Ruth Bader Ginsburg misses court due to illness

[CLAX1911]

Nah, I'm not going to debate the color of the sky anymore, especially not down in one of your rabbit holes.

I didn't realize it was that easy.

OP is rooting and you know it. At least maxparrish was honest about it.

I know you want him to be doing that so you can claim moral high ground.

 

[CLAX1911]

And after ****ing over Obama in ‘16, saying that with less than a year left of his administration, it would be “unfair” to Americans to allow Garland’s confirmation to go forward, McConnell now says he would absolutely push through a nomination of Trump’s under the same conditions. Total dick.

Trump might not even try until after he's re-elected.

 

[Helix]

the right lusts for RBG's death.

i hope that she's ok. i also don't lust for any SCOTUS death, even the most useless of the right wingers on the court.

 

[Praxas]

Pure nonsense. Your side restricts freedom and liberty only to those who kiss their asses.

Your side was cheering the vandalism of the trump balloon being gun slashed. The right are criminals.

 

[jnug]

yes you can tell her health issues have taken a toll on her.

I don't think a stomach virus is going to knock her out for too long.

 

[Trump]

That's a bit of a far-fetched comment nothing in the EOP said anything about rooting for her death. But the Outlook doesn't look good for her. She should have stepped down 5 years ago.

When she leaves office there will be a spot open and that spot is political issue. That's what this topic is discussing.

big mistake by Ruth...assuming Hillary would win and her replacement could be made by female President....BIG MISTAKE

Ruth believed the polls and MSM

 

[CLAX1911]

big mistake by Ruth...assuming Hillary would win and her replacement could be made by female President....BIG MISTAKE

Ruth believed the polls and MSM

It wouldn't be a problem if she wasn't politically biased. A new judge would simply take the seat and things would continue she just doesn't want the Republican to apoint that new judge because she's a political hack.

 

[Winchester]

So eager to stack the court, they're reduced to rooting for her death.

I wonder if the Republicans will want to wait till the end of the political season if they have to replace her.

 

[maxparrish]

So the McConnell rule applies to Democrats but not Republicans. Gotcha.

The "McConnell rule" is not a "rule", its an option. A party in control of the Senate has the choice of granting or not granting consent to a nominee. Period.

 

[Mr Person]

I wonder if the Republicans will want to wait till the end of the political season if they have to replace her.

As in, not vote on any nominee until the next president is seated? I'd be gobsmacked if they actually did that.

They had no problem going along with McConnell re: Garland even though it was a pretty naked power grab. There was no rule one way or another, just some quotes from politicians in the past pontificating on what should happen were a justice to leave the bench during an election year. Arguably it established one, but what's a rule that cannot be enforced? Anyway, I see no reason to believe they really thought they were honoring a rule about what happens in those circumstances. They saw an opening and took it because it was there.

I see little reason to think this crop would not break their own newly established "rule" if it meant they could seat another conservative, especially with McConnell at the helm. He'd never say "we refused to vote on Obama's appointee because it was an election year, so we are honor-bound to do the same with Trump's nominee" (assuming she does pass in 2020). I also doubt people who regularly vote Republican would punish them for it. Even if they did, memories are short while justices typically sit quite a long time, so it is undeniably in their strategic interest to seat anyone they can.

I suppose the only thing that might hold them back is fear that this would embolden Democrats to expand the Court if they ever have the chance and stack it the other way, in revenge.

 

[DiAnna]

Which is why her timely demise should be hoped for. This country has long needed judges who apply the constitution as plainly written law, rather than invent law from mystical and epiphanic revelations from the text.

Ginsburg's timely departure my assist in the that elusive goal.

Despicable.

 

[less right]

no obama wasn't denied his constitutional right. he chose a pick. the other side of that is confirmation.
they didn't confirm him as a justice.

no one stopped obama from submitting his pick.
these are called facts.

McConnel and the Republicans should have followed the constitution and fulfilled their duty for "advice and consent".

Refusing to even to allow hearings may send a message but it's not "advice and consent".

 

[lemmiwinx]

Point of Order: How many misses does she get before they call in the coroner?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

He did nominate Scalia’s replacement.

Does that fact conflict with anything I’ve said?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Trump might not even try until after he's re-elected.

So, never then? Cool.

 

[CLAX1911]

So, never then? Cool.

If he couldn't be re-elected why so much emphasis on impeaching him?

 

[vegas giants]

Point of Order: How many misses does she get before they call in the coroner?

As many as she wants

 

[3leftsdoo]

She's been a fine Justice and I wish her well.

:2usflag:

 

[maxparrish]

Despicable.

Oh sure, like nobody ever hopes (or hoped) for the timely demise of Trump, Bush, Scalia, etc?

If honesty is "despicable" then so be it.

 

[maxparrish]

McConnel and the Republicans should have followed the constitution and fulfilled their duty for "advice and consent".

Refusing to even to allow hearings may send a message but it's not "advice and consent".

Fiddlesticks. They followed the Constitution. They provided the advice to Obama to drop it before the election, and refused to provide the consent (which is their constitutional right).

Try again.

 

[vegas giants]

Oh sure, like nobody ever hopes (or hoped) for the timely demise of Trump, Bush, Scalia, etc?

If honesty is "despicable" then so be it.

So you want RBG to die.....is that correct?

 

[apdst]

New rule: A president facing impeachment should not be allowed to appoint new judges. The American people, who democratically elected the house Democrat majority, clearly do not want him to have unfettered power. We should wait until 2020 to see any appointments made.

Did you feel that way in 2010 and 2012?

 

[maxparrish]

So you want RBG to die.....is that correct?

Not exactly but WHEN she dies (as all people do) I'd prefer it to be during a Republican Presidency and Senate. So her demise in the next year or so would be most timely for obvious reasons.

 

[vegas giants]

Not exactly but WHEN she dies (as all people do) I'd prefer it to be during a Republican Presidency and Senate. So her demise in the next year or so would be most timely.

And you would be happy if she dies soon. Correct?

 

[less right]

Fiddlesticks. They followed the Constitution. They provided the advice to Obama to drop it before the election, and refused to provide the consent (which is their constitutional right).

Try again.

No thanks. You sound like a real constitutional scholar. A graduate of Trump U. Law? Greatest college football team ever. But I digress.

I've tried debating that mindset. It's like wrestling a muddy pig. Not much fun for me.