Ruth Bader Ginsberg has pancreatic cancer

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, Niagara said:

Politics is a blood sport. Remember the stolen Bork seat that eventually went to Souter, a closet liberal. Borked is an actual word thanks to Ted. Also remember Scalia may have been assassinated. Plus, remember that the Las Vegas odds of a Biden victory are 75%. Screw being nice, the Democrats will never reciprocate. Play the game like the Democrats play it.

And besides, what difference does Biden's top three candidates make?

I’ll always take the high ground. But that being said, I actually see this as a win for Trump. He’s almost surely going to name a woman....which will be hard to argue against. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

7 hours ago, Capco said:

I am so incredibly saddened on this night.  Justice Ginsburg was a huge inspiration for me to attend law school.  

 

I am not super worried about the nomination getting passed.  Collins, Murkowski, and Romney are all but guaranteed to vote no on any nominee.  That leaves the following senators as the potential 4th vote, all of whom are facing elections this cycle:

 

Corey Gardner (Colorado) 
Joni Ernst (Iowa) 
Thom Tillis (North Carolina) 

Lindsey Graham (South Carolina)

 

With the following quote in mind, I think Graham is a likely 4th vote, but I can see others as well if word gets out that the nomination will falter.  

 

"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, and you can use my words against me and you’d be absolutely right.  We are setting a precedent here today."

It’s clear that RBG inspired you, and I think following in her footsteps is admirable.  She’s one of the great Americans from an “impact people’s life” perspective. 
 

This makes you a good person for my question.

 

Her legacy will be vast and far-reaching.  However, I have to question her apparent decision to stay on the bench and attempt to wait the election out.  I’ll withdraw this comment if it turns out she was on the mend and died rather suddenly and unexpectedly.  Assuming she knew the end was coming for some time, she was an acting SC justice while under tremendous pain and while battling a horrible illness.  That typically involves strong medication and long periods of feeling well less than 100%. 
 

At the same time, the country is reeling from protests run amok, with citizens clashing in the street, people being murdered and police officers the victims of violent attacks.  
 

I can understand liberal frustration that she did not retire from the bench when BO was in office, or sooner.  Her end game, as evidenced by her statement about waiting until after the election to nominate her successor, seems to have been to make it until November at a minimum.  
 

I think she disregarded what may have been best for the country as it stands today with an eye toward the larger picture of the SC.  Certainly she would know the impact of her passing at any point within the past few months, how the very necessary need to replace her would fire up the crazies on both sides.  
 

My question(s)...was her decision to hold on purely political, was her statement about waiting on her successor unnecessarily incendiary and finally, why on earth would any president pass up the opportunity to nominate their choice for justice regardless of timing?  DJT was elected for a reason, and the SC was a big part of that reason.  
 

Thanks—and sorry for the loss of your icon.   She lived an honorable life and was tough as nails, you chose wisely though she was not my cup of tea. 

[Dr. Who]

2 minutes ago, Niagara said:

Politics is a blood sport. Remember the stolen Bork seat that eventually went to Souter, a closet liberal. Borked is an actual word thanks to Ted. Also remember Scalia may have been assassinated. Plus, remember that the Las Vegas odds of a Biden victory are 75%. Screw being nice, the Democrats will never reciprocate. Play the game like the Democrats play it.

And besides, what difference does Biden's top three candidates make?

As you know, probably, Vegas odds are not predictive. They are designed to make money for Vegas. Trump is a much more likely winner, though if one factors in the Democratic machine tactic of rampant mail fraud on steroids and the anticipated soft coup of lawyers, Facebook, and the usual media shenanigans on behalf of the fascist left, the odds in fact become harder to pin down.

[Buffalo_Gal]

Ask yourself what Schumer would do if the Democrats held the Senate and there was a Democratic President. Think he'd say, "Let's wait!" If you do, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

Republicans keep playing by one set of rules, and the Democrats play by another set of rules, and pretty soon you have riots in the streets, mass election cheating, and... oh.



 

Edited September 19, 2020 by Buffalo_Gal

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

17 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Thanks! Conservatives have nothing to lose here. If Biden wins the balance on the court goes right back to the same place it is now. Nobody’s under the false impression that RBG was a moderate. 

We have plenty to gain, however and we have a sitting President willing to move forward.  We have no idea what the future holds for any of the justices, and what the SC might look like post Biden.  
 

I really see no issue at all moving forward. Hell it might even cost the Rs the election but you play the hand you’re dealt. 
 

Thanks for the reply—I’ll consider that as well. 

[whatdrought]

9 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’ll always take the high ground. But that being said, I actually see this as a win for Trump. He’s almost surely going to name a woman....which will be hard to argue against. 

Naming a woman will give some protection against the Kavenaugh tactic. 
 

4 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Ask yourself what Schumer would do if the Democrats held the Senate and there was a Democratic President. Think he'd say, "Let's wait!" If you do, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

Republicans keep playing by one set of rules, and the Democrats play by another set of rules, and pretty soon you have riots in the streets, mass election cheating, and... oh.



 

 

Lol. He’d fill the seat and create 5-7 others to fill. 

Edited September 19, 2020 by whatdrought

[BillsFanNC]

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Ask yourself what Schumer would do if the Democrats held the Senate and there was a Democratic President. Think he'd say, "Let's wait!" If you do, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

Republicans keep playing by one set of rules, and the Democrats play by another set of rules, and pretty soon you have riots in the streets, mass election cheating, and... oh.



 

 

There are a few universal truths. Water is wet.  Fire is hot. The Patriots* cheat - and what Chuck Schumer and the Democrats would do under the exact same circumstances. 

[Reality Check]

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

16 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Ask yourself what Schumer would do if the Democrats held the Senate and there was a Democratic President. Think he'd say, "Let's wait!" If you do, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

Republicans keep playing by one set of rules, and the Democrats play by another set of rules, and pretty soon you have riots in the streets, mass election cheating, and... oh.



 

 

 

...LMAO.....Chuck the Schmuck.....just ruined today's Depends......off to buy more.......

[GG]

49 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

As a staunch conservative let me go on record by saying that RBG’s replacement should wait until after the election. However, I believe it’s important that BOTH Trump and Biden put forth their top three potential candidates within the next two weeks. 

No reason for the nomination to wait.   Confirmation can be held after the election.  

[BillsFanNC]

18 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Ask yourself what Schumer would do if the Democrats held the Senate and there was a Democratic President. Think he'd say, "Let's wait!" If you do, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

Republicans keep playing by one set of rules, and the Democrats play by another set of rules, and pretty soon you have riots in the streets, mass election cheating, and... oh.



 

 

Also...

 

 

[IDBillzFan]

15 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’ll always take the high ground. But that being said, I actually see this as a win for Trump. He’s almost surely going to name a woman....which will be hard to argue against. 

 

I think the high ground is an important place to start. However the left has made it clear they will do everything in their power to destroy anyone who disagrees with them. The people and cities they've destroyed over the past four years is undeniable...all in the name of gaining power. They've played dirty from the moment Trump was elected. They would NEVER afford anyone the high ground. Ever.

 

Take the medium ground; praise RBG, nominate her replacement with a conservative female and do everything you can to get her on the bench. Especially because it's clear Roberts is no longer a reliable right-leaning judge.

 

You don't let moments like this go by for the sake of being a nice guy.

 

Just my cents.

[snafu]

40 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

As a staunch conservative let me go on record by saying that RBG’s replacement should wait until after the election. However, I believe it’s important that BOTH Trump and Biden put forth their top three potential candidates within the next two weeks. 

 

If I’m The President, I am 100% hating the timing of this.

I think Trump is in a no win situation regarding his re-election. I think ANY President in this situation would be in a tough spot. 

 

He’s not going to gain any votes by pushing a conservative.

He will lose votes by pushing a moderate (like Merrick Garland), or a replacement liberal.

 

This could be as bad as any October surprise, IMO. He’s better off waiting. Having a Supreme Court ****—show in the last 45 days is only going to get angry protest votes to the polls. Those voters are not pulling the lever for Trump.

 

That said, if I had to bet, I think he’s going to push forward with a replacement. He may win another seat on the Court and lose his lob in the White House because of it.

 

 

[Chef Jim]

1 minute ago, snafu said:

 

If I’m The President, I am 100% hating the timing of this.

I think Trump is in a no win situation regarding his re-election. I think ANY President in this situation would be in a tough spot. 

 

He’s not going to gain any votes by pushing a conservative.

He will lose votes by pushing a moderate (like Merrick Garland), or a replacement liberal.

 

This could be as bad as any October surprise, IMO. He’s better off waiting. Having a Supreme Court ****—show in the last 45 days is only going to get angry protest votes to the polls. Those voters are not pulling the lever for Trump.

 

That said, if I had to bet, I think he’s going to push forward with a replacement. He may win another seat on the Court and lose his lob in the White House because of it.

 

 

I agree. While many have said the Dems were keeping her “on ice” until after the election I’m thinking they wised up and “killed her off” early. 😉

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

15 minutes ago, GG said:

No reason for the nomination to wait.   Confirmation can be held after the election.  

 

 

...screw that....git er done by next Friday and we can watch the Libs flock to the Peace Bridge railing.....Popcorn Futures will skyrocket.......

[B-Man]

THOUGHTS ON THE PASSING OF RUTH BADER GINSBURG

by Paul Mirengoff

 

 

President Trump got it right last night when he called the late Justice Ginsburg an amazing woman with an amazing life. She is the foremost female the American legal profession has produced to date, and it’s unlikely that she will be surpassed any time soon.

 

Ginsburg was fierce partisan and liberal ideologue. Yet, she is said to have forged and maintained a strong friendship with the late Justice Scalia. This speaks to the grace and character of both jurists.

 

I don’t know how Ginsburg’s passing and the ensuing battle to replace her will effect the election. My sense is that it will have little direct impact on the presidential election, where the battle lines are set.

 

The future of the Supreme Court is a big deal, of course. Indeed, there is no issue in the presidential race that is more important. But both sides are about equally passionate on the matter, it seems to me.

 

If there is an impact on the presidential election, it might come if/when the Supreme Court decides the outcome. Things were setting up for a 5-4 decision, with Chief Justice Roberts as the swing vote.

 

Now, the alignment might end up being 4-3-1 (with conservatives in the plurality). If so, Roberts would still be the key vote. He could join the strong conservatives in a 5-3 majority or join the liberals, making the vote 4-4. A tie would mean leaving in place whatever decision was reached below. Would Roberts want a president to take office by virtue of a deadlocked Supreme Court and a lower court ruling?

 

I should emphasize, however, that facts will matter if the case is before the Supreme Court. Both sides will probably need a decent case for the potential deadlock I have suggested to occur.

 

If there is a direct electoral effect from Ginsburg’s passing, it might occur in tight Senate races involving endangered incumbents like Susan Collins, Thom Tillis, and Cory Gardner. That effect could vary from race to race, and will depend, in part, on what the candidates say and/or promise regarding filling the vacancy.

 

As for having a vote before Election Day, that seems unlikely to me for logistical and political reasons. The calendar, in the context of an election, seems highly problematic.

 

Confirmation before the election would be, as well. Sens. Collins, Murkowski, and Romney seem certain not to vote for confirming a Justice pre-election. Embattled incumbents might think they would be giving their job away by voting to confirm a strong, controversial conservative.

 

As for confirming a nominee if Trump loses, I think that’s unlikely too. Again, three no votes seem cast in stone. Good luck herding the remaining 50 GOP Senators, including lame ducks, into the fold.

Confirmation of a Justice by a lame duck Senate would increase the likelihood that Democrats will succeed in packing the Court at the first available opportunity. This, too, might deter a few Republican Senators.

 

As for whom Trump will nominate, I expect him to pick the person he concludes will maximize his reelection chances — maybe Judge Amy Barrett who might galvanize conservatives and evangelicals. This seems especially true if he believes the likelihood of confirming anyone he nominates is low, in the event Biden wins.

 

More at the link

[Buffalo_Gal]

3 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said:

Justice Ginsburg dictated a statement before her death: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed." https://t.co/XLzhPiLSng

 

"New president" "installed."

 

That's why I won't mourn her death. She was evil.

So, I will not go into this not being "her" seat, it is the people's seat. I want to dwell on the statement, supposedly from Ruth Ginsberg,  released by her granddaughter. I decided to look up the granddaughter. Clara Spera has ties to Lawfare and Brookings Institute.   Infer from that what you will.

 

Edited September 19, 2020 by Buffalo_Gal

[RiotAct]

1 hour ago, snafu said:

 

If I’m The President, I am 100% hating the timing of this.

I think Trump is in a no win situation regarding his re-election. I think ANY President in this situation would be in a tough spot. 

 

He’s not going to gain any votes by pushing a conservative.

He will lose votes by pushing a moderate (like Merrick Garland), or a replacement liberal.

 

This could be as bad as any October surprise, IMO. He’s better off waiting. Having a Supreme Court ****—show in the last 45 days is only going to get angry protest votes to the polls. Those voters are not pulling the lever for Trump.

 

That said, if I had to bet, I think he’s going to push forward with a replacement. He may win another seat on the Court and lose his lob in the White House because of it.

 

 

Trump is toast either way this November.

[Taro T]

14 hours ago, Tiberius said:

5-3 court would be better for Trump trying to steal the election. Of course the killing will start. Might not be the worst thing. 

 

Were Roberts a solid conservative, you might have a point.  Roberts often enough votes the way the establishment wants that 4-4 is the expected outcome.

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 hours ago, Dr. Who said:

Eh, I think the really interesting thing would be seeing Amy Barrett nominated and put on the Court to replace RBG. It will be compelling to see the totalitarian left try to skewer a supremely qualified candidate as a religious zealot. Racist will be difficult since she has two adopted Hatian children, though I am sure they will try. Maybe since they are the children of a conservative, they are not really black. Barrett is in the mold of Scalia, so this for the Left makes her a Nazi, though their own juriprudence exemplified by RBG allowed and allows the murder of millions of the innocent unborn. Personally, I think they will and should push the nomination through before the election. 

Wait until you hear the full throated decrees that Catholics are not qualified to be on the Court.

 

I would love to see her seated before October ends.