Jump to content
~*Please Support the GoFundMe Campaign for HardAct*~ Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
SaysWho?

Supreme Court: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 85, Hospitalized After Fracturing 3 Ribs in Fall At Court. UPDATE: She's been released.

Recommended Posts

This is a failure that can be put at the feet of both Obama and Ginsburg herself.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mclumber1 said:

This is a failure that can be put at the feet of both Obama and Ginsburg herself.  

 

Because the republicans would TOTALLY have held confirmation hearings for an equally liberal justice nominee and not at all stonewalled it like they did with a moderate centrist like Merrick fucking Garland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CayceG said:

Because the republicans would TOTALLY have held confirmation hearings for an equally liberal justice nominee and not at all stonewalled it like they did with a moderate centrist like Merrick fucking Garland.

 

Democrats still controlled the Senate at the start of Obama's second term. Kagan (63-37) and Sotomayor (68-31) got through. And replacing a liberal with a liberal would not have gotten the same pusbhack as replacing a conservative with a moderate--although of course the real problem was McConnell refusing to hold hearings at all.

 

But yes, it's so naive to say that Ginsburg should have stepped down at the start of Obama's second term. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CayceG said:

 

Because the republicans would TOTALLY have held confirmation hearings for an equally liberal justice nominee and not at all stonewalled it like they did with a moderate centrist like Merrick fucking Garland.

 

2009 and 2010 called:  Democrats had a comfortable majority in the Senate.  If the worry was filibuster, consider that the Democrats ended up nuking the rule a few years later to ensure lower court nominees could be confirmed.  They should have gone for broke and gotten rid of the filibuster if the GOP tried to block a replacement for Ginsburg. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

2009 and 2010 called:  Democrats had a comfortable majority in the Senate.  If the worry was filibuster, consider that the Democrats ended up nuking the rule a few years later to ensure lower court nominees could be confirmed.  They should have gone for broke and gotten rid of the filibuster if the GOP tried to block a replacement for Ginsburg. 

That was back when almost the whole party was stuck in the past. Now most have wisened up to turtle's tricks. Not Chuck though. He's hopelessly stuck in the past

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm the same way. I don't get why she didn't step down in 2013 or 2014. Even with a smaller majority than the first two years, they still gained seats in 2012.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if we are in a weekend at Bernies type situation?  What if the Supreme Court just never lets the White House that she actually passed away?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She’s been on the court for nearly 25 years and has taken less days off than Trump has in 2 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Translation:  The cancer is in remission.  It will return, as in most cases of cancer treatment. 

 

This is very simplistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Amazatron said:

Gah, every time this thread gets updated I get nervous something bad has happened.

 

 

Every time I see it at the top of the page my stomach sinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Chairslinger said:

Every time I see it at the top of the page my stomach sinks.

 

On 1/7/2019 at 8:02 AM, Jason said:

tenor.gif?itemid=9506233

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RedSoxFan9 said:

This might be the only situation where acceleration leads to a good outcome

 

What does that mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court gets so bad that Democrats have to do something dramatic to fix it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Even FDR couldn't pack the courts, what's the solution

 

yeah but that was back when things mattered

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2019 at 3:13 PM, RedSoxFan9 said:

Oral arguments are terrible, and she should skip more.

 

You can’t vote on cases in which you don’t participate in the oral argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Even FDR couldn't pack the courts, what's the solution

 

Except the courts have already been packed. Expanding the size of the court is not synonymous with packing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Anathema- said:

 

Except the courts have already been packed. Expanding the size of the court is not synonymous with packing. 

 

Yes it is. That is precisely what the court-packing plan was :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sblfilms said:

 

Yes it is. That is precisely what the court-packing plan was :p

 

wwUOzfz.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×