Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

CNN Reporting that RBG Has Passed


Recommended Posts

Am I being too cynical in reading into the words people are using?

 

is anyone else hung up on noticing whether some says “before the election” and “before the new presidential/senate takes over”?

 

i think there’s absolutely a solid chance the nomination will not go through before the election. 
 

there is no chance in hell they don’t force this in there before January.

 

does no one else get hung up on the distinction? Maybe I’m going overboard. 

 

Even the ones with a bit of honestly don’t have any left after they internalize the whole “ut oh the election might be a massacre for us...”, and have none left for morals ethics and norms. 
 

Why would any gop member not take the chance to stack the court 6-3? To replace the famed RGB with a conservative?

 

which of you can, with the context of everything going on re: fate of GOP, and how they’ve behaved over the last decade, can say with a straight face that if you were one of them now is when you’d choose to stake out your moral/ethical high ground?

 

They’re going to take their best swing at the progressive movements by making it hard for them to win scotus cases. For probably a solid 10-15 years. And who knows how long we’ll deal with whatever it is they get under that court. 
 

And also how many times do you guys need to see the same cast of characters tell us about their strong appeal for norms/morals/ethics when nothing is on the line and then go turn around and vote for it anyways later?

Edited by tshile
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, tshile said:

Am I being too cynical in reading into the words people are using?

 

I don't think any of us is naive enough to think that any of their words have any meaning at all.

 

And given that the discussion has centered around what the Dems should do once they have control of both houses and the White House (whenever that ends up being), I don't think anyone thinks there's a snowball's chance in hell of this seat remaining vacant until inauguration.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

I don't think any of us is naive enough to think that any of their words have any meaning at all.

Indeed.  Graham is on record--and even made point of being super-on-the-record-you-can-quote-me-on-this-if-it-happens--two years ago saying he absolutely positively would not confirm a supreme court justice in the last year of Trump's presidency if a position opened up.  There was no weasel-wording out of it, he's just decided to completely not address those previous words.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jumbo said:

like someone said, it's sad but real that whether it's this thread or many another venue, paying respect to rbg's passing will be entwined with the politics of now.....it seems we have other threads per courts/related matters that would be appropriate for this stuff but i don't think trying to keep this one 'clean' would go all that smoothly..... maybe every now a then some tribute stuff will be posted too :) 

 

I was uncomfortable about that turn when this thread first started, and though I didn't mention it, I did bump the "usual" Supreme Court thread (which is also not really following the original topic either, but whatever), thinking that people could post tributes and such here, and the politics stuff there.

 

Upon further reflection, though, I read the thoughts of Elizabeth Warren and others, and they are saying that Ruth Bader Ginsburg wouldn't want people to despair... she would want them to FIGHT. I suspect that's right from everything I've read about her, and the fact that she told a relative that her dying wish is that the seat only be filled by a new President.

 

Now I'm thinking that perhaps sharing information and ideas about that fight, as people are doing, may well be the tribute she would have wanted the most.

 

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Given the way Republicans think (money equals speech), the fact that Republicans are being significantly "outraised" because of the judicial fight is a strong indicator of the people's mandate. Not that they will care.

They’re convinced it’s George Soros money

 

Edited by tshile
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What if Biden wins the presidency, but the Republicans manage to hold on to a slim majority in the Senate?  I see this as a very possible, if not probably outcome.  So does Mitch.  Soo, all the warnings about stacking Judiciary are pretty much meaningless anyways.

 

To be quite honest with you, Im not really sure what Democrats are complaining about.  Republicans were under no Constitutional obligation to confirm Garland, and they are under no obligation to wait now.  As matter of fact, why would they?  Because what?  They promised?  Grow the **** up. 

  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...