Well first off..RIP...secondly this will be a mess
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/18/1003...n-of-gender-equality-dies-at-87?origin=NOTIFY
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/18/1003...n-of-gender-equality-dies-at-87?origin=NOTIFY
Ruth Bader Ginsberg died
- Thread starter mwulf
- Start date
Get ready for an excrement show. The next candidate is going to be verbally flayed, flogged and crucified. The opposition is probably already lining up accusations and "victims".
I dont disagree one bit. Will they wait until Feb or Monday? Precedent says Feb reality says Monday
Mitch McConnell in 2016: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president."
Mitch McConnell in 2016: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president."
But even before Obama had named Garland, and in fact only hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president — to be elected later that year.
"Of course," said McConnell, "the American people should have a say in the court's direction. It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on the president and withhold its consent." https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/6244...errick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now
"Of course," said McConnell, "the American people should have a say in the court's direction. It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on the president and withhold its consent." https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/6244...errick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now
Both parties are hypocritical. If you want to list the examples, we'll be here all night.
I'm Trump supporter. He should NOT even think about nominating anyone until after the election. PERIOD.
Precedent has been set. Difference was prior was a lame duck situation.
But as contentious as things are, wait. He's gonna win anyway
But as contentious as things are, wait. He's gonna win anyway
Yeah that's over the top. I don't agree with hardly a thing she's been in the majority on but she is a person of our history and I'll give her my respect
Well this is gas on an already flaming fire. Like her or dislike her, may she rest in piece and this not cause more division.
I don’t buy this notion that this country was ever united except maybe world war 2. There has always been a division it just one sect of people except defeat and wait till the next election and the other sect are spoiled brats that has a meltdown and riots
She SHOULD have retired during Obama's tenure IF she was really concerned about maintaining her far left spot on the court. I'm sure the thought that the HRC could lose never crossed her mind. She's been dead as far as any rational thought for a long long time. Her assistants have been writing everything for her for several years.
We will need a full Supreme Court before the election. There will be court challenges no matter who wins. A 4-4 Supreme Court wouldn’t decide anything
He's on the list. Atleast someone released their list. Sleepy almost forced to now. Although maybe not the real list
Technically yes. Actually no. They had to muzzle her after her last faux pas. She hasn't written her own opinions for years. What transpires now will be very interesting. Trump has EVERY right and SHOULD nominate somebody quickly to fill the court.
Agree, it's too bad that it's come to this.
I think they should have some sort of fitness level (mental/physical) that a judge must qualify for each year.
When the institution was created people were more than willing to step down when they got to a certain point because it was hard to get around in those days! Modern technology and creature comforts have eliminated that self realization.
Wow, that's a good point. Trump should nominate someone on Monday. That will give them at least a little time to vet them.
I don't have a problem of not having term limits. The Supreme Court was meant to be a slow moving entity unfazed by short term political swings in the other branches. RBG I think was hoping the Dems would re-take the senate on Hillary's coat tails so they could nominate an ultra-liberal such as herself as her replacement. I think she would have retired IF HRC had won and they had taken the Senate.
If he is going to nominate somebody, he’d be smart to nominate Amy Coney Barrett. He needs the white suburban female vote to win. Coney Barrett is a Catholic mother of a bunch of kids. The optics of her getting put through the ringer will be a bad look for the left and could possibly swing him votes. But that’s if he’s smart. I doubt he does it and we get another crap nominee more like Kavanaugh and less like Goursech.
It might work in his favor to nominate a black woman...... It seems like he had a few female black jurists in his sights the last time around.