Ruth Bader Ginsberg.......I am not going anywhere

[Toddsterpatriot]

I can’t see it going back to the way it was

Republicans made it clear that filling a vacant seat was political and not a priority
The precedent now is an opposition Senate refuses to consider a SCOTUS candidate regardless of where it occurs in a presidents term
Nine judges is not necessary any more

As you know, it is Democrats who first brought Politics into the Supreme Court Nominations and even coined a new verb. Borked. That is what was done to easily the most qualified judge ever appointed to the Supreme Court. He was the outstanding nominee of President Ronald Reagan.

On what do you stake your opinion that nine judges are no longer necessary on the Supreme Court? The court has been at nine members since 1869 and it has worked extremely well. Are your points another typical Progressive effort to provide a solution to a problem which does not exist?

Robert Bork was treated just like any other nominee. He was given a Senate hearing and a full Senate vote which he lost 58-42

Reagan’s next choice Kennedy was easily accepted

That is how the process works

Denying to even consider a nominee is unprecedented

Denying to even consider a nominee is unprecedented

You are incorrect.

 

[Borillar]

I can’t see it going back to the way it was

Republicans made it clear that filling a vacant seat was political and not a priority
The precedent now is an opposition Senate refuses to consider a SCOTUS candidate regardless of where it occurs in a presidents term
Nine judges is not necessary any more

As you know, it is Democrats who first brought Politics into the Supreme Court Nominations and even coined a new verb. Borked. That is what was done to easily the most qualified judge ever appointed to the Supreme Court. He was the outstanding nominee of President Ronald Reagan.

On what do you stake your opinion that nine judges are no longer necessary on the Supreme Court? The court has been at nine members since 1869 and it has worked extremely well. Are your points another typical Progressive effort to provide a solution to a problem which does not exist?

Robert Bork was treated just like any other nominee. He was given a Senate hearing and a full Senate vote which he lost 58-42

Reagan’s next choice Kennedy was easily accepted

That is how the process works

Denying to even consider a nominee is unprecedented

Denying to even consider a nominee is unprecedented

You are incorrect.

Really? When did it happen before Merrick Garland?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I can’t see it going back to the way it was

Republicans made it clear that filling a vacant seat was political and not a priority
The precedent now is an opposition Senate refuses to consider a SCOTUS candidate regardless of where it occurs in a presidents term
Nine judges is not necessary any more

As you know, it is Democrats who first brought Politics into the Supreme Court Nominations and even coined a new verb. Borked. That is what was done to easily the most qualified judge ever appointed to the Supreme Court. He was the outstanding nominee of President Ronald Reagan.

On what do you stake your opinion that nine judges are no longer necessary on the Supreme Court? The court has been at nine members since 1869 and it has worked extremely well. Are your points another typical Progressive effort to provide a solution to a problem which does not exist?

Robert Bork was treated just like any other nominee. He was given a Senate hearing and a full Senate vote which he lost 58-42

Reagan’s next choice Kennedy was easily accepted

That is how the process works

Denying to even consider a nominee is unprecedented

Denying to even consider a nominee is unprecedented

You are incorrect.

Really? When did it happen before Merrick Garland?

Really.

U.S. Senate: Supreme Court Nominations: present-1789

 

[JWBooth]

Trump should appoint me to the court. I’m going to live until I’m 100 billion. Because that’s how nature decides when we kick the bucket.

However even if she lasts as long as she plans to retirement, Trump still replaces her

Well a couple of things
a) When RBG leaves the court- the sitting President will make the nomination- that might be Don the Con- or it might not be.
b) When RBG leaves the court, and the sitting President makes the nomination- the Senate has to approve the nomination. Given the current climate- that means that if the President is R and Senate D, or President is D and Senate is R- likely no nomination will be confirmed.

Given the remaining make up of the court, having the Dims stand in the way of a replacement isn’t the worst thing that could happen

 

[rightwinger]

I am a registered Republican
True story

A sad story....

The Communist play book...infiltrate their ranks and takeover from inside.

Nyet !

 

[karpenter]

What she says and what might actually happen are two different things. I wish no ill will towards her but when you hit your 80s a lot can go wrong fast without much if any warning.

That's The Truth

What Difference Does It Make For Her Anyway ??
It Doesn't Out-Last Trump For The Pick
Just Go On Now

 

[rightwinger]

I can’t see it going back to the way it was

Republicans made it clear that filling a vacant seat was political and not a priority
The precedent now is an opposition Senate refuses to consider a SCOTUS candidate regardless of where it occurs in a presidents term
Nine judges is not necessary any more

As you know, it is Democrats who first brought Politics into the Supreme Court Nominations and even coined a new verb. Borked. That is what was done to easily the most qualified judge ever appointed to the Supreme Court. He was the outstanding nominee of President Ronald Reagan.

On what do you stake your opinion that nine judges are no longer necessary on the Supreme Court? The court has been at nine members since 1869 and it has worked extremely well. Are your points another typical Progressive effort to provide a solution to a problem which does not exist?

Robert Bork was treated just like any other nominee. He was given a Senate hearing and a full Senate vote which he lost 58-42

Reagan’s next choice Kennedy was easily accepted

That is how the process works

Denying to even consider a nominee is unprecedented

Denying to even consider a nominee is unprecedented

You are incorrect.

Really? When did it happen before Merrick Garland?

Really.

U.S. Senate: Supreme Court Nominations: present-1789

Show us another case where a nominee was not considered and the sitting President was denied the right to nominate anyone

 

[Mr.Blonde]

This is NOW the way the game is played

Republucan tactics will come back to haunt them

Republicans took the high road .

LOL......do you really pretend to yourself that Republicans refusing to even consider the President's nominee 'the high ground'?

Unfortunately I think that the Republicans probably have shown us the future of Supreme Court nominations- if the Senate is controlled by the party opposite the President- the Senate will refuse to hold any hearings for his nominees.

I don't think it is right- but now that genie is out of the bottle- I don't see how either party will refuse to use it.

I can’t see it going back to the way it was

Republicans made it clear that filling a vacant seat was political and not a priority
The precedent now is an opposition Senate refuses to consider a SCOTUS candidate regardless of where it occurs in a presidents term
Nine judges is not necessary any more

“not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

“Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,”

“Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.”
-Joe Biden

"We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances,"
-Chuck Schumer

Also no where in the constitution does it say the Senate has to give a Supreme Court nominee a hearing .

You are looking at a statement made a few months before an election and comparing it to a vacancy that occurred almost a year before the election

Democrats confirmed Bush’s nominees to the court including Chief Justice
Republicans refused to even consider Obama’s nominee

Despite rhetoric from individual members of Congress, Hearings and votes have always been given to Presidential nominees to the Supreme Court, that is until the Repugs denied Merrick Garland a hearing. A hearing and a vote doesn't mean that the nominee has to be voted for, but at least be given the opportunity for an up or down vote.

What was in it for them?

Hillary and the Democrats were going to win because Obama was the greatest, smartest, most popular president. Plus Trump was the biggest loud mouth idiot to ever run who is a complete embarrassment and the Republicans were never going to win another election after running him.

Seriously this is how the game is played. W became a lame duck president after the Republicans lost the Congress so cry ne a river.

I can't stand to hear or read how "smart" Obama is. He is a highly educated idiot. He is like Damon Waynes prison character in In Living Color.

 

[rightwinger]

Ruth Bader Ginsberg just gave Trump the finger

 

[Weatherman2020]

I'm OK with that, since President Trump will STILL get to name her replacement.

 

[Mike473]

Ruth Bader Ginsberg just gave Trump the finger

What % of people that reach 85 go on to reach age 90?

 

[Weatherman2020]

And Carbonite is still funny

 

[Lysistrata]

Proud of the notorious RBG. A defender of freedom. Long may she live and be a giant among us.

 

[EGR one]

That is why Republicans stole the court

How did they do that? They were just following rules set by Democrats.

This is the way the game is played. Republicans had control of the Senate and were guaranteed to win the White House in November.

This is NOW the way the game is played

Republucan tactics will come back to haunt them

Republicans took the high road .

LOL......do you really pretend to yourself that Republicans refusing to even consider the President's nominee 'the high ground'?

Unfortunately I think that the Republicans probably have shown us the future of Supreme Court nominations- if the Senate is controlled by the party opposite the President- the Senate will refuse to hold any hearings for his nominees.

I don't think it is right- but now that genie is out of the bottle- I don't see how either party will refuse to use it.

I can’t see it going back to the way it was

Republicans made it clear that filling a vacant seat was political and not a priority
The precedent now is an opposition Senate refuses to consider a SCOTUS candidate regardless of where it occurs in a presidents term
Nine judges is not necessary any more

Not after another conservative fills Ginsberg's seat. Five to four, five to three? It is all the same.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm OK with that, since President Trump will STILL get to name her replacement.

Ruth will dance on Fat Donnie’s grave

 

[rightwinger]

How did they do that? They were just following rules set by Democrats.

This is the way the game is played. Republicans had control of the Senate and were guaranteed to win the White House in November.

This is NOW the way the game is played

Republucan tactics will come back to haunt them

Republicans took the high road .

LOL......do you really pretend to yourself that Republicans refusing to even consider the President's nominee 'the high ground'?

Unfortunately I think that the Republicans probably have shown us the future of Supreme Court nominations- if the Senate is controlled by the party opposite the President- the Senate will refuse to hold any hearings for his nominees.

I don't think it is right- but now that genie is out of the bottle- I don't see how either party will refuse to use it.

I can’t see it going back to the way it was

Republicans made it clear that filling a vacant seat was political and not a priority
The precedent now is an opposition Senate refuses to consider a SCOTUS candidate regardless of where it occurs in a presidents term
Nine judges is not necessary any more

Not after another conservative fills Ginsberg's seat. Five to four, five to three? It is all the same.

I think she plans on that not happening

 

[OKTexas]

That Justice Ginsburg is remaining on the bench is of course a good thing.

Unfortunately, we will nonetheless be subject to a hateful, reactionary conservative Court hostile to the rule of law and the rights and protected liberties of the American people.

as long as they dont' try to rewrite the Constitution, I don't care

Too late, the US Constitution as annotated is 2,700 pages. All those extra pages are the court ordered bastardization of the document. Don't look for it to go on a diet anytime soon.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Tales of her demise are greatly exaggerated

Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she has 'at least five more years' on Supreme Court

The notorious RBG isn't going anywhere.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Sunday that she intended to stay on the bench for "at least five more years," putting off retirement until after her 90th birthday.

Her reasoning? Well, that's what retired justice John Paul Stevens did.

"I'm now 85," Ginsburg said in New York, according to CNN. "My senior colleague, Justice John Paul Stevens, he stepped down when he was 90, so think I have about at least five more years."

Retire or Die...either is fine with me. Maybe someone will Scalia her....we can only hope.

You're letting politics mean way too much if you actually think that.

She's a Jewess. She is the ultimate enemy. I care nothing about politics I care about what's best for my race and that old jewish bitch IS NOT good for my race.

Damn, you're one ignorant SOB. Lose the race baiting bullshit already.

.

Go wave your amurican flag,thump your constitution that's done NOTHING to stop the destruction of the very race that FOUNDED this fucking country. Race before anything else. PERIOD.

Maybe you should take your hillbilly ass to school and try learning some real history.

.

 

[OKTexas]

This is NOW the way the game is played

Republucan tactics will come back to haunt them

Republicans took the high road .

LOL......do you really pretend to yourself that Republicans refusing to even consider the President's nominee 'the high ground'?

Unfortunately I think that the Republicans probably have shown us the future of Supreme Court nominations- if the Senate is controlled by the party opposite the President- the Senate will refuse to hold any hearings for his nominees.

I don't think it is right- but now that genie is out of the bottle- I don't see how either party will refuse to use it.

I can’t see it going back to the way it was

Republicans made it clear that filling a vacant seat was political and not a priority
The precedent now is an opposition Senate refuses to consider a SCOTUS candidate regardless of where it occurs in a presidents term
Nine judges is not necessary any more

Not after another conservative fills Ginsberg's seat. Five to four, five to three? It is all the same.

I think she plans on that not happening

Yep, I know a lot of people who made similar plans, seems God had other plans.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

As you know, it is Democrats who first brought Politics into the Supreme Court Nominations and even coined a new verb. Borked. That is what was done to easily the most qualified judge ever appointed to the Supreme Court. He was the outstanding nominee of President Ronald Reagan.

On what do you stake your opinion that nine judges are no longer necessary on the Supreme Court? The court has been at nine members since 1869 and it has worked extremely well. Are your points another typical Progressive effort to provide a solution to a problem which does not exist?

Robert Bork was treated just like any other nominee. He was given a Senate hearing and a full Senate vote which he lost 58-42

Reagan’s next choice Kennedy was easily accepted

That is how the process works

Denying to even consider a nominee is unprecedented

Denying to even consider a nominee is unprecedented

You are incorrect.

Really? When did it happen before Merrick Garland?

Really.

U.S. Senate: Supreme Court Nominations: present-1789

Show us another case where a nominee was not considered and the sitting President was denied the right to nominate anyone

In 10 cases, the Senate took no action.
In other instances, after the Senate stalled, candidates withdrew.

Johnson's nomination in 1866 was ignored and no one was seated until 1869.