Justice Down! We have a Justice Down! RBG! Now with cancer

[JEDIYoda]

-Everyone loses their fight with entropy eventually.

At her age, every battle can potentially be her last.

Here is the deal.....do wish for her to die! Her death before Biden gets elected will result in a very messed up country even after Trump loses!

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Here is the deal.....do wish for her to die! Her death before Biden gets elected will result in a very messed up country even after Trump loses!

- Not sure I fully understand this post, but no I don't want her to die or to resign the seat.

Unfortunately she needs to hold on not only after the election but after the lame duck president and sitting senate are cycled out, and she's no spring chicken.

 

[eelw]

But how much can the Dems in the senate block Moscow Mitch from pushing forward with a nomination?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Here I'll translate his post:


"we wouldn't get a supreme court pick therefore it would be an evil evil evil pick from the dark side. Everything they do is evil. Everything we do is good."

 

[JEDIYoda]

Here I'll translate his post:


"we wouldn't get a supreme court pick therefore it would be an evil evil evil pick from the dark side. Everything they do is evil. Everything we do is good."

so? You really want the SCOTUS to be a Conservative Supreme court? If you are saying that I want SCOTUS to be liberal , not at all! I want SCOTUS to be independant and NOT beholding to any one party!
Your translation sucked!

 

[Indus]

But how much can the Dems in the senate block Moscow Mitch from pushing forward with a nomination?

They can't. SCOTUS justices need only 2 things.. president + 50 votes (1 from VP to tie break) and done. Lifetime appointment.

 

[pcgeek11]

No worries, McConnell will want to wait until November, in the event she needs to be replaced, to let the American people decide, amirite?

They should wait until after the election if something should happen to her.

 

[TheVrolok]

They should wait until after the election if something should happen to her.

What do you think the odds of that happening are?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

They can't. SCOTUS justices need only 2 things.. president + 50 votes (1 from VP to tie break) and done. Lifetime appointment.

Yup. Moscow Mitch has already said unabashedly that he would fill a seat if one came open this year, regardless of all the Garland bullshit.

 

[pcgeek11]

What do you think the odds of that happening are?

I have no idea. I just stated my thought on the matter. Just as before when this issue arose. Wait until after the election to appoint a SCOTUS if it falls in the election year.

As to the odds, maybe you should ask Mitch.

What do you think the Dems would do if the situation were reversed?

I think we both know the answer to that.

 

[TheVrolok]

I have no idea. I just stated my thought on the matter. Just as before when this issue arose. Wait until after the election to appoint a SCOTUS if it falls in the election year.

As to the odds, maybe you should ask Mitch.

I'm asking what you're opinion is of the odds of Mitch waiting. I think that was fairly obvious?

 

[pcgeek11]

OK, I don't know. However I don't think he would wait.
I don't think the dems would wait either if the roles were reversed, do you?

 

[IronWing]

Here I'll translate his post:


"we wouldn't get a supreme court pick therefore it would be an evil evil evil pick from the dark side. Everything they do is evil. Everything we do is good."

Have the Republicans done anything lately that wasn’t evil as f’?

 

[trenchfoot]

I'm picturing Trump and McConnell as lice infested buzzards circling over RBG laying in her hospital bed, chanting death spells at her body over and over again.


edit - Ruth, may you pull through, recover quickly and return to work in fine spirits.

 

[Fenixgoon]

OK, I don't know. However I don't think he would wait.
I don't think the dems would wait either if the roles were reversed, do you?

do you think dems would have stonewalled romney's merrick garland, had romney been president instead? the answer is almost assuredly no, they'd appoint right away. now, romney and the repubs would have had to have made a more judicious (pun intended) and centrist pick, but there would have been a seat filled prior to the inauguration of trump.

 

[pcgeek11]

do you think dems would have stonewalled romney's merrick garland, had romney been president instead? the answer is almost assuredly no, they'd appoint right away. now, romney and the repubs would have had to have made a more judicious (pun intended) and centrist pick, but there would have been a seat filled prior to the inauguration of trump.

It is my opinion that either Reps or Dems will take advantage of whatever opportunities that are presented. Regardless of what the voters think. They are all out for themselves with a few very rare exceptions.

 

[FaaR]

I don't think the dems would wait either if the roles were reversed, do you?

Did anyone ever wait until Turtle Fucker illegitimately blocked Obama's nomination four+ years ago now? I doubt it, Merican politicians were more concerned with doing things by the book before the current Repugnicon party mutated into its present form.

 

[hal2kilo]

Cleaned out the stent in her bile duct, big doses of anti-biotics, and home in a couple days.

 

[JEDIYoda]

They can't. SCOTUS justices need only 2 things.. president + 50 votes (1 from VP to tie break) and done. Lifetime appointment.

actually as long as RGB is alive Mitche the Bitch can`t do a damn thing!!

 

[sportage]

If anything happened to RBG, you can bet that old Mitch would rush thru a new Supreme Court justice before November. Heck.... if this were November 1st and something happened to Ruth, Mitch would have a new justice seated by November 2nd.

 

[HomerJS]

I have no idea. I just stated my thought on the matter. Just as before when this issue arose. Wait until after the election to appoint a SCOTUS if it falls in the election year.

As to the odds, maybe you should ask Mitch.

What do you think the Dems would do if the situation were reversed?

I think we both know the answer to that.

Because Dems have held up a Republican SCOTUS pick for almost 1 year?

Oh that's right they haven't.

 

[pcgeek11]

Because Dems have held up a Republican SCOTUS pick for almost 1 year?

Oh that's right they haven't.

No, one argued that they did.

Currently I think they would given the chance.

 

[fskimospy]

OK, I don't know. However I don't think he would wait.
I don't think the dems would wait either if the roles were reversed, do you?

Of course they wouldn’t. So to be clear though we both admit that Republicans were lying when they said that adhering you precedent was the reason why they blocked Merrick Garland, right?

This is a good reason why the Democrats should pack the court at the first available opportunity. Because we all know it’s just about power and Republicans don’t care about norms, we should show them what that means.

 

[ch33zw1z]

No, one argued that they did.

Currently I think they would given the chance.

Why wouldn't they? R's have shown exactly how much they care about working together since the black guy was elected. Answer? Not at all. Precedents don't matter, lying doesn't matter, projection matters tho, so you've got that going for ya.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Shame on the media for intruding on Ginsberg’s privacy every time she suffers a medical emergency. It’s as if they’re salivating at the political firestorm that will emerge should she pass away.