40 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Cant disprove a negative

do better

You mean other than pointing to 230 years of Senate norms?  

1 hour ago, Dave Moss said:

You like that 1960s look, huh?

Yeah, with the gigantic hairy bush!

7 minutes ago, bobeph said:

Yeah, with the gigantic hairy bush!

Quote

FLASHBACK: RBG Said Presidents Should Name Supreme Court Justices in an Election Year

Matt Margolis

3 minutes

---

As the debate over what to do about the vacancy on the Supreme Court is only getting started, perhaps we should heed the advice of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself as to what to do.

When a similar scenario occurred four years ago, following the death of Antonin Scalia, the Republican-controlled Senate blocked Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. It was a controversial move, and Ginsburg had something to say about it:  Ginsburg publicly called on the Senate to go through with the nomination.

"That’s their job,” she said in July 2016. "There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.”

"Eight is not a good number for a collegial body that sometimes disagrees,” Ginsburg said on the issue a few months later during an event at the Smithsonian Museum of American History in Washington.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was with her, agreed. "I think we hope there will be nine as quickly as possible.”

"What we do is we automatically affirm the decision of the court below. No opinion is written, no reasons are given, and the affirmance has no precedential value,” Ginsburg explained. "It’s just as though we denied review.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) made the same argument was made Friday night, though he added that since the 2020 election results are expected to be contested, an eight-member Court poses a potential constitutional crisis.

"Democrats and Joe Biden have made clear they intend to challenge this election. They intend to fight the legitimacy of the election. As you know, Hillary Clinton has told Joe Biden ‘under no circumstances should you concede, you should challenge this election.’ And we cannot have Election Day come and go with a 4-4 Court,” Cruz told Sean Hannity on Friday. "A 4-4 Court that is equally divided cannot decide anything. And I think we risk a constitutional crisis if we do not have a nine-justice Supreme Court, particularly when there is such a risk of … a contested election.”

Unfortunately for the Left, their revered Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the case for Trump to nominate, and for the Senate to confirm, her own replacement back in 2016. You can point to the words of politicians who adjust their views to accommodate their desired political ends, and great, there’s plenty of that to go around on both sides, but are the same people mourning the loss of Ruth Bader Ginsburg going to say that she was wrong?

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/09/19/ruth-bader-ginsburg-made-the-case-for-filling-her-vacancy-before-the-election-back-in-2016-n944778?fbclid=IwAR0511sER0RCWXjoXHg3Woo3lhCTvcwT7THyFPzu1k15S4BDC3XG4uYBORQ

3 minutes ago, Shocker54 said:

Who would thought politicians change their opinions for their own benefit? 

45 has the green light to install whomever he sees fit in that open seat. Also to serve as a safeguard to protect the people in case the radical alt left steal this election with mail in ballots.

Yo, thems Demz be screwed 

RBG was exactly right.   There is no good reason for the POTUS to treat election years as any of the other 3 yrs.    Do your job and fill the seat.  Re-election comes 2nd to your duties as potus

20 minutes ago, Shocker54 said:

The level of crying is hilarious and 95 percent of them probably can't think of a single Supreme Court decision since Trumps been in office that's hurt them. His appointees have been more than fair. 

This is absolutely right. He has made good decisions regarding his picks. Really the only good thing he has done 

2 hours ago, bobeph said:

Ruth was hot in her 30’s.  I woulda hit that.

2 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

Kinda reminds me of how they crammed obamacare through...

These are all bad analogies. They passed Obamacare with a filibuster-proof majority after essentially being elected on a platform for national healthcare. Everyone knew that that was what the 2008 election was about, aside from war in the M.E. Beyond that, the nominating process is a different game altogether the legislative. Republicans had a clear Constitutional obligation to allow for a vote on a nominee, but they directly shirked their Constitutional duty. I would not be here today voicing a single complaint if McConnell hadn't changed the rules and then moved the goalposts.

Your refusal to acknowledge the intricacies of and differences between these situations is not astute. It is at best logically weak and at worst intellectually dishonest to deny that there are degrees of severity in how one side has gamed the system over the other in recent years. It seems that you simply can't bear to admit any fault by the Republicans in any case.

The only reason the Democrats are in the position that they are now is that they continued to be parliamentarians, attempting to play by the rules when the other side had eschewed even the slightest pretense of honoring them.

So, who is the Nominee?  You know he's gonna try to get one in.

Trump will nominate himself, there is plenty of greatness in there to spread around, no reason to limit things to just the POTUS office

15 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Trump will nominate himself, there is plenty of greatness in there to spread around, no reason to limit things to just the POTUS office

True. That's true. 

38 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

So, who is the Nominee?  You know he's gonna try to get one in.

Amy Barrett 

If Barrett gets nominated I cannot WAIT to see how the left decides to attack her.  God help her if she likes beer

 

Just now, hukdonfoniks said:

If Barrett gets nominated I cannot WAIT to see how the left decides to attack her.  God help her if she likes beer

 

I was thinking the same thing. The left is losing their collective sheet already over this so yeah, God help her if she ever had a day of fun in her whole life.

3 hours ago, Paul852 said:

This is absolutely right. He has made good decisions regarding his picks. Really the only good thing he has done 

Bart O'Tavernaugh is a partisan hack that has no business near a bench. Nothing is wrong with Gorsuch but Bart is just a GOP lackey with 0 principles.

9 minutes ago, Ride the Walrus said:

Bart O'Tavernaugh is a partisan hack that has no business near a bench. Nothing is wrong with Gorsuch but Bart is just a GOP lackey with 0 principles.

lol you realize Kavanaugh voted against Trump in the tax records case, right 

2 hours ago, PoconoDon said:

I was thinking the same thing. The left is losing their collective sheet already over this so yeah, God help her if she ever had a day of fun in her whole life.

Yeah. I mean imagine she made a video while in college copying a dance from a movie or something.

2 hours ago, PoconoDon said:

I was thinking the same thing. The left is losing their collective sheet already over this so yeah, God help her if she ever had a day of fun in her whole life.

What's interesting is that Harris is on the judiciary committee and would have to take part in a confirmation hearing.  Now that she's a potential VP I don't think she can be as venomous as she was to Kavanaugh...especially if Trump does pick a woman. 

4 hours ago, Shocker54 said:

Who would thought politicians change their opinions for their own benefit? 

45 has the green light to install whomever he sees fit in that open seat. Also to serve as a safeguard to protect the people in case the radical alt left steal this election with mail in ballots.

3 hours ago, PoconoDon said:

I was thinking the same thing. The left is losing their collective sheet already over this so yeah, God help her if she ever had a day of fun in her whole life.

What kind of fun?  Like attempted rape?

2 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

What kind of fun?  Like attempted rape?

You're such a lefty lunatic. 

3 hours ago, Ride the Walrus said:

Bart O'Tavernaugh is a partisan hack that has no business near a bench. Nothing is wrong with Gorsuch but Bart is just a GOP lackey with 0 principles.

And Sotomayor and Kagan are intellectual lightweights

 

2 hours ago, M.C. said:

 

Yeah, we don't care. It is called politics and they don't have to play fair.  Everyone has switched sides from what they said 4 years ago, but the GOP has the power to jam her through and they should. Too bad. 

14 hours ago, Shocker54 said:

Just don't ask her to make you a sandwich after you're done 

Dr. Philly doesn't even ask. He just grabs that sandwich by the bread. And they let him get away with it.