Ginsberg's Dying Wish . . .

They are going to have to wait 4 years to replace her?

Four More Years!!,!!!

Agreed, Mitch McConnell is a political hack.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

--Mitch McConnell, February 2016

Doubt that she ever said it and that it was made up by the granddaughter.

So is Schumer as well as a hypocrite.

Chuck Schumer Tweeted on 2/22/16
Attn GOP: Senate has confirmed 17 #SCOTUS justices presidential election years. #DoYourJob

“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.” – President Obama to House Republican Whip Eric Cantor, January 23, 2009.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

--Mitch McConnell, February 2016

Attn GOP: Senate has confirmed 17 #SCOTUS justices presidential election years. #DoYourJob

Chuck Schumer

Neither side acting on principle. McConnell can say the GOP has the presidency and the senate, which the Democrats didn't have in 2016. Robert Bork, Biden rule, Reid rule, Garland, you can draw up any set of parameters and circumstances that justifies confirming or not confirming RBG's replacement.

I'm a conservative, I like conservative justices, but I hope for a compromise solution that won't inflame this election further.

It's a political process and she was quite aware that certain gains she perceived as won during her time served might be undone.

If Trump nominated Hillary Clinton the democrats would still object. :)

You've been away from strippers for too long shadowcat. You're just speaking crazy gibberish at this point.

Somebody send him a stripper stat!

"... I hope for a compromise solution ..."

You don't compromise with terrorists that threaten violence - nor do you compromise with those that support the terrorists ("the "protesters" are peaceful"; "the Federal troops are stormtroopers"; etc)

The Dems have been trying to overthrow Trump since January 2016

w.r.t. Ginsberg's dying wish - a Justice doesn't get to pick who their successor is

Her dying wish should be honored

Her dying wish should have been to avoid eternal damnation in hell for using her position of power to keep the killing of babies legal.

If you're so religious why do you go to strip clubs looking for women willing to fuck you for money?

Icey I think most of us are aware we are going to Hell for this hobby. We just think fucking hot young women is worth the cost.

@Icey, I know that you think that fucking dogs makes you holier than thou. But trust me, you are wrong on this one.

Answer my question why do you pretend to be so religious when youre a trick?

Funny but... I thought E.T.'s only wish was to phone home.

@Icey - I am not a trick.

Now your turn - why do you fuck dogs?

I never fucked your mom

I know you haven't. But you do fuck your own mother.

It would be infuriating after what happened with Merrill Garland. The idea that the Republicans could have 6 justices despite having won the popular vote once since 1992 is crazy. Bush in 2004 was the only one. There are other things that matter but the idea of the pro lifers getting their way is disgusting. Frankly I hate Christian conservatives more than any other faction in American politics.

Yeah, letting those cute little babies live. How disgusting!

Christian conservatives would like to see the US become a theocracy.

I'm confused. When did not killing babies become a religious issue? I am not especially religious, but I'm against baby killing too.

You don't compromise with terrorists that threaten violence - nor do you compromise with those that support the terrorists ("the "protesters" are peaceful"; "the Federal troops are stormtroopers"; etc)
The Dems have been trying to overthrow Trump since January 2016


^ This. They want power/control by any means. It's unfortunate that it's come to this but the leftists have to be stopped and short of an actual war the best way is to control the Supreme Court.
They're going to scream and offer up more threats whenever they don't get their way.
I say fuck them!

Like I said in another thread, you would ha e to be as stupid as RandumbMember to believe that the decision to replace Ginsburg is going to have any impact on Democrats future plans.

Abortions aren't seen as killing babies to anyone but religious nuts

My, what a stupid thing to say.

Of course in your case, if your girlfriend had an abortion, it would be killing puppies.

How is it stupid to say that the push against abortion comes from the religious right?

===> "Abortions aren't seen as killing babies to anyone but religious nuts"

That's a silly narrative that baby killers and their supporters have been peddling for years. The country is evenly split on the abortion issue and those who oppose it are most certainly not all religious nuts. I'm not - I'm just against killing babies just because they haven't come out of the womb yet.

A fetus isn't a baby. More children die and have their lives ruined due to poverty and inadequate social safety nets. Being born to parents who don't want them and abuse them.

Trump on alleged dying wish:

"I don't know that she said that, or was that written out by Adam Schiff, Schumer and Pelosi," @realDonaldTrump said of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's "fervent" last wish.

She felt ownership of that seat, which means that she was unfit for the seat. Especially a Supreme Court Justice should understand that is not her seat. It is not Trump's seat, not McConnell's seat, not Pelosi's seat. It belongs to the nation. She is a very good example of why government service should have an age limit and a fitness exam. Not how many pull-ups you can do or how far past your toes youcan stretch, but is your health limiting your attendance and participation in your duties (Ginsburg, McCain, Lewis)?

===> "A fetus isn't a baby."

Yet another fallacy that baby killers use to justify the extermination. As a Dad who has listened to the heartbeats and seen the ultrasounds for all three of my children through each stage of fetal development, I know different. Their hearts start beating a mere 5-6 weeks into the pregnancy.

Maybe we should just amend the Constitution so that dying wishes are granted instead of having the President pick and the Senate confirm judges.

"She is a very good example of why government service should have an age limit and a fitness exam... is your health limiting your attendance and participation in your duties (Ginsburg, McCain, Lewis)?"

So true and how could you forget Biden? A presidential candidate who is likely seriously ill. He was unavailable for comments yesterday after 8:30 AM.

->Tetradon: "Neither side acting on principle."
->Papi: "w.r.t. Ginsberg's dying wish - a Justice doesn't get to pick who their successor is"

^This. Well, both of these.

->Whodey: "I think most of us are aware we are going to Hell for this hobby. We just think fucking hot young women is worth the cost."

Lines from Unforgiven:
Little Bill Daggett (Gene Hackman): I'll see you in hell, William Munny.
William Munny (Clint Eastwood): Yeah.

Biden is clearly mentally and physically unfit for office. He likely won the nomination because his opponents split the radical vote. So he goesboit chooses one of the most dishonest and amoral running mates available simply because she checked more boxes than anyone else - multiracial black, female, west coast, radical leftist. Undecided voters need to be made to understand that voting blue is not voting for Biden, it isnvoting for one of the least experienced and most radical leftist members of congress.

"... "I don't know that she said that, or was that written out by Adam Schiff, Schumer and Pelosi," @realDonaldTrump said of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's "fervent" last wish ..."

I don't think that's gonna go over well on CNN & MSNBC
😊

^ and I too from the beginning had my doubts - if she felt that strongly about it she would have documented it at some point vs it being from another person claiming RBG said that

"... Maybe we should just amend the Constitution so that dying wishes are granted instead of having the President pick and the Senate confirm judges ..."

LOL

@Papi - can't you see it?

It would be like a geriatric version of "Make a Wish".

But instead of offering some comfort and joy to the life of someone destined to die a premature death, you could allow people who led a full life to control others from beyond the grave.

What could possibly be wrong about a concept like that?

Some frame it as baby killing, other's frame it as a woman's right to choose. The reality is that it takes two to create a child. Sometimes the circumstance is brutal---like rape.

Even if it isn't, it's not a man's place or anyone other than the woman who is pregnant's right to tell her what to do.

The other thing that always has me baffled is that these folk who yell about pro-life aren't stepping up to take these children and raise them if the pregnant woman doesn't or can't care for the child. This hypocrisy has always bothered me.

"The other thing that always has me baffled is that these folk who yell about pro-life aren't stepping up to take these children and raise them if the pregnant woman doesn't or can't care for the child."

Do you have anything that supports this? It seems to be totally untrue as from what I have heard is there is more people that want to adopt than can, and that is why lots of babies get adopted from other countries.

I can understand the position of a woman or couple that feel they are not ready to have children and thus see abortion as an alternative to an unplanned pregnancy - IDK the adoption process details but seems it's often cumbersome and expensive - the adoption process should be made as efficient as possible as a way to discourage abortion and have adoption be the primary recourse.

"... it's not a man's place or anyone other than the woman who is pregnant's right to tell her what to do ..."

I never bought this argument - IMO it's a way to take the focus away from the fetus as if it doesn't count nor have any rights (again, if that was the case then someone killing a pregnant woman wouldn't be charged with double-homicide) - it's not about "the woman's body" bc she's not doing it to herself, she's doing to someone else and choosing life or death for someone else, not herself - it's a selfish self-serving way to frame it.

@Papi - giving up a child for adoption is pretty easy (not counting emotions here) The Catholic church has long provided support for women who wish to give their babies up for adoption.

This goes beyond medical care and includes care for the woman during pregnancy and even after pregnancy.

^ IDK much about the adoption process but was under the impression it's a cumbersome process for the adopting parents - but again can't say I know the process

The adopting parents have to go through a lot. But the person giving up their child has their choice of people to raise their child.

===> "...it's not a man's place or anyone other than the woman who is pregnant's right to tell her what to do."

Sorry to say this, but I feel perfectly justified in telling a woman not to kill a baby just because it is still in her womb.

Shit good women already know not to do that. It's only the other types who need to be told not to kill their babies.

"RBG Blasted Democrats For Proposing ‘Bad Idea’ Of Packing Supreme Court"

https://www.dailywire.com/news/honor-her…

^ seems the Dems are not keen on honoring that viewpoint of their beloved RBG

Was it also her wish that her body lie in state in the Supreme Court and Congress for several days ? That seems inconsistent with Jewish tradition.

Video evidence that every Democrat believes a delay is wrong ( or, at least they used to believe that )

https://mobile.twitter.com/ITGuy1959/sta…

Several random thoughts on the recent comments and stories in this thread:

Packing a Supreme Court seems to me like an attempt by the Legislative and/or Executive branches to nullify the third branch in our system of checks and balances.

I would very much like to see an amendment to the Constitution that the number of SCOTUS judges be locked in at nine.

The Republicans should have brought Merrick Garland to the floor and voted him down. Had they done that, the democrat party would look even dumber than they do now.

That ignorant, partisan, hack, Don Lemon, last night suggested that the court should be packed so that the democrat party can pass an amendment to remove the Electoral College from the elections. The states have to ratify any amendments, and I do not see this passing. More importantly, the Electoral College is another important tool in the system of checks and balances. Without it, we would have the tyranny of the majority. I would like to see a return to government (in the Senate) where a bipartisan consensus is necessary to perform several legislative acts, such as 60% to confirm judges.

Abortion is not an election issue for me. How can you be pro-life and support the death penalty? How can you call the death penalty "state murder", but favor taxpayer funds being used in late-term or post-birth abortion? The Christian argument for innocent babies is self-defeating, due to original sin and the inability of a fetus to accept Christ and be baptized.

^Hilarious. The audacity Schumer had to stand there and stump with AOC is mind blowing.

Trump needs to push this through and see if the Dems follow up with threats and another impeachment round - the public will not want more impeachment hearings right now.

Why do people keep asking me why I am buying vans, batteries and ammonium nitrate?

@Gammanau - I support the death penalty and am opposed to abortion. The logic behind my belief is both simple and consistent.

Abortion is the killing of an innocent baby. The decision is based on the whims of a single person.

Execution is the killing of an individual who knowingly and maliciously committed specific crimes against society. It only occurs after numerous trials and is a collective decision.

Also, if you look at the numbers, somewhere around 1,000,000 babies are killed in this country every year. Given current restrictions, I doubt we hit one dozen executions in this country each year.

To me, the liberal viewpoint doesn’t make sense - that it is cruel to kill people for heinous crimes, but that not only is it alright to kill innocent babies, but that the act of killing babies should be subsidized by tax payers.

There is nothing in the constitution that forbids changing the size of the supreme court. McConnell changed the court to 8 justices for a year and none of you clowns objected. Personally, I would prefer a tyranny of the majority over a tyranny of the minority any day.

https://thetriad.thebulwark.com/p/tyrann…

@Richard_Head - be careful that you don't pull a muscle - it's quite a stretch to say that McConnell changed the size of the Supreme Court.

Did it not go from 9 to 8 for a year? If not longer? The court needs reform anyways, expanding it would be a good way to take the politics out of it.

https://time.com/5338689/supreme-court-p…

Is the Senate obligated to confirm anyone a President nominates for a position?

Claiming that expanding the court will be done to take the politics out of it is likely to turn that pulled muscle into a torn muscle.

Well just a reminder McConnell nor Trump have a lifetime appointment I’ll just sit quiet and remember my dad used to remind me when I didn’t care for the outcome that nobody lives forever, if you’re lucky you get to outlive those you disagree with, but even if you don’t the only certainty is change.

Eli Mystal lays out the benefits of an expanded court quite well in this link.

https://crooksandliars.com/2020/09/elie-…

@TwentyFive - with that as a thought, given the 4 years of investigations that we are in right now that started literally with the Presidential inauguration itself, what type of cooperation do you expect if your guy wins in November?

@Richard_Head, I'm sure that your link isn't worth clicking on.

^^ Zero, but I don’t give a fuck, really
No matter who’s in power, this country keeps on, and I know this, the sun will come up in the morning no matter who wins

For anyone hoping that Mitt Romney would join Collins and Murkowski in opposing a move to replace Ginsburg - leaving the GOP a single vote short of confirmation, I should remind you that hope is not a strategy.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/22/mitt-rom…

@winex if you want to have a serious exchange of ideas you’d be better off not phrasing your questions as editorials, but I know that you really don’t want to discuss anything, the smartest guy in the room just likes the sound of his own typing, and doesn’t really want to hear from anyone that refuses to accept his opinions
In other words y’all like the echo chamber you’ve got here it beats getting smacked down in the real world

Winex, I sincerely hope that the Republicans do not punish the democrat party, even though it is heartily deserved. Just like 25iq deserves a serious beating, it would be a lose-lose proposition for the good guys.

The concept of bipartisan cooperation goes back to my earlier statement seeking 60% bipartisan consensus over sinple 50%+1 majority. If that were required more often, there would be more centrist bills, nominations, and overall governance than we have today. Additionally, maybe we should do away with C-span and video in Congress. I wonder if there would be more of a focus on governing for the good of all Americans if the pols no longer had to come up with one-liners and soundbites to satisfy the 25iqs in their base.

Again gammanut just doesn’t know when to keep his mouth shut he’s not just a pussy he’s a genuine loser and I’ll bet a ghost on Thursday

It seems the framers constructed the Constitution with the idea that the spirit of vigorous debate would lead to solutions that those on opposing sides of an issues could agree to.

When our political system descended into power politics rather than governing politics we seem to have lost sight of the initial goal. I know power has always been in play but it's difficult to tell who's really in it for the good of the people.

The overt power mongers are obvious to all. What kind of revolution will have to occur to bring us back to a place of vigorous debate but even stronger humanity? Is this even possible?

What kind of revolution will have to occur to bring us back to a place of vigorous debate but even stronger humanity?
All it would take is a viable third party made up of populist moderates to balance the scales. Let the socialists have the Dems and let the Trumpists have the GOP. If Bush H, Bush W, McCain, and Mitt are all now considered RINOs, a third party could have a pretty big tent.

^ I agree wholeheartedly

The Constitution was drafted in an era where the drafters assumed that politics would continue as an unpaid job that the wealthy were obligated to do as a public service for free since they didn't have to spend every waking hour trying to survive.

Justin, RINO = amoral liberal. You just named four of the biggest political scumbags from the right (there are far more and dirtier on the left). Those guys govern for their own ego, they didn't serve the people. A 3rd, centrist party -not populist (Warren and Trump are both considered populists)- would help move both the RNC and DNC to the center; but I have a better solution, as usual.

Do away with primaries. This would negate the abilities of fringe candidates like Alex Cortez and Warren to warrant the support of the party. We also need term limits and mandatory retirement ages so we do not get saddled with mainstream jackasses like Biden, McCain, Pelosi, and Kasich. Finally, remove the Senators from the general election, and have the state assemblies select them as the Constitution originally stipulated. Under the current system, they are just overpowered representatives. Maybe add in a two term (12 year) limit for them as well.

gam95. sounds reasonable.
and don’t kill babies.

@gammanu
Do away with primaries? I see what you mean about eliminating the wackos like Cortez and Warren, but Presidential candidates being appointed by a few party bigwigs doesn't seem like a reasonable alternative.

Mistero - thats why I threw in the term limits. Had Kasich or Jeb Bush been the 2016 GOP candidate, Clinton may well have won the electoral votes. I think having the mainstream party leadership vote, instead of a well-motivated lunatic fringe, would produce more centrist candidates who can work in a bipartisan fashion. Even as I wrote that last line, I realize that is how Clinton won over Bernie and go on to lose to Trump.

I don't claim to have ALL the answers, just a willingness to consider the alternatives. This partisan gridlock is the second biggest problem in American politics, which it has been for decades. The largest problem is newer, and that is the 24-7 news cycle in which the left, the democrat party, the liberals and socialists and commies, have embraced feeding outright lies, propaganda, and fake news to the American public, and screaming down anyone who points out the truth and facts are not what is being reported. Even CNN and the NYT are wholly corrupted and complicit in a wide-ranging effort to deceive, confuse, and obfuscate the truth in a type of fiction which has no relation to true journalistic ethics.

Biden himself is a compromise candidate selected by the big wigs. He will lose for it. That goes back to my original idea for fit for duty tests, term limits, and age limits. It's not perfect, but it's better than what we have now.

Given we are faced with 74 years old against 77 years old, I am curious Gammanu95 where you would draw the line? What should the first term age cap be?

I guess the line is Biden has totally mush mentally, can't even answer simple questions without the aid of a teleprompter.

My post wasn't meant to be inflammatory. I think much like 35y.o. is the minimum, I think a maximum is reasonable. Just curious what age. I think 70 at November 3rd of 1st term would be reasonable. We are definitely getting to the point where there should be few future baby boomer presidents.

@JustinTolook
Regarding your earlier comment: I think we're still far away from the creation of a "viable" third party. The most successful attempt in recent history was Ross Perot back in '92. Nationwide he received almost 20 million votes, compared to Bush's 39 million and Clinton's 45 million, but he failed to win even a single Electoral College vote. His supporters were pretty much scattered among all the states, without enough concentration in any one area to achieve success. In the end, all he did was act as a spoiler.
Given how much further apart the two major parties have become over the last several decades, your suggestion seems to have merit. But consider this: At best, a highly successful 3rd Party candidate would cause a 3-way split in the Electoral College where no one earns the required 270 votes. In that case, the President would be selected by the House of Representatives, which means the winner will be either the Democrat or Republican. Guaranteed it won't be the 3rd Party guy.
Unless they find a way to reincarnate George Washington, or Jesus Christ himself returns and runs for President, I can't see any way possible that a 3rd Party would be successful anytime soon.

Need at least a viable third party and term limits for Congress.

Well the Republican Party was formed in 1854 from the ashes of the Whig party a/k/a The Free Soil Party

POTUS is CINC of the armed forces. US Navy and US Army statutory retirement is 62 years, with 64 for Academy professors. That seems awfully young, but I could see that set as the maximum age for beginning your first term. A second consecutive term could be allowed under those circumstances, but not a second non-consecutive term.

The maximum enlistment age for the Army is 35.

The maximum for the Navy is 34.

The maximum for the Marines is 28

The maximum for the Air Force is 39.

The duties of someone enlisted in the military are much different than those of the Commander in Chief.

@MisterOrange Yes, third party President run would require electoral college changes. However, even 10% third party seats in Congress would force debate and limit partisan stalemates. Maybe wishful thinking, but I'm ready to ditch both parties lately.

Winex, I was discussing reasonable ages to expect a diminished capacity for the cognitive ability, vitality, and endurance necessary for one of the most demanding jobs in the world. You gave ages at which the different services believe you will no longer be able to do a requisite number of pullups or forced marches with an 80 lb ruck. Apples and oranges.

@Gammanu, what I posted were the oldest ages that someone can enlist. You mentioned that the retirement ages for the military could be set as maximum ages for beginning of the first term of President. So the maximum enlistment ages did seem relevant.

That notwithstanding, there are other key differences that make ages for service in the military a bad guide for service in elected office.

First of all, the ages for military service are based on physical fitness to fight in war. While it is true that with modern weapon systems, the ratio of people in support positions to people at the pointy end of the spear is increasing, the age requirements are based on effectivity in combat.

But the biggest difference between a blanket rule for the miliary and a similar rule for elected office is sheer numbers. There are approximately 1.4 million people in active duty, and 800,000 in the reserves today.

With some 2.2 million people serving the country through the military, blanket rules are necessary in certain instances because outliers are too expensive to find.

If you look at Alzheimer's specifically, about 1 in 10 Americans over the age of 65 have it to some degree. The vast majority of older Americans are mentally fit.

When you combine that with the small handful of people who run for elected office (at any level, not just the presidency) screening for mental fitness to hold office is not cost prohibitive.

I don't think age by itself should be a limiting factor. People's minds begin to fade over a wide range of different ages. And let's face it, some are starting out with less going on upstairs, regardless of age.
There really ought to be some cognitive tests in order to qualify as a candidate for President. I mean, just the fact that a complete moron like Joe Biden, with the right support (political and financial backing) can stand up and convince a significant number of people that he should be President is evidence enough.
As much as I'm the 180-degree polar opposite of anything Bernie Sanders ever stood for, I'd have to agree that mentally the guy is very sharp. He earned the nickname "Crazy Bernie" not because he was lacking intelligence, but rather his vision of America's future was so far out there. That said, he very likely would be the Democratic candidate right now if both he and Biden had been subjected to a test of cognitive ability.

I think a better example is Warren Buffet. I certainly don't agree with him politically, but he is very intelligent. Bernie Sanders is just good at propaganda - it's a communist thing.

As for Biden - he cheated when he was in college. He got caught plagiarizing speeches when he ran for President for the 1988 election. (He was actually caught in 1987) There have been plagiarism issues this time around too.

Even before his mind turned to mush, he was never the sharpest tool in the shed.

^^ winex
Agreed. I'll never forgive Buffet for endorsing Obama and Hillary. Very intelligent guy, but a total asshole politically.

Also, despite the reputation that he has carefully cultivated as grandfatherly figure, he is really pretty viscous. If you enter into a business deal with him, it's a pretty sure thing that you got screwed.

What Biden lacked in brains, he made up for with bravery. That story about having to face Corn Pop... whoh. That took a lot of balls. I mean, literally "telling the story" took a lot of balls. Lol.

Haha, so true. Case in point: Goldman Sachs.

@MisterOrange - I wasn't familiar with Corn Pop, so I searched DuckDuckGo for it.

I am totally embarrassed to be an American now.

Nah... you should only be embarrassed that Biden is allowed to live here.

I don't normally watch him, but the first link I found was Stephen Colberts take on Corn Pop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVwv8cBh…

@winex - but you are familiar with the hairy legs story, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-eD2n2d…
...from the same speech as Corn Pop.

Yeah, I have seen that clip.

Mark my words, if Biden is elected, Canada will look at the situation, say to themselves “we can take these guys” and invade no later than February 1, 2021.

"Ruth Bader Ginsburg Didn’t Retire Because She Wanted Hillary Clinton To ‘Name Her Successor,’ Daughter Says"

https://www.dailywire.com/news/ruth-bade…

^Ehhh too cold they'll never make it past Hollywood Florida
(for those of you that don't live in Florida, that's an inside joke)

@Papi - Her daughter said:
“I think that Mother, like many others, expected that Hillary Clinton would win the nomination and the presidency, and she wanted the first female president to name her successor."
Perfect example of how lefties make decisions. Could have (should have) stepped down while Obama was President and had a Democrat Senate that would easily confirm a young replacement for her. But as with all stupid liberals, they prefer spectacular news headlines over common sense decisions. I hope Trump's appointment, when confirmed, will publicly thank RBG for holding the seat.

yes. rbg had her chance to ensure her replacement.