RBG leaves the stage.

[turingtest]

Who cares about this sort of dying wish? What if it were her wish to keep abortion legal? Is that a good pro-choice argument? "While on her deathbed, RBG wanted abortion to be legal, so it should be legal." Would we care about Scalia's dying wish? Or Trump's?

A meaningful dying wish is about where she wants to be buried, or what heirs should do with her fortune, or how they can honor her legacy. But if she wants the Yankees to win the World Series, then the Dodgers aren't ******** for refusing to roll over.

I have to agree with Cain about this. As nice as it would be to honor RBG's dying wish out of respect for her, it simply isn't feasible. This is a matter of politics with serious consequences, not a matter of respect.

Also agreed. I do think it's interesting, though, that the conversation is about whether she really said it and whether it means anything in practice (she did and it doesn't), instead of the fact that the President of the U.S. has let yet another evidence-free piece of CT ******** drop from his mouth to foul the political discourse of this country. And to what purpose? Why did Trump feel the need to spout this particular idiocy? My guess is that he just cannot help himself, he has to speak; and he'd rather say something completely idiotic than say nothing at all.

 

[Venom]

Nightmare scenario:

Trump nominates William Barr as a token of appreciation and a last **** you to the country.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Nightmare scenario:

Trump nominates William Barr as a token of appreciation and a last **** you to the country.

Trump's already said it's going to be a woman he's not a lia... okay he's not that kind of liar.

 

[Andy_Ross]

"It just sounds to me like it would be somebody else"
Trump is still ludicrously insisting that RBG's final wish is somehow a forgery

 

[Stacyhs]

Also agreed. I do think it's interesting, though, that the conversation is about whether she really said it and whether it means anything in practice (she did and it doesn't), instead of the fact that the President of the U.S. has let yet another evidence-free piece of CT ******** drop from his mouth to foul the political discourse of this country. And to what purpose? Why did Trump feel the need to spout this particular idiocy? My guess is that he just cannot help himself, he has to speak; and he'd rather say something completely idiotic than say nothing at all.

Trump isn't capable of saying nothing. He has to run his mouth.

 

[Delvo]

It is sad that she sounds like she died full of regret for her utterly moronic blunder of several years ago.

 

[rdwight]

It is sad that she sounds like she died full of regret for her utterly moronic blunder of several years ago.

The 'blunder' is not on her. That's a voting side issue. She is not responsible for her replacement. It was never in the job description.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

I agree 100%.
Quote Tweet

Senator Ted Cruz
@SenTedCruz
The right thing for the Senate to do regarding the #SCOTUS vacancy is to take up @realDonaldTrump’s nomination and confirm the nominee before Election Day.

 

[Stacyhs]

Trump Tweets

I agree 100%.
Quote Tweet

Senator Ted Cruz
@SenTedCruz
The right thing for the Senate to do regarding the #SCOTUS vacancy is to take up @realDonaldTrump’s nomination and confirm the nominee before Election Day.

When does Trump find the time to do any 'presidenting'?

 

[The Atheist]

When does Trump find the time to do any 'presidenting'?

To him, that is presidenting.

(I'm usually quite anti verbing nouns, but I like that one)

 

[The Great Zaganza]

In some sense, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been a disappointment to Trump's hardcore base: they let actual law get in the way of ideology.
This puts a lot of pressure on Trump to nominate someone much more radical, much less experienced to finally push the Court to over turn Roe and the ACA.

 

[theprestige]

In some sense, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been a disappointment to Trump's hardcore base: they let actual law get in the way of ideology.
This puts a lot of pressure on Trump to nominate someone much more radical, much less experienced to finally push the Court to over turn Roe and the ACA.

"In some sense" discernable to you. Do you have any evidence that Trump or his base sees it that way?

 

[Venom]

"In some sense" discernable to you. Do you have any evidence that Trump or his base sees it that way?

If social media is any indicator, I saw pro-Trump groups heavily upset by Roberts and Gorsuch pro-LGBT ruling last summer and backing Ted Cruz's comments that Roberts "violated his oath" (to the Republican Party? )

 

[The Great Zaganza]

If social media is any indicator, I saw pro-Trump groups heavily upset by Roberts and Gorsuch pro-LGBT ruling last summer and backing Ted Cruz's comments that Roberts "violated his oath" (to the Republican Party? )

Yep.

And Gorsuch handing Oklahoma to the Native Tribes was also not what MAGA is supposed to stand for.

 

[angrysoba]

I have a couple of questions which may have already been answered:

1.) Can the Democrats delay or filibuster the appointment of a new justice or is it something that the Republicans can completely dictate given their majority in the Senate?

2.) Isn't the idea of packing the court (some Democrats have talked about this) in the event of a Biden and Senate victory, a stupid short-term measure that is bound to backfire?

I would completely support the Democrats trying to delay the appointment as long as possible, and also to broadcast the Republican hypocrisy up to 11. I think packing the court is a bad idea and one that is bound to be exploited by the Republicans.

 

[Cain]

I have a couple of questions which may have already been answered:

1.) Can the Democrats delay or filibuster the appointment of a new justice or is it something that the Republicans can completely dictate given their majority in the Senate?

Can't filibuster -- that's gone for SC nominees. I heard someone say the Senate has scheduled only 13 working days until the election. The House could deliver Articles of Impeachment, which I understand automatically takes precedence over any other business in the Senate.

2.) Isn't the idea of packing the court (some Democrats have talked about this) in the event of a Biden and Senate victory, a stupid short-term measure that is bound to backfire?

It's something so verboten that modern-day Republicans haven't even proposed it. There are benefits. Matthew Yglesias has said, "The great thing about court-packing is that while the short-term consequences are good, the longer term consequences in terms of degrading judicial review are also good."

Maybe Biden can be our last president. Secession sounds nice. He probably remembers when we had fewer than fifty states (just kidding, he doesn't remember).

 

[Lurch]

I have a couple of questions which may have already been answered:

1.) Can the Democrats delay or filibuster the appointment of a new justice or is it something that the Republicans can completely dictate given their majority in the Senate?

2.) Isn't the idea of packing the court (some Democrats have talked about this) in the event of a Biden and Senate victory, a stupid short-term measure that is bound to backfire?

I would completely support the Democrats trying to delay the appointment as long as possible, and also to broadcast the Republican hypocrisy up to 11. I think packing the court is a bad idea and one that is bound to be exploited by the Republicans.

In that last sentence you say "packing", but I suspect you meant expanding. The GOP is currently working on the packing part. And this is why my first instinct is to indeed expand the court by two to make up for the two 'stolen' seats. A larger body in any event lessens the impact of just one individual. A 5 to 4 split might be common, but a 50 to 49 split should be less common (to use an exagerratedly large body for illustration.)

 

[Puppycow]

Not at all.

I'm implying that I'm interested in seeing whether anyone will defend the statement as being important for deciding whether to fill the vacancy.

I think that any dying wish of hers is not legally binding on the president or congress. And not really any more important than the wishes of any other citizen of the country.

So, while I might prefer to wait until the next president is sworn in, I do not consider anyone's "dying wishes" to be binding on any other person, except with regard to the disposal of their own personal estate.

The office she occupied was not her personal property, so it is not up to her to dispose of it.

I reiterate, she had the chance to retire while Obama was president and Democrats controlled the Senate. If she had any wish as to who her successor would be, she should have damn well acted when she had the opportunity to do so, as David Souter and John Paul Stevens did. Their seats are now safely in liberal hands for the foreseeable future. She should have known that she wouldn't live forever. She should have know that there was no guarantee that either the presidency or the senate would be controlled by Democrats when she died. If it was "her most fervent wish" that her successor be picked by a Democrat, she should have retired when she had the opportunity to retire. She rolled the dice, and she lost, putting her own legacy in peril.

 

[Puppycow]

2.) Isn't the idea of packing the court (some Democrats have talked about this) in the event of a Biden and Senate victory, a stupid short-term measure that is bound to backfire?

Well, if Democrats can do it, so could a hypothetical future Republican administration. I'm not really in favor of the idea myself.

 

[angrysoba]

It's something so verboten that modern-day Republicans haven't even proposed it.

Yeah, I think that some political commentators and political junkies forget what it is like to turn up in the middle of an argument and see two people yelling and saying "He started it!"

For most people, I am pretty sure that they are not really that much up on the whole saga of how McConnell cock-blocked Obama, and then totally hypocritcalled over the new justice, so the Democrats are totally justified in putting four more people on the court and yeah, well, YEAH, it's YOUR fault cos YOU started it....

I think at the moment, just playing tapes of McConnell and Graham back-to-back and saying "LIAR!" would be more effective.

And yes, maybe trying to impeach Trump again just to delay things.

There's gamesmanship (which McConnell and the Republicans are doing) and then there is doing a Tonya Harding, which the Democrats will be accused of if they touch that third rail.

In fact, it could be worse. They could start yammering about it all the time, try to do it, get halfway through proceedings and then, somewhere along the line FAIL to do it, and got called out for it in the next election.

Way too risky and so easy to see how Republicans would just nominate another five to overturn the decisions of the four the Democrats appoint, and then how each of the parties would begin appointing more and more whenever they are told that their new law or executive order is unconstituational.