It is inevitable...my only hope is her last cold moments and her final seconds is in the stark realization that She would be replaced by Trump.
The S Ct is a terrible defect in our outdated Constitution. In1789 or whatever a ripe old age was about 55 and the judges were often in their mid to late 40’s. They also did not tend to stay till death. The average was 10 yrs in service. None of this 40 yr crap. It is absurd to have the fate of our country and in some ways the whole world depend on the random tome of death of an octogenariasn
I am personally against stacking the court. THis is one of those if one side does it the other will and we have no idea how inflated the court will get. That said I was very against the McConnell not giving Merrick Garland even a hearing and what I saw as would be the inevitable flip flop that he would do if it was a Republican President.
Also we need to remember that when Antonin Scalia died that was February of 2016. The election was 9 months away. Plenty of time to have hearings and seat another Justice. There is a far more legitimate argument regarding now given that we have less than 2 months to go to the election. Either way my own opinion is that Merrick Garland should've been Obama's pick and as such Ginsburg's seat should be Trump's pick. While Ginsburg death would still be a big issue even if Merrick Garland was on the court I don't think it would be as toxic as it is now.
It takes two to tango. President + Senate. Obama lacked the Senate. The only thing toxic about the situation now is the liberals' emotional responses to it. The Constitution was not written to be put on hold whenever peoples' feelings are hurt. Nominate and confirm without delay or apology.
It's just partisan BS that it has to do with whether the same party holds the Senate or the Presidency. The Constitution says that the President nominates and the Senate confirms. It says nothing about parties. For one branch to just abdicate that because of party is a dereliction of duty. If they didn't like Merrick Garland than they should've voted him down rather than not even have a hearing. This is exactly what Hamilton warned about in the Federalist Papers and Washington in his farewell address of the dangers of partisanship.
ALERT Barbara Lagoa rapidly emerging as the front-runner. I can think of no better replacement for RBG than a wise Latina. She's a female version of the great Ted Cruz!
Just talked about that! No weaknesses and she will be an inspiration for the Hispanic community! Love it ! Woooooo
Do you feel blame? Are you mad? Uh, do you feel like wolf kabob Roth vantage? Gefrannis booj pooch boo jujube; bear-ramage. Jigiji geeji geeja geeble Begep flagaggle vaggle veditch-waggle bagga?
I feel that this thinking is why we are in the **** show that we are in. In a perfect world I agree with you but the “they got low, we go high” hasn’t worked. If there is a time to take the gloves off, it’s now.
I never mentioned LGBT , I mentioned civil rights which the Dems , particularly those in the south fought against.
I think at this point the Dems have enough to deny a pick in a lame duck session, which is really the fear here. If Trump wins, then he wins, people need to accept that. The country will go further to hell for sure. But if he doesn't win? The more I think about it... I don't think there is any chance they push a Trump pick through. At that point, the Dems would have too much power for even the GOP to ignore. GOP could accept their 5-4 majority or the Dems can just pack the court, I think the GOP will just accept their majority at that point. That's if they even get to a vote, it was hinted at Pelosi that she could start another impeachment that would busy the senate and she said they had arrows in their quiver. I don't think anyone reasonable thinks it would be cool to push through a pick in a lame-duck scenario except the Trump cultists and Dems would get no push back from the public for doing what they can to delay the vote.
But I did, it's what I was talking about. I don't care about what the Dems did then, it was a completely different party then with different beliefs, and of course a lot of those southern democrats are republicans now.
Yes, the Democratic party of 60 years ago was quite different than the one today. It's amazing how they completely turned themselves around. Of course, many of the Southern Democrats that were against it left and became Republicans. So the party took some losses. But they took them to move in the right direction. I wonder if either party would take losses like that to move in the right direction? I take that back I wonder if Democrats would accept losses to move in the right direction? We have seen that the Republicans will not take a principled stand.
They are going to push it through before the election. They want to use the SC to legitimize their election malfeasance.
I don’t see how the Democrats in the lame duck session could stop the GOP from pushing a pick through. Even with the situation in AZ that still leaves a GOP majority of 2 and the VP. That means they need a pickup of three votes to defeat a nominee. That is much harder than done. You have to count on a possible lame duck Collins, along with Murkowski to vote against it. Starting another impeachment doesn’t freeze Senate. They actually still can conduct business and McConnell controls the agenda.
