RBG leaves the stage.

Cain said:
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. 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
theprestige said:
From NPR:

"Just days before her death, as her strength waned, Ginsburg dictated this statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."​

Presumably Clara Spera is on record somewhere, making the claim herself in her own words. I think we can agree that we don't need to accuse anyone of lying
Click to expand...
Then tell that to Trump, because he is the one that is accusing the Ginsburg family of lying.
to say the statement should be verified before taking it seriously.
Click to expand...
As others have pointed out, its consistent with her previous actions.
Leaving aside the accusations of dishonesty for a moment: Do you think she actually made that statement? Do you think that statement should be a consideration in filling the vacancy on the bench?
Click to expand...
A more rational statement (instead of Trump's "RBG would have wanted me to fill the free slot on the supreme court!") would have been to say something along the lines of "the position is not hereditary... it belongs to the American people to decide how to handle the vacant seat".

The reason why Ginsburg's wishes are relevant is because they are entirely reasonable, ethically/morally sound, and best overall for society. She was not saying "keep the slot open until they find a way to resurrect the dead and I can become the first zombie judge". She was also not saying "The next judge should be a left-handed Libra". Instead she was just saying what the majority of voters are currently saying (and what the majority of senators and other politicians should be saying).
 
AnonyMoose said:
Only in Trumpland would the 'leader' (cough laugh cough) of a 'country' (cough laugh cough) put into question the last dying words of a well-respected individual because said dying words aren't to his its liking. And only in same said Trumpland would his its minions then follow his its lead with "Yeah, how do we know that's what she actually said? Pelosi probably told her what to say. Fake news!"
Click to expand...

Agreed. Only in Trumlandia. What a vile POS.
 
JoeMorgue said:
So dumb question. Why is "Chief Justice" this distinct, separately appointed position instead of just like the most senior member of the Court?
Click to expand...

I'm wondering that as well. Just like I wonder why there are "majority leaders" breathing down their co-workers' necks in Congress.
 
Segnosaur said:
Then tell that to Trump, because he is the one that is accusing the Ginsburg family of lying.

As others have pointed out, its consistent with her previous actions.

A more rational statement (instead of Trump's "RBG would have wanted me to fill the free slot on the supreme court!") would have been to say something along the lines of "the position is not hereditary... it belongs to the American people to decide how to handle the vacant seat".

The reason why Ginsburg's wishes are relevant is because they are entirely reasonable, ethically/morally sound, and best overall for society. She was not saying "keep the slot open until they find a way to resurrect the dead and I can become the first zombie judge". She was also not saying "The next judge should be a left-handed Libra". Instead she was just saying what the majority of voters are currently saying (and what the majority of senators and other politicians should be saying).
Click to expand...

Why is it ethically the right thing to do wait? Most of it made sense, but that struck me as a big jump.
 
I'm surprised Trump isn't saying that since he's going to win anyway, he's fine allowing the election winner to bring forth a nominee.

Dang. Second robs-call of the day from Trump. I get to hang up on him multiple times per day.
 
Segnosaur said:
The reason why Ginsburg's wishes are relevant is because they are entirely reasonable, ethically/morally sound, and best overall for society. She was not saying "keep the slot open until they find a way to resurrect the dead and I can become the first zombie judge". She was also not saying "The next judge should be a left-handed Libra". Instead she was just saying what the majority of voters are currently saying (and what the majority of senators and other politicians should be saying).
Click to expand...

To take her statement as it is dictated would not be reasonable though. It does not say after the election, it specifically says after a new president is installed. So if Trump wins, are we to wait out the second term as well?
 
Mitch just said some very kind words about RGB and her legacy........now he's taking a big dump over all of it.
 
Last edited:
rdwight said:
To take her statement as it is dictated would not be reasonable though.
It does not say after the election, it specifically says after a new president
is installed. So if Trump wins, are we to wait out the second term as well?
Click to expand...

It sounded reasonable to me. So I answer, Yes. :)
 
thaiboxerken said:
Mitch just said some very kind words about RGB and her legacy........now he's taking a big dump over all of it.
Click to expand...

I tried to listen to him and just couldn't stomach more than a couple minutes past his remarks about RBG before putting him on mute. He turns my stomach a much as Trump.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Exactly. The GOP is fighting the match using weapons and every dirty trick in the book. The democrats have to do the same. Instead, when the democrats do decide to kick the GOP in the nuts, they GOP cries "fowl" and the democrats go back to fighting by the rules.
Click to expand...

It isn't dirty to try to move forward rather than fix what is broken.

The GOP broke a bunch of traditional norms. So far the Democrat position seems to be to just fix those norms as if this is a Trump thing and not the logical progression of 50+ years of the modern conservative movement. Like so many kings men and horses scrambling with crazy glue and duct tape thinking that they can put it all back together and things will be great like they were back in the day.

That is basically like wearing a blue MAGA hat. Those norms, like heavy industry and coal mining jobs, are gone. Weird schemes to bring them back (court packing, tariffs and eliminating regulations) are doomed because they don't address why they are gone.
 
For this death-bed wish, it's funny how Trump says the statement was dictated by Schumer or Schiff. It's laughable bull-**** to anyone with a brain, but Donald's "genius" is in being a retard-whisperer.
 
Cain said:
For this death-bed wish, it's funny how Trump says the statement was dictated by Schumer or Schiff. It's laughable bull-**** to anyone with a brain, but Donald's "genius" is in being a retard-whisperer.
Click to expand...

It is so asinine to suggest it is fake. They have no reason to care, and realistically shouldn't care. To question authenticity gives it way more weight than it deserves as it implies that anyone should give a crap.

I mean, I don't. It smacks of the same arrogance that put her in the position to undo her whole legacy by dying a few months too soon. It wasn't enough to want to rule things while in her 80s and fighting cancer. She wants to keep doing it after she's dead.

There are plenty of good reasons that the seat should be left open, but her wishes are not anywhere near close to being one of them.
 
Attempting to justify a fast-track nomination for the Supreme Court, McConnell cites the 19 days that it took for John Paul Stevens' nomination.

What he doesn't note is that Stevens was nominated in 1975, which was not an election year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom