Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed away

[0nelilreb]

Yes, if the POTUS was Trump.
Yes, if there were only six weeks remaining.
Yes, if the jurist who died was a legendary and revered figure who will go down in history as one of the greatest and most influential jurists and the appointed replacement was from the other side.

LOL .. dishonest and disingenuous. Nobody including you ( I hope ) believes they would wait for any reason .

 

[evillawyer]

GOP numbnuts shouting she's calling for political violence in 3, 2, 1 ....

 

[luthervol]

You get it. Trump and Republicans need to put aside their differences and for some, their hate of Trump personally, and spell out to the American people that this is what you're voting for if you vote Dem in this election. I've talked to too many traditionally reliable Republicans who state that they're likely voting for Biden 'cause Trump is so unlikeable. I counter with giving them policies that they'd be ignoring as well as policies they'd be supporting if they did that. Now we have more to add to the list.

Do you want to support one party packing the court by changing the rules? That's what these folks will be voting for

What we are seeing is that once every three hundred years a person so horrendously despicable is inexplicably elected that policy becomes secondary. How that wasn't known from day one still baffles me.

 

[1972 Grad]

He sure did love RBG.

I don't think she was strong enough to smother him.

 

[0nelilreb]

GOP numbnuts shouting she's calling for political violence in 3, 2, 1 ....

No she’s not , she’s just threatening and pandering like always .

 

[UT_VOLS13]

GOP numbnuts shouting she's calling for political violence in 3, 2, 1 ....

Pelosi is a POS!

 

[1972 Grad]

Yes, if the POTUS was Trump.
Yes, if there were only six weeks remaining.
Yes, if the jurist who died was a legendary and revered figure who will go down in history as one of the greatest and most influential jurists and the appointed replacement was from the other side.

She may have been a wonderful person, but she was a left wing partisan hack.

 

[rocytop2624]

But what about in 2012 when Obama was reelected and his candidate didn't get a vote several months out from the end of his term? Didn't the American people vote for four more years of Obama? I'm confused on how it was okay to do that then but not okay now.

Obama didn't have the Senate. Trump has the Senate.

 

[evillawyer]

But what about in 2012 when Obama was reelected and his candidate didn't get a vote several months out from the end of his term? Didn't the American people vote for four more years of Obama? I'm confused on how it was okay to do that then but not okay now.

I just wish they'd go ahead and just admit this and 2016 and the stonewalling of Obama appointees was a pure power grab. There are no principles behind it ... Unless might makes right is considered a principle.

 

[luthervol]

Sorry but I don’t understand your logic about appointing a judge from the “other side.” Seems like as long as the balance is in your desired favor, then keep selecting the same “side” is ok.

I think you misunderstood my post.

 

[volinbham]

GOP numbnuts shouting she's calling for political violence in 3, 2, 1 ....

Like those (including some of our very own) that thought Sarah Palin was calling for Congressional candidates to be shot because of her "target" language?

 

[evillawyer]

 

[volinbham]

I just wish they'd go ahead and just admit this and 2016 and the stonewalling of Obama appointees was a pure power grab. There are no principles behind it ... Unless might makes right is considered a principle.

then supporting the Obama appointee and opposing this one are pure power grabs too - why is it so hard to face that NEITHER side has principles other than power.

 

[luthervol]

LOL .. dishonest and disingenuous. Nobody including you ( I hope ) believes they would wait for any reason .

What?
You don't believe that if the dems. controlled the senate today that they would wait?

 

[BowlBrother85]

You sure you aren't confused and you're listening to Nancy Pelosi?

Have you listened to Susan Collins talk? I'm sure that I'm talking about her.

 

[luthervol]

She may have been a wonderful person, but she was a left wing partisan hack.

Yet she will be remembered and revered as one of the greatest and most influential of all times.
While Trump will be remembered as the worst, most destructive, and most divisive of all times.

And both of those are appropriate.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Yet she will be remembered and revered as one of the greatest and most influential of all times.
While Trump will be remembered as the worst, most destructive, and most divisive of all times.

And both of those are appropriate.

You don't think Trump flipping to a conservative Supreme Court will be seen as influential?

 

[luthervol]

You don't think Trump flipping to a conservative Supreme Court will be seen as influential?

He gets zero credit for that.

 

[Orange_Crush]

He gets zero credit for that.

No? Who does? It seems that the liberal logic is that all the unrest happening in Democrat controlled cities is his fault since it's happening on his watch, but he won't get any credit for what happens on his watch?

Seems to me that you've been bemoaning for 3 1/2 years just how influential Trump has been.

 

[1972 Grad]

Yet she will be remembered and revered as one of the greatest and most influential of all times.
While Trump will be remembered as the worst, most destructive, and most divisive of all times.

And both of those are appropriate.

And Trump will be remembered as the man who changed the court by replacing her with a conservative. Life is good!

 

[newyorkvol]

I would support it if she was replacing a justice appointed by a dem president and not support it if she was replacing a justice appointed by a rep. president.

You said this as well. It implies that judges should only be appointed based on who appointed their predecessor. Which means the balance of the court would never actually change. And I assumed, maybe falsely, that you are content with that view when the balance of the court lies in favor of your personal leanings.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Obama didn't have the Senate. Trump has the Senate.

Having the senate wasn't part of any justification I heard any republican senators give at the time. The justification was that the American people should decide who they want via the presidential election.

 

[1972 Grad]

Have you listened to Susan Collins talk? I'm sure that I'm talking about her.

You continue the left's war on women by making fun of Collins' essential tremor?

 

[headhunter15]

This may backfire on the Dems and Pelosi.

 

[evillawyer]

then supporting the Obama appointee and opposing this one are pure power grabs too - why is it so hard to face that NEITHER side has principles other than power.

Not following you. If the Republicans had not stonewalled Garland, I would have no objection to Trump appointing a nominee now. There's no limitation in the constitution as to when the president is no longer permitted to appoint. The Republicans created a de facto rule in 2016 purportedly based on a principle that would apply across the board (no consideration of a scotus nominee during a presidential election year; let the voters select a president and he'll decide). That's not being followed now. If they don't follow it here, they've demonstrated that they view scotus as a political arm. As such, I have no issue with Dems expanding the court to 15 if and when they gain senate and POTUS. Ditto with GOP. Now is the chance for the GOP to end the arms race. If they don't, eff em. The SCOTUS will just be another political branch and the rule of law dead.