RBG dead

[s0me0nesmind1]

And now we will witness a most blatant display of hypocrisy by one Sen. McConnell and the amazing mental gymnastics that his defenders will perform to justify giving Trump a vote on a nominee just as soon as possible (after a socially acceptable period of mourning has pass of course).

____________

How is it not also hypocrisy on the left's part when they say it should wait until after the election?

It's the same thing as republicans, just in reverse.

Both are the same thing: I want what is in my party's interest.

 

[Starbuck1975]

RIP RBG. I can only imagine the intense pressure she felt to simply stay alive, and how much stress accompanied every diagnosis, resurgence and treatment. Thank you for your service to the country and performing your duty when you had every right to selfishly care for yourself.

 

[Fenixgoon]

How is it not also hypocrisy on the left's part when they say it should wait until after the election?

It's the same thing as republicans, just in reverse.

Both are the same thing: I want what is in my party's interest.

Because McConnell established the precedent. If waiting until after the new president is inaugurated is now the practice/norm, then McConnell should do the same now as in 2016 if he's being consistent and truly believed what he said.

But of course he doesn't, because it was never about waiting for the new president in the first place. It was a paper thin argument to deny Garland a seat.

 

[blankslate]

How is it not also hypocrisy on the left's part when they say it should wait until after the election?

In 2016 when a spot opened up on the SCOTUS after the death of Justice Scalia, the Republican led Senate (headed by McConnell) refused to allow the Senate to give advise and consent and that was more months away from the election than we are now...

Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

On February 23, the 11 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a letter to Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell stating their unprecedented intention to withhold consent on any nominee made by President Obama, and that no hearings would occur until after January 20, 2017, when the next president took office[21] This position subsequently became known as the "McConnell rule".[22] That August, McConnell, who played an instrumental role in keeping Merrick Garland from filling Scalia's vacant seat, heralded the party's uncompromising intransigence by declaring to a crowd in Kentucky, "One of my proudest moments was when I looked at Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.'"[23][24][25]

McConnell later called the question of whether the rule should become Senate policy "absurd", stating that "neither side, had the shoe been on the other foot, would have filled [the vacant seat]".[26]

refusing to vote on a candidate that several months out from an election when the nominating President was from the opposite party and then turning around to give a Republican President a vote on his nominee (which as I recall McConnell stated would happen as reported by at least one news outlet) when the election is less than two months off is in fact hypocrisy...

but I'll give your gymnastics routine a 5/10


_________________
*edited to add detail to election timeframes

 

[cytg111]

....
Both are the same thing ... just in reverse...
....

Someone talked about the mental gymnastics to justify what Moscow Mitch is about to do? Well. Here you go.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

In 2016 when a spot opened up on the SCOTUS after the death of Justice Scalia, the Republican led Senate (headed by McConnell) refused to allow the Senate to give advise and consent and that was more months away from the election than we are now...

Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

refusing to vote on a candidate that several months out from an election when the nominating President was from the opposite party and then turning around to give a Republican President a vote on his nominee (which as I recall McConnell stated would happen as reported by at least one news outlet) when the election is less than two months off is in fact hypocrisy...

but I'll give your gymnastics routine a 5/10


_________________
*edited to add detail to election timeframes

Understand this - I'm NOT justifying it.

I'm simply saying that is by definition also hypocrisy. It's a classic "Do as I say, not as I do"

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Understand this - I'm NOT justifying it.

I'm simply saying that is by definition also hypocrisy. It's a classic "Do as I say, not as I do"

There was an argument, that argument was settled with a gentleman's agreement of a rule. To go against that at this point is hypocrisy, not 'both sides do it so it's okay'.

 

[HomerJS]

Understand this - I'm NOT justifying it.

I'm simply saying that is by definition also hypocrisy. It's a classic "Do as I say, not as I do"

That's exactly what you are doing while trying to deny it. I'll clue you in about what Obama would have done.

Obama respected institutional norms. Remember when he got the report in the summer of 2016 the Russians were interfering in the election to help Trump? Obama wanted to announce the findings along with Mitch McConnell. Obama didn't want the appearance of putting his thumb on the scales of the election. Moscow Mitch refused and Obama did not make the announcement.

So much for your #bothsides claim. That's what happens when you get a President that respects our country and it's laws and norms.

 

[fskimospy]

Understand this - I'm NOT justifying it.

I'm simply saying that is by definition also hypocrisy. It's a classic "Do as I say, not as I do"

It is only hypocrisy if you pretend Merrick Garland never happened, which would be dumb. Apparently to you in order to not be a hypocrite you can never learn from events, haha.

It’s the exact same thing with the nuclear option. Democrats made a deal with Republicans and the Republicans broke it. Democrats could either learn from this knowledge and nuke the filibuster or pretend it never happened. Since they aren’t morons, they nuked it.

 

[Muse]

If they do, it's total war and greenlight for President Biden to pack the courts.

A guy can hope. Hope is a good thing. We're at a mofo crossroads at this point in time. The election, the SC, the virus, global warming. If we screw this stuff up we're in for a miserable future.

 

[soulcougher73]

I already know the GOP position from 2016, but what was the Dems position then? Old brain can't remember everything lol

 

[Muse]

Any bets that by tomorrow he will take the gloves off and be slamming her, and naming replacement candidates?

The Wedge President misses no opportunities.

 

[Muse]

I disagree. If we have to adjust the system so much just to make it fair, fuck it. Let the more advanced blue states let the red ones go. Texas and Florida can learn to support the deep red south shitholes.

You're talking secession? Way early for that. It isn't likely to happen. How could it, anyway? The blue states are on the coasts, basically, the red between them.

 

[ecogen]

You're talking secession? Way early for that. It isn't likely to happen. How could it, anyway? The blue states are on the coasts, basically, the red between them.

You could have the first donut shaped country.

 

[Muse]

Mail in voting chaos will ensure that the election is decided at the SCOTUS.

Filling this seat now IS the re-election.

If it works out that way and Rump remains it will be unending violence until 2024.

 

[Muse]

You could have the first donut shaped country.

It would make a nice dart board.

 

[ecogen]

It would make a nice dart board.

Something something the darts are actually nukes etc.

 

[BUTCH1]

Mail in voting chaos will ensure that the election is decided at the SCOTUS.

Filling this seat now IS the re-election.

Yea, I hate to agree with this end-game but it's very possible for this to happen but who knows, chief justice Roberts
has twice ruled against Trump this year, maybe there is room for hope.

 

[Wreckem]

Western Democracy will cease to exist if SCOTUS interferes and essentially installs Trump after Biden wins both the popular vote and electoral college.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

If it works out that way and Rump remains it will be unending violence until 2024.

I was sad to hear of Justice Ginsburg's passing. This is the country she shaped and it's sad to see what she has wrought.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I was sad to hear of Justice Ginsburg's passing. This is the country she shaped and it's sad to see what she has wrought.

Haha, single handedly

 

[HomerJS]

If anyone wants a reminder how devastating her death is go back and read up on Bush v Gore

 

[VRAMdemon]

Western Democracy will cease to exist if SCOTUS interferes and essentially installs Trump after Biden wins both the popular vote and electoral college.

I'm sure Trumps short list is: - Barr, Limbaugh, Shapiro, Gulliani - It’s kinda fucking pathetic that a democracy has gotten to the point where we freak out over the death of a single judge. It’s a sign that our democracy’s been dying. If it comes down to packing the courts, it’s a sad commentary on “democracy.” McConnell has been packing the courts for years now.

There are three Senate Republicans retiring at the end of this session (Pat Roberts, Mike Enzi and Lamar Alexander), as well as whichever incumbents lose their elections in November. Theoretically, these Senators would no longer have electoral concerns to worry about in a lame duck session, but a vote against Trump’s nominee most likely would impact them enormously. They would be burning bridges that they spend their whole careers building, they would be cut off from employment in Republican-friendly lobby shops, foundations, etc. They would spend the rest of their lives being harassed as traitors by right-wing nut jobs. I’d be very surprised if more than one or two Republicans voted “no” in a lame duck, and Mitch can afford to lose three.

But I guess the question is whether you would rather have a Supreme court that will block everything that the Democrats propose or a court that rubberstamps everything that a wanna be, installed dictator would propose.

Now more than ever its important that Trump gets voted out.

Politics aside, she was an incredibly distinguished jurist, whose career began at a time when it was difficult for a woman to become a lawyer, never mind a judge, never mind a justice of the Supreme Court. RIP!

 

[Grey_Beard]

How is it not also hypocrisy on the left's part when they say it should wait until after the election?

It's the same thing as republicans, just in reverse.

Both are the same thing: I want what is in my party's interest.

It’s like your posts, talking out of both sides. One party has decorum and one does not. It’s not a level field and, unfortunately, never will be now. Regardless of party affiliation, if you believe in democracy, then you should understand the consequences. This is not a both sides thing. One side is an eat your young at all costs to win owning the libruls. The other is about a measured decorum keeping the rule of law and precedent. Even the 51 vote for judges was because of a wedge McConnell used to slow the process down. He left no choice, then vindictively used it to rub it in their faces. This is not good or upstanding behavior. No one wants an opponent acting this way. This is like after an NFL game no one shakes hands and the winning team starts a fight with the losing team because, guess what, we’re winning. Think about other competitions where this kind of thing happens. Can you name one? Maybe in the jungle, but that is predatory behavior not decorum between civil factions.

 

[VRAMdemon]

I believe the only way Trump doesn’t fill the seat is if 4 Republicans defect and refuse to confirm whoever he nominates, and then for Trump to subsequently lose the election. Although, IMO - Most likely any R senator would be crazy to vote against then nominee. It would be a guaranteed way to end their political career.

I expect that Trump will nominate someone shortly, but I think the bolder move for him would be to announce, “I will nominate a conservative constitutionalist replacement for Justice Ginsburg when I am reelected in November.” Once he nominates a justice, he loses a lot of leverage. McConnell will get his pick through, and Republicans will have locked in a conservative Supreme Court for a generation. At that point, voting for Trump loses some urgency for Republicans.

But if he essentially holds the nomination hostage to his own reelection, Republicans will have to go balls out to secure it – even more so than they are now. It would piss off Republican leaders to no end, but what does Trump care? It’d be like the scene from Goodfellas – “You want this Supreme Court seat? Fuck you, pay me.”

The Merrick Garland nomination showed that arguments about Senate process and precedents have zero resonance with voters. What will resonate with voters is showing that the nominee creates an all-but-guaranteed majority to overturn Roe, upend environmental protections, and reign in civil rights protections.