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

Let’s be frank- she was going soft at the end. Still smarter than most lawyers but she was losing it. Understandable but tragic.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Collins has basically gone on record saying she won’t vote for Amy Barrett because she won’t follow precedent

Collins doesnt matter. She'll be allowed to vote no.

Add Murawski and Romney

Murkowski doesn't matter either.

Romney, Grassley et al will vote yes during the lame duck.

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

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.

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

His party needs to hold him accountable. If they don't, I will never vote Republican again. I'm against abortion but I'm also against lying and deceiving. Guess which one is specifically called out in the Bible?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Will a Barrett nomination cause the left to lash out at Catholics? I am scared this morning for my safety.

Seriously? You know that there are plenty of Catholics on the left.

There will be plenty of anti catholic vitriol on display. Amy is the nominee !!!

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.

How do you suggest holding Mitch to his words?

Anonymous wrote:
Will a Barrett nomination cause the left to lash out at Catholics? I am scared this morning for my safety.

Seriously? You know that there are plenty of Catholics on the left.

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.

Some of you folks don't even understand the rules. THERE IS NO RULE. MITCH MCCONNELL MADE IT UP. HE IS STILL MAKING IT UP AS HE GOES ALONG.

I have a five year old. He plays this game all of the time. It's time to be grownups and call McConnell on his game and hold him to his words, his 2016 words.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Collins has basically gone on record saying she won’t vote for Amy Barrett because she won’t follow precedent

Collins doesnt matter. She'll be allowed to vote no.

Add Murawski and Romney

Then who's the 4th?

Grassley said back in July that he would oppose a vote.

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?