dictator level crap" rhetoric.

The fact is that as it stands, 100% of Democratic policies, bills and executive orders are going to die in the courts. That's just a fact. So Democrats can choose to be completely impotent for the next two or four years or they can add court seats and actually get their legislation passed.

Not a difficult choice.

Sounds like an excellent argument to fight tooth and nail to keep the balance of power more centered and stop Democrats from gaining enough power to do that.

 

[Cardinal]

Sounds like an excellent argument to fight tooth and nail to keep the balance of power more centered and stop Democrats from gaining enough power to do that.

Your post is moot if Democrats don't get both chambers of Congress after November 3rd, and it's moot if they do.

 

[beerftw]

"Butt hurt" has nothing to do with it, nor does "dictator level crap" rhetoric.

The fact is that as it stands, 100% of Democratic policies, bills and executive orders are going to die in the courts. That's just a fact. So Democrats can choose to be completely impotent for the next two or four years or they can add court seats and actually get their legislation passed.

Not a difficult choice.

You are not understanding, you cry about such now but if packing the courts is to be allowed every time a republican wins he will do the same and delete anything liberal anyways, it is like both sides agreeing not to use chemical weapons in war but then one side uses it and bets all hurt because the other side fired mustard gas back, like they somehow thought rules only worked one way.

The rules unspoken over the filibusters or over court pick filibusters or over size of the court or others have all been in place because politicians with half a brain knew that it would be a disaster to change such rules, and both democrats and republicans knew such rules worked both ways and that it was better to keep the rules in check rather than exploit the rules for temporary gain that would bite you in the ass hard 4-8 years later.

 

[post]

Packing the courts though is an aweful idea, this like the nuclear option that bit democrats in the ass was an off limits type of thing, kind of like an agreement between opposing sides never to cross that line. ....

A party, especially since there are only two dominating U.S. politics, that would "produce" a Donald Trump, and a senate majority that would break all precedent to protect him from an actual impeachment trial, and then vote to keep him in office, disqualifies all of your concerns, IMO. McConnell ended any pretense of a legislative agenda during Trump's term after the tax cutting that paid back the "investment" of the party's wealthiest donors. The Trump presidency has been exclusively about "packing" all federal courts from a list of candidates sourced exclusively from Scott Pruitt's close friend, Leonard Leo.The party leaders have no platform for this election and have voluntarily reduced themselves to a cult of a thug.Obama literally prostrated himself with bi-partisan gestures, from privatizing the ACA to appointments to his cabinet of Robert Gates and Chuck Hagel.Clinton exhibited similar deference.A POTUS of the democratic party could appoint his entire cabinet from the Trump party and it would make absolutely no difference to that Party's leaders. I'm done tolerating "both sides" arguments. One side continued in the old traditions of collegiality while the other descended into open, taunting deceit and rampant criminality. Ruth Ginsburg was confirmed in a 95 to 3 vote, after Clarence Thomas, with just one year on the federal bench, was confirmed with Joe Biden's surrender, and it was the right move by Biden, considering it came on the heels of the rejection of the Bork nomination.This is over, it is in the hands of voters who have to overcome Trump's open criminality, rampant dishonesty, and court acknowledged sabotage of the USPS, and of the 2020 census, by Trump, as predicted....
Ginsburg, a feminist icon memorialized as the Notorious RBG
https://apnews.com/a3b9ce7e08bfaa521cf2cd29aeacb61d
Criticizing the court's conservative majority for getting rid of a key part of the landmark Voting Rights Act in 2013, Ginsburg wrote that it was like "throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet."

The democratic party tradition...
The Rich and the Super-rich: A Study in the Power of Money Today
books.google.com › books
Ferdinand Lundberg - 1969 - ‎Snippet view
Found inside – Page 206
A Study in the Power of Money Today Ferdinand Lundberg. state ; B . R ... Kennedy , even with no war providing an excuse for a coalition , awarded his chief Cabinet posts to Republicans from the camp of big wealth . Douglas ... The basic government posts , in other words , went to men deep in the camp of big wealth .

the republican party tradition....

.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore#cite_note-76
University law professor Alan Dershowitz wrote:

[T]he decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath.[68]

Gloves off! Biden should not debate an opponent with no soul, or even any hint of humanity.

 

[beerftw]

I think history of this shows us that, as hard as they try, Democrats are too stupid to succeed in their rush to authoritarian strangle on power. It gives me hope that the country will continue to remain relatively balanced and allow progress to be made. But, as you pointed out, that clearly doesn't stop Democrats from doubling down on stupid.

I think history more shows us that politicians who thought out the outcome of their decisions avoided such actions, while those who seek short term fortune seek such actions.

For many years niether democrats nor republicans really tried to do what democrats want today, because both sides knew it would be a short term win with a massive long term loss.

 

[Cardinal]

You are not understanding, you cry about such now but if packing the courts is to be allowed every time a republican wins he will do the same and delete anything liberal anyways, it is like both sides agreeing not to use chemical weapons in war but then one side uses it and bets all hurt because the other side fired mustard gas back, like they somehow thought rules only worked one way.

The rules unspoken over the filibusters or over court pick filibusters or over size of the court or others have all been in place because politicians with half a brain knew that it would be a disaster to change such rules, and both democrats and republicans knew such rules worked both ways and that it was better to keep the rules in check rather than exploit the rules for temporary gain that would bite you in the ass hard 4-8 years later.

The entire concept of the filibuster is dead. Also, if you actually read my posts you would know that what I am doing is anything but crying.

As for the rest, you're ignoring my point, which is that as it stands Democrats are doomed to watch 100% of their agendas die in the courts. If you had the ability to change that, wouldn't you? If not, why would you even bother going into government?

 

[Metric Mouse]

Your post is moot if Democrats don't get both chambers of Congress after November 3rd, and it's moot if they do.

Yes, but one event concentrates absolute political power in the hands of one political party for the foreseeable future, as well as destroying trust in many public institutions and further rushing the U.S. towards painful political authoritarianism, while the other keeps power relatively spread out, and able to change in the future with the will of the people.

I know which one I would vote for.