Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passes away at 87

[DirtyD]

Usual sycophants placing blame everywhere except at the feet of the professional political actors that helped make this happen:

I wish democratic politicians gave as much of a fukk about the supreme court as their online fan clubs do. Unfortunately, their actions show that's not the case.

By failing to call favorable witnesses or solicit affidavits from experts on sexual harassment, Biden was as responsible for Hill’s “character assassination” and Thomas’s place on the Supreme Court as anyone. “He did everything to make it be good for Thomas and to slant it against her,” Georgetown University law professor Susan Deller Ross observed to the Times in 2008.

Joe Biden’s Half-Baked Political Gimmicks

Another shining moment in Biden’s progress in the current presidential term was his conduct in the hearings on Judge Alito’s nomination to the US Supreme Court. From the opening moments of the Judiciary Committee’s sessions in January, 2006, it became clear that Alito faced no serious opposition. On that first ludicrous morning Senator Pat Leahy sank his head into his hands, shaking it in unbelieving despair as Biden blathered out a self-serving and inane monologue lasting a full twenty minutes before he even asked Alito one question. In his allotted half hour Biden managed to pose only five questions, all of them ineptly phrased. He did pose two questions about Alito’s membership of a racist society at Princeton, but had already undercut them in his monologue by calling Alito “a man of integrity”, not once but twice, and further trivialized the interrogation by reaching under the dais to pull out a Princeton cap and put it on.

In all, Biden rambled for 4,000 words, leaving Alito time only to put together less than 1,000. A Delaware newspaper made deadly fun of him for his awful performance, eliciting the revealing confession from Biden that “I made a mistake. I should have gone straight to my question. I was trying to put him at ease.”

"Change," "Hope" ... Why They Must be Talking About Joe Biden! - CounterPunch.org

Come January, President Barack Obama will be consigned to the sidelines as Donald Trump occupies the Oval Office and begins the work of dismantling his legacy. But there is one action that Obama could take on January 3, 2017 that could hold off some of the worst potential abuses of a Trump administration for up to a year. Obama can appoint his nominee Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court on that date, in between the two sessions of Congress.

Even though he'd have been out in a year with how important the court is wouldn't that year have been a large net positive?



Obama Can and Should Put Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court

Kelly, an Iowa native like Grassley, a former public defender and the embodiment of a public servant, had been unanimously approved by the GOP-led Senate for the federal bench in 2013. Just north of 50, she was considerably younger than the 63-year-old Garland. Progressive groups begged Obama to appoint Kelly, whose story touched hearts, but Obama listened to Republican Orrin Hatch instead, who counseled a centrist choice could get seated by the Senate his party controlled and still does.

“Who listens to Orrin Hatch?” a liberal activist exclaims, still angry at Obama for “taking the path of least resistance. He didn’t want to make waves.” Hatch had given his blessing to President Clinton naming Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Obama thought history could repeat itself. “He was fooled by Orrin Hatch, who then turned around and betrayed him,” this activist says. “He made a terrible mistake, the biggest mistake of his presidency.”

Will Obama Ever ’Fess Up to His Merrick Garland Mess?

“We should have shut down the Senate,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) said Tuesday. “We made a calculation that we were going to win the 2016 [presidential] election and confirm a nominee. And it didn’t work out.”

“Hindsight’s 20/20,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.). “I think I would have liked us to take an even harder line.”

HuffPost is now a part of Verizon Media

But no amount of swag or hagiography can obscure the fact that, while Ginsburg is responsible for a great number of landmark legal decisions, her legacy may be sorely tarnished by one truly terrible one: refusing to retire when President Barack Obama could have named her replacement. That decision came into stark relief this month when Ginsburg fell and broke three ribs—and half of the nation took a collective gasp. Women took to Twitter to offer the justice a rib.

But Carmon and others who’ve helped turn Ginsburg into a pop-culture icon are deluding themselves. Ginsburg is a mere mortal. Falling down is the leading cause of accidental death in people over age 85. The actuarial table is not in her favor. There’s a real possibility Ginsburg will not outlast the Trump administration or live long enough for a Democrat to replace her. The situation today is one many liberal lawyers feared years ago and worked hard to avert. But the feisty justice rebuffed them all, a decision that makes all the hero worship hard for some of us to stomach.

What the cult of Ruth Bader Ginsburg got wrong

 

[King Static X]

nikka I literally just told you I'm not helping white supremacist keep office or further destroy democracy you a try hard lol. Unless you got something new for discussion please don't quote me.

Only going based off of what you said .

VOTE!

 

[King Static X]

Usual sycophants placing blame everywhere except at the feet of the professional political actors that helped make this happen:

You know what, I agree. This was a huge miscalculation by Obama & RBG. RBG should have retired in 2013/2014 (I've said this before). Obama shouldn't have nominated Garland and he should have pushed harder against Mitch.

 

[FAH1223]

Are you saying McConnell is right for blocking the vote in 2016 and moving forward now? If so, what is the logic behind that?
Either an election year invalidates the results of prior elections and you have to wait or it doesn’t and the president and senate should do their jobs.

McConnell won power in 2014. He became the Senate Majority Leader. Therefore, he could do whatever the hell he wanted to maximize his party's power.

Why don't you understand this? If Obama and Dems held onto the Senate in 2014, they are able to replace Scalia. Probably have to eliminate the filibuster for SCOTUS judges then to do it (McConnell eliminated in 2017 to get Gorsuch through).

 

[acri1]

If Schumer and the Dems aren't going to do anything, why waste your time and vote? STAY HOME!

I'd like Trump and as many other Rethugs as possible out of office.

Doesn't mean I expect Dems to do anything other than try to court Republicans and "heal the country" if they win.

 

[mobbinfms]

Republicans stay being unscrupulous, so obviously they are reneging now that they are able to gain power.

Of course. It was bullshyt in 2016 and they probably thought it wouldn’t be an issue for another 20-30 years or even longer. Lo and behold it happened in 4 years and they are being exposed as hypocrites, but they don’t give a fukk.

 

[King Static X]

I'd like Trump and as many other Rethugs as possible out of office.

Doesn't mean I expect Dems to do anything other than try to court Republicans and "heal the country" if they win.

Cool

 

[mobbinfms]

McConnell won power in 2014. He became the Senate Majority Leader. Therefore, he could do whatever the hell he wanted to maximize his party's power.

Why don't you understand this? If Obama and Dems held onto the Senate in 2014, they are able to replace Scalia. Probably have to eliminate the filibuster for SCOTUS judges then to do it (McConnell eliminated in 2017 to get Gorsuch through).

Oh I understand. But I think the rules should be the same for everybody.
If Obama didn’t get a SC pick because it was An election year than neither should Trump.
If you want it to be that the only way any judge (SC or not) can get confirmed is for the President and Senate to be the same party, than let’s do that.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[FAH1223]

Oh I understand. But I think the rules should be the same for everybody.
If Obama didn’t get a SC pick because it was An election year than neither should Trump.
If you want it to be that the only way any judge (SC or not) can get confirmed is for the President and Senate to be the same party, than let’s do that.

There is no rule breh. There are some norms and shid like that but if you want power, you operate within the confines you have. McConnell has always done this.

 

[Hood Critic]

"Ignore the norms, and follow the rules.."

Is what D's should have been doing for years and they refuse to do so. You don't score additional points or votes for conquering the moral high ground.

 

[Hood Critic]

 

[High quality poster]

No point in crying about this now. What’s done is done. And I’m sure the Democrats were prepared for this.


It’s funny, news hits, we hear it and we discuss and overreact to things. But I’m sure they’ve known for weeks this was coming.

I refuse to believe that the future of this country was left squarely on the shoulders of this old, sick woman.

 

[FAH1223]

Barbara Lagoa, the Cuban Floridian judge on the 11th circuit's confirmation votes last September. 80-15.

(Note: Booker, Bernie, Warren, Harris, KLob didn't vote as they were all running in the primary)

U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 116th Congress - 1st Session

 

[acri1]

Posturing. She knows her vote isn't needed.