dubs Posted September 21, 2020 Posted September 21, 2020 It's very sad that RBG finally passed. Mortality faces us all. While I totally disagree with her politics, I recognize that she was a trailblazer, smart, and beloved by many. I think that pic from BMan is pretty poignant and should put things in perspective, that at the end of the day we are all human and come into this world the same way and all leave it at some point. RIP 2
Deranged Rhino Posted September 21, 2020 Posted September 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, Hedge said: And Trump says he'll make his announcement Friday or Saturday. Guess it'll be Saturday. 4 1
Koko78 Posted September 21, 2020 Posted September 21, 2020 3 hours ago, Gary M said: Don't dig the hair cut but shes a screamer, good for a one night stand. Honestly, I thought it was a guy at first. Terrible haircut.
Numark3 Posted September 21, 2020 Posted September 21, 2020 Why don’t republicans hold off until after the election, and if Trump loses, confirm a nomineee during the lame duck portion? If they are hell bent on ***** the 2016 precedent they set. That way, if trump wins, then they avoid this bad look. why not go that route? 8 hours ago, Gary M said: Don't dig the hair cut but shes a screamer, good for a one night stand. ehhhhh idk. I’d say no. if you ask me while I’m drunk and wanting a one night stand, I’d obviously say yes. 1
Deranged Rhino Posted September 21, 2020 Posted September 21, 2020 9 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: why not go that route? The very real possibility of the election results being decided by SCOTUS and a 4-4 tie. 1
Numark3 Posted September 21, 2020 Posted September 21, 2020 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: The very real possibility of the election results being decided by SCOTUS and a 4-4 tie. I suppose so. BUT you still have a lame duck session in November and December. See what I’m saying? so if it gets it to that point, then confirm your nominee Edited September 21, 2020 by Crayola64
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted September 21, 2020 Posted September 21, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Crayola64 said: Why don’t republicans hold off until after the election, and if Trump loses, confirm a nomineee during the lame duck portion? If they are hell bent on ***** the 2016 precedent they set. That way, if trump wins, then they avoid this bad look. why not go that route? ehhhhh idk. I’d say no. if you ask me while I’m drunk and wanting a one night stand, I’d obviously say yes. Your main concern for the Rs is the “bad look” after Russia and Kavanaugh? If that is what it looks like when we’re all looking good together I say pass. There is no precedent from 2016. The situation is similar only in that a seat is available because a justice died. A bad look, imo, is the suggestion that RBG kept her thoughts on a president replacing her private, shared them with a select few as she spent her final hours reflecting on her life. Certainly she would know a sitting president was under no obligation to act as she saw fit, surely she knew the country is in the midst of serious and significant societal unrest, and surely she would know her dying words would be used as a rallying cry for those intent on destruction. She was 87 years old and a very skilled writer coming to the end of a fight that lasted several years...,she could not pen an op ed for the NYT outlining her thoughts? It seems clear to me that RGB was intent on serving as a justice for the duration of her life, knowing all the obligation and rules that applied as she made that decision, and a huge part of that was that upon death, her seat opened up. She chose to remain all throughout the Obama years, she chose to remain as she battled setback upon setback, and there is nothing written or published that suggests she expected anything other than to see her commitment through to the end. We should respect her enough to honor the process. It only looks bad to the oppostion, and the opposition has shown time and again their contempt for who the President is, what his role is, and for 60,000,000 Americans who support him. Time to move on from this bs Sally Field “You really like me!” garbage. Edited September 22, 2020 by leh-nerd skin-erd 2 5
Niagara Posted September 22, 2020 Posted September 22, 2020 https://www.rt.com/op-ed/501295-democrats-threatening-impeach-trump/ "RBG, who was 87, lived a long life and served the liberal agenda well, but let’s be honest, even in this mourning period: Ginsburg brought this situation on herself. If you will recall, during Obama’s last term, Democrats urged RBG to retire so he could appoint her replacement. She refused, and set up this situation on her death. She did not want the current president to choose her seat, so, instead of doing the right thing by resigning for health reasons, she hung in there until the bitter end. What an incredibly selfish person. She should have retired years ago. She took her wage from the taxpayers while her law clerks made critical decisions as she, in her 80s, underwent cancer treatment. She held one of the most critical positions in the land, but was perhaps the least competent and fit justices over the past four years. Yet the leftists in the media and the Democratic Party propped her up and made her out to be a saint. Never mind that she was sick and incapable of doing her job – just strap her to her seat and let the law clerks do the rest." Russia Today is often more informative than our own MMM. 2
Doc Brown Posted September 22, 2020 Posted September 22, 2020 5 hours ago, Niagara said: https://www.rt.com/op-ed/501295-democrats-threatening-impeach-trump/ "RBG, who was 87, lived a long life and served the liberal agenda well, but let’s be honest, even in this mourning period: Ginsburg brought this situation on herself. If you will recall, during Obama’s last term, Democrats urged RBG to retire so he could appoint her replacement. She refused, and set up this situation on her death. She did not want the current president to choose her seat, so, instead of doing the right thing by resigning for health reasons, she hung in there until the bitter end. What an incredibly selfish person. She should have retired years ago. She took her wage from the taxpayers while her law clerks made critical decisions as she, in her 80s, underwent cancer treatment. She held one of the most critical positions in the land, but was perhaps the least competent and fit justices over the past four years. Yet the leftists in the media and the Democratic Party propped her up and made her out to be a saint. Never mind that she was sick and incapable of doing her job – just strap her to her seat and let the law clerks do the rest." Russia Today is often more informative than our own MMM. She assumed Hillary would be elected and her husband originally appointed her to the Supreme Court despite her older age. The perfect story. It's as simple as that. I don't know if she was incapable of doing her job but she absolutely should've retired before 2014.
SoCal Deek Posted September 22, 2020 Posted September 22, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Doc Brown said: She assumed Hillary would be elected and her husband originally appointed her to the Supreme Court despite her older age. The perfect story. It's as simple as that. I don't know if she was incapable of doing her job but she absolutely should've retired before 2014. Correct! I’m hoping you’ll see more ‘early’ retirements in the future. If she felt so strongly, and she really shouldn’t be political at all, she should’ve retired while a Democrat was in the White House. This back and forth congressional infighting has gotten to be exhausting! Edited September 22, 2020 by SoCal Deek
ALF Posted September 22, 2020 Posted September 22, 2020 When one party has the Senate and WH without needing 60 votes they have the right to confirm a SC Justice if time permits. If the Democrats were in this position you better believe they would do it. If the republicans confirm a SC Justice before the election it will just motivate more Democrats to vote . Garland did not get a hearing in the Senate because it was Republican hoping to take the WH in 2016.Yep elections have consequences , if you don't vote don't complain afterwards. 2
Alaska Darin Posted September 22, 2020 Posted September 22, 2020 2 minutes ago, ALF said: When one party has the Senate and WH without needing 60 votes they have the right to confirm a SC Justice if time permits. If the Democrats were in this position you better believe they would do it. If the republicans confirm a SC Justice before the election it will just motivate more Democrats to vote . Garland did not get a hearing in the Senate because it was Republican hoping to take the WH in 2016.Yep elections have consequences , if you don't vote don't complain afterwards. Careful. Your sensible post is going to get them stomping their feet, chanting stupid things in unison, and lighting things on fire. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted September 22, 2020 Posted September 22, 2020 2 hours ago, Doc Brown said: She assumed Hillary would be elected and her husband originally appointed her to the Supreme Court despite her older age. The perfect story. It's as simple as that. I don't know if she was incapable of doing her job but she absolutely should've retired before 2014. It’s interesting and I see a parallel between RBG and Bill Clinton. Both extremely intelligent and capable people, both perhaps a bit on the narcissistic side (one more than the other obviously), but in the end, both “undone” by circumstances that were fairly easy to predict and project. One involved exposing his throat to his enemies on one of the worst kept secrets in politics, the other by over managing the curves that life inevitably throws at us all. Simple human failings.
Niagara Posted September 22, 2020 Posted September 22, 2020 2 hours ago, Doc Brown said: She assumed Hillary would be elected and her husband originally appointed her to the Supreme Court despite her older age. The perfect story. It's as simple as that. I don't know if she was incapable of doing her job but she absolutely should've retired before 2014. Of course she thought Hillary would win, as did almost the whole country. The thought of law clerks making decisions is scary except they just had to follow the liberal playbook. No thinking allowed. She was a rubber stamp, as Biden would be. Funny how her hubris will cost her cause after calling Trump a faker. Payback is sweet. https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/politics/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-donald-trump-faker/index.html "He is a faker," she said of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, going point by point, as if presenting a legal brief. "He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. ... How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that."
RochesterRob Posted September 22, 2020 Posted September 22, 2020 3 hours ago, Doc Brown said: She assumed Hillary would be elected and her husband originally appointed her to the Supreme Court despite her older age. The perfect story. It's as simple as that. I don't know if she was incapable of doing her job but she absolutely should've retired before 2014. She was not in a position to let assumptions guide her decision making unlike the people on this board who have no personal stake or control in the matter. She let her ego run amok and here we are today with a vacant seat on the court. How intelligent could she be if she was willing to jeopardize her team's position on the court. 1
Recommended Posts