Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dead At 87

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the liberal icon who served on the Supreme Court since 1993 and who crusaded for women’s rights before that, died on Friday at the age of 87.

Ginsburg died from complications of cancer, according to the Supreme Court. She died Friday evening surrounded by her family at her home in Washington. 

 

more at https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/ruth-bader-ginsburg-dead-233557006.html

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

And the hypocrisy engines begin.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

6 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

And the hypocrisy engines begin.

Someone can disagree with another and still respect them for their commitment. Show respect

[Dashinka 24,493]

Maybe wait until she has had her funeral.  Until then, RIP Justice Ginsberg.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

She lived a pretty long life, sucks that she had to battle the cancer.  Peace to her family, losing a loved one is always hard, no matter how long you have to prepare for it.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

13 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

And the hypocrisy engines begin.

I am familiar with ICE and EV, perhaps even CF.  But what, pray tell, is a hypocrisy engine?

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

2 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

I am familiar with ICE and EV, perhaps even CF.  But what, pray tell, is a hypocrisy engine?

one that runs on democratic party promises?

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

RIP.. I'll never forget the relationship she had with Scalia, reminiscent of the days of normalcy when people of different views could actually be friends with one another. The sum of a person isn't merely their political views, American society would do well to get back to this as soon as possible. 

 

Well, great news for Trump.. 3 picks in one term! Will be interesting what he does. This will have major election ramifications especially looking at Collins, Gardner, McSally. I think he's in a position where he might put their seats in jeopardy, not to mention his nomination, if he were to try for an ACB now, rather than after the election. 

 

Trump would undoubtedly expect that if he was facing a Democrat Senate his nomination would go nowhere (Biden/McConnell rule) but because its Republican he'll get someone and it'll shift the court. If Democrats weren't acting like total morons with Kavanaugh they would've had a shot at the Senate in 2018. Elections have consequences. 

Edited September 19, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

11 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

I am familiar with ICE and EV, perhaps even CF.  But what, pray tell, is a hypocrisy engine?

One that expects conservatives to behave as liberals would to bash her based on her views

[Crazy Cat 41,845]

.........

Edited September 19, 2020 by Lucky Cat

[Divided States 33]

Trump must be dancing right now, he can finally nominate snake Cotton or lying Ted.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

2 minutes ago, Lucky Cat said:

I seriously doubt the Senate will vote on a new SCOTUS justice until next year.

That would be a departure from what Mitch McConnell had promised.

[Crazy Cat 41,845]

1 minute ago, CanAm1980 said:

That would be a departure from what Mitch McConnell had promised.

I just don't see it happening until next year......but I predict it will be a Trump pick who will replace RBG.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

7 minutes ago, Lucky Cat said:

I seriously doubt the Senate will vote on a new SCOTUS justice until next year.

McConnell was already prompted for this question last year and earlier this year, has already said he would move forward immediately with a replacement for her.

 

I'm seeing Republicans say they can get it in before the election.. I think it's a bit nutty to try and get this done in 40-50 days, especially if the GOP supposedly take this position seriously. Dems right now are basically suggesting they're gonna take a stick of dynamite to the institution entirely as it is.. it would certainly be bold, but I think forcing it would definitely have ramifications. This would also potentially galvanize the left if forced.

 

They have 53 seats, they need 50 votes. Basically, they can afford to lose Romney, Collins, and Murkowski, and still get the nomination through. Whether those choose to vote for her is much like Flake and Kavanaugh.. Flake put on a good show but he and Kavanaugh were in the same neocon circles, he wasn't going to take a dump on his own.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

24 minutes ago, Randyandyuni said:

Someone can disagree with another and still respect them for their commitment. Show respect

I don't need lectures in decorum on this topic. Just look at some of the "death watch" threads that have started.  The fact is Mcconnell has promised to undo his own "Merrick Garland" doctrine.