RBG has passed away
-
-
-
@jon-nyc said in RBG has passed away:
Seen on twitter:
Knowing 2020, we’ll have a 269-269 EC split decided by a 4-4 SCOTUS.
I saw something similar. However, given the fact that one of the liberal justices has passed away, the current leaning of the court is probably more like 5 to 3 rather than 4 to 4.
-
Sen John Thune, 2020: “President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate.”
Sen John Thune, 2016. "Since the next presidential election is already underway, the next president should make this lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court."
-
Yeah, all the excuses in 2016 were ill conceived and regrettable. They should have just said “we have the power to block any appointment and we are going to use that power in the interest of those voters that elected us.”Today they should say”we have the power to appoint a nominee and we are going to use that power in the interest of those voters that elected us.”
Senate elections have consequences.
The Brad
-
I know there will be a lot of chatter about RBG and who will replace.
But I thought it interesting what antonin Scalias son posted on twitter on what his dad felt about RBG
There was a time when liberals and conservatives could not only respect one another, they could actually care for them deeply.
Where did those days go??
-
If they have the votes, they have the votes.
In 2016 they had the ability to block so they blocked.
Everything else is just noise.
The Brad
-
Calling people hypocrites and accusing them of impure motives is but actually hilarious given what we have witnessed since the last election.
How anyone can make this charge with a straight face is beyond me.
I just laugh when I read this stuff.
@Loki said in RBG has passed away:
Calling people hypocrites and accusing them of impure motives is but actually hilarious given what we have witnessed since the last election.
How anyone can make this charge with a straight face is beyond me.Ann Althouse comments:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
But also be clear about this: Was Barack Obama wrong to nominate Merrick Garland? You must clearly say that he was or I won't "let you" be clear.
Let me be clear: The voters should pick a President, and that President should select a successor to Justice Ginsburg.
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 19, 2020ADDED: From Barack Obama's statement on the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.
A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment.
How does that basic principle apply to you, President Obama? You went ahead and made a nomination. Why shouldn't the new President follow his predecessor's precedent. What can you say to me that isn't "based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment"? It's hard to play the hypocrisy card!
AND:
.@GOP We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices. We have this obligation, without delay!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 19, 2020ALSO: Speaking of "what's convenient or advantageous in the moment," why did Senator Kamala Harris vote against Neil Gorsuch?! Here's her statement. Can anyone seriously portray that as based on anything lofty?
Judge Gorsuch's deeply conservative views put him well outside the mainstream.... Given the controversial nature of this nominee, it is deeply unfortunate Senate Republicans took unprecedented steps to ram Judge Gorsuch through the Senate instead of the President working with Democrats and Republicans to find a consensus nominee.
That's a frank claim of power by a Senator. Obama frankly exercised the power that he had to make a nomination, and the Senators frankly exercised the power that they had. They haven't laid the groundwork to argue that the Senate majority shouldn't cast the votes it has and confirm.
-
If they have the votes, they have the votes.
In 2016 they had the ability to block so they blocked.
Everything else is just noise.
@LuFins-Dad said in RBG has passed away:
If they have the votes, they have the votes.
In 2016 they had the ability to block so they blocked.
Everything else is just noise.
Yup.
