RBG Politcal Discussion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm of the camp who believe she should have retired during the Obama administration. I do not intend to demean her historical contributions to the court, including those during the Obama administration that would not have occurred if she had retired, but she had five cancer diagnoses and said she was going to work until age 90. Last year she responded to critics calling for her retirement essentially saying that Obama could not have gotten as good of a justice confirmed:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/18/rbg-fires-back-against-critics-who-say-she-should-have-retired-under-obama.html

It's hard to say if it was commitment to the cause, denial about her health problems and longevity, or selfishness. Either way now her entire legacy and all she fought for is it stake.

+ 1

I think it was very selfish

But you are. You are also presuming to have better judgment than she, who had more knowledge of the situation than you an outsider.


Finally, being a Monday morning quarteback does nothing to fix the current situation we are in. How about using that energy towards something that is helpful now like vocally pressuring senators to abide by their words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The president has an obligation to send a nomination to the Senate. He will likely take a few weeks to do interviews and vetting and nominate the best woman for the job.

The Senate may not be able to conduct hearings as a practical matter until the lame duck session. It takes time to review documents and interview people. A number of Republican senators also have committed to not vote for a S.Ct. nominee before the election, and they will be true to their words. So, we'll probably see a vote in December. There is no guarantee that Trump's nominee would sail through and he realistically would only have one opportunity assuming Biden is elected.

I just hope the next nominee for the Supreme Court, whoever she is, and regardless of who nominates her, is not subject to the politics of personal destruction. In this town, ruining people is considered sport.

Nope. Bunch of power mad hypocritical liars. There is zero justification for doing this after Garland. Can't have different rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you suggest holding Mitch to his words?

He needs to let the next President decide the nomination. If he doesn't, it will tear this country apart.

Please. Obama said it is the constitutional duty.

Nothing black and white here.

Barrett is a fine successor for RBG; a towering female jurist.

I also think Barrett is fine. That isn't the problem. The problem is the GOP having no principles. They need to show some now.

There are very few elected officials in either major party that have principles. There are some good story tellers that may have convinced you that they are principled. Even Bernie voted with the gun lobby for decades and has like three homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm of the camp who believe she should have retired during the Obama administration. I do not intend to demean her historical contributions to the court, including those during the Obama administration that would not have occurred if she had retired, but she had five cancer diagnoses and said she was going to work until age 90. Last year she responded to critics calling for her retirement essentially saying that Obama could not have gotten as good of a justice confirmed:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/18/rbg-fires-back-against-critics-who-say-she-should-have-retired-under-obama.html

It's hard to say if it was commitment to the cause, denial about her health problems and longevity, or selfishness. Either way now her entire legacy and all she fought for is it stake.

+ 1

I think it was very selfish

They all assumed that Hillary would win and then and wanted a female president to replace her. It was arrogance not selfishness.

They being one person- RBG.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The president has an obligation to send a nomination to the Senate. He will likely take a few weeks to do interviews and vetting and nominate the best woman for the job.

The Senate may not be able to conduct hearings as a practical matter until the lame duck session. It takes time to review documents and interview people. A number of Republican senators also have committed to not vote for a S.Ct. nominee before the election, and they will be true to their words. So, we'll probably see a vote in December. There is no guarantee that Trump's nominee would sail through and he realistically would only have one opportunity assuming Biden is elected.

I just hope the next nominee for the Supreme Court, whoever she is, and regardless of who nominates her, is not subject to the politics of personal destruction. In this town, ruining people is considered sport.

Nope. Bunch of power mad hypocritical liars. There is zero justification for doing this after Garland. Can't have different rules.

There is only one rule--politicians will act in their self interest. Biden would have done the exact same thing in 1992 as McConnell did in 2016. Get over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm of the camp who believe she should have retired during the Obama administration. I do not intend to demean her historical contributions to the court, including those during the Obama administration that would not have occurred if she had retired, but she had five cancer diagnoses and said she was going to work until age 90. Last year she responded to critics calling for her retirement essentially saying that Obama could not have gotten as good of a justice confirmed:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/18/rbg-fires-back-against-critics-who-say-she-should-have-retired-under-obama.html

It's hard to say if it was commitment to the cause, denial about her health problems and longevity, or selfishness. Either way now her entire legacy and all she fought for is it stake.

+ 1

I think it was very selfish

They all assumed that Hillary would win and then and wanted a female president to replace her. It was arrogance not selfishness.

They being one person- RBG.

It was her lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, it was never ours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you suggest holding Mitch to his words?

He needs to let the next President decide the nomination. If he doesn't, it will tear this country apart.

Please. Obama said it is the constitutional duty.

Nothing black and white here.

Barrett is a fine successor for RBG; a towering female jurist.

I also think Barrett is fine. That isn't the problem. The problem is the GOP having no principles. They need to show some now.

There are very few elected officials in either major party that have principles. There are some good story tellers that may have convinced you that they are principled. Even Bernie voted with the gun lobby for decades and has like three homes.

Misdirection. McConnell insisted in 2016 that the right thing to do was to let the American people decide. Democrats abided by this principle. Now McConnell doesn't want to abide by this principle. He will destroy the tiny remaining shreds of political good will left in this country. If that doesn't sound like much to you, then you aren't paying attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The president has an obligation to send a nomination to the Senate. He will likely take a few weeks to do interviews and vetting and nominate the best woman for the job.

The Senate may not be able to conduct hearings as a practical matter until the lame duck session. It takes time to review documents and interview people. A number of Republican senators also have committed to not vote for a S.Ct. nominee before the election, and they will be true to their words. So, we'll probably see a vote in December. There is no guarantee that Trump's nominee would sail through and he realistically would only have one opportunity assuming Biden is elected.

I just hope the next nominee for the Supreme Court, whoever she is, and regardless of who nominates her, is not subject to the politics of personal destruction. In this town, ruining people is considered sport.

Nope. Bunch of power mad hypocritical liars. There is zero justification for doing this after Garland. Can't have different rules.

There is only one rule--politicians will act in their self interest. Biden would have done the exact same thing in 1992 as McConnell did in 2016. Get over it.

You know how Republicans like to say that Russia doesn't actually prefer Trump, they just want to sow discord. Here is Mitch's chance to prevent discord. Will he do it? Or will he do Russia's bidding? Will he make our country stronger or weaker?

I actually don't care who is appointed. I'm independent. It makes no difference to me. It's the fight that terrifies me. I can't get over it because I have to live in the U.S. Do you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm of the camp who believe she should have retired during the Obama administration. I do not intend to demean her historical contributions to the court, including those during the Obama administration that would not have occurred if she had retired, but she had five cancer diagnoses and said she was going to work until age 90. Last year she responded to critics calling for her retirement essentially saying that Obama could not have gotten as good of a justice confirmed:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/18/rbg-fires-back-against-critics-who-say-she-should-have-retired-under-obama.html

It's hard to say if it was commitment to the cause, denial about her health problems and longevity, or selfishness. Either way now her entire legacy and all she fought for is it stake.

+ 1

I think it was very selfish

Why do you think Obama would be able to get his nominee through the senate?

[Anonymous]

I think if McConnell continues with this hypocrisy, those opposing should completely stop consumer spending (with the exception of groceries and gas). No furniture, no cars, no consumer goods. Retract the f*** out of the economy. Protest in the streets.

[Anonymous]

Can someone explain why local judges are forced to retire by age 65 (I think) but we allow cancer stricken 80-somethings on the SC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you suggest holding Mitch to his words?

He needs to let the next President decide the nomination. If he doesn't, it will tear this country apart.

Please. Obama said it is the constitutional duty.

Nothing black and white here.

Barrett is a fine successor for RBG; a towering female jurist.

I also think Barrett is fine. That isn't the problem. The problem is the GOP having no principles. They need to show some now.

There are very few elected officials in either major party that have principles. There are some good story tellers that may have convinced you that they are principled. Even Bernie voted with the gun lobby for decades and has like three homes.

Of course politicians can be principled. It sounds like you need to attend Trump's re-education camp. Why are you denigrating our Founding Fathers? Politicians don't have to be saints to do the right thing. It is in everyone's self interest to avoid civil war, is it not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The president has an obligation to send a nomination to the Senate. He will likely take a few weeks to do interviews and vetting and nominate the best woman for the job.

The Senate may not be able to conduct hearings as a practical matter until the lame duck session. It takes time to review documents and interview people. A number of Republican senators also have committed to not vote for a S.Ct. nominee before the election, and they will be true to their words. So, we'll probably see a vote in December. There is no guarantee that Trump's nominee would sail through and he realistically would only have one opportunity assuming Biden is elected.

I just hope the next nominee for the Supreme Court, whoever she is, and regardless of who nominates her, is not subject to the politics of personal destruction. In this town, ruining people is considered sport.

Nope. Bunch of power mad hypocritical liars. There is zero justification for doing this after Garland. Can't have different rules.

Who is Garland? /s

The voters don't reward losers. There will be outrage for a week and that's it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they win Democrats must pack the court.

Why can’t Dems play by the rules? The Dems eliminated the filibuster for nominations, then cried when the Republicans benefited from the change.

The law of the land says the President nominates and the Senate confirms. There is nothing in the Constitution about dying wish.

If the roles were reversed, would the Dems wait?

Mitch McConnell set the precedent of waiting when there is a vacancy this close to the election. Lindsey graham personalmt said in 2018 that they wouldn’t fill a vacancy if it was In the presidents last year and the primaries had already started. Completely hypocritical.

If Trump was in his last term, you would be correct. It might not be the Presidents last year, so it’s not the same.

We can wait six short weeks to find out if that’s the case. If Trump wins the election, then his pick can be confirmed after the election. If he loses, then per the McConnell rule, it should wait until after Inauguration Day.

Some of you folks don't even understand the rules.

When POTUS and Senate fall along same party lines, there is no issue at all.

What is the principled basis for that distinction?

I believe it consists of:


The Democrats should pack the court and burn what remains of its status as an institution to the ground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you suggest holding Mitch to his words?

He needs to let the next President decide the nomination. If he doesn't, it will tear this country apart.

Please. Obama said it is the constitutional duty.

Nothing black and white here.

Barrett is a fine successor for RBG; a towering female jurist.

I also think Barrett is fine. That isn't the problem. The problem is the GOP having no principles. They need to show some now.

There are very few elected officials in either major party that have principles. There are some good story tellers that may have convinced you that they are principled. Even Bernie voted with the gun lobby for decades and has like three homes.

Misdirection. McConnell insisted in 2016 that the right thing to do was to let the American people decide. Democrats abided by this principle. Now McConnell doesn't want to abide by this principle. He will destroy the tiny remaining shreds of political good will left in this country. If that doesn't sound like much to you, then you aren't paying attention.

What do you propose the Democrats should have done if they were not going to abide by McConnell's principle? They didn't have a choice in the matter because the R's had the senate - same as now. It's all dependent on the ethics of Republicans - which don't exist.