web analytics

She couldn’t wait two more months…….

By Patrick Van Roy On September 19th, 2020

1960: In 1960, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter rejected Ginsburg for a clerkship position due to her gender.
2002: In 2002, Ginsburg was inducted into the National Women’s Hall of Fame.
2015: In 2015, Ginsburg and Scalia, known for their shared love of opera, were fictionalized in Scalia/Ginsburg, an opera by Derrick Wang.
2016: During three separate interviews that were conducted in July 2016, Ginsburg criticized presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, telling The New York Times and the Associated Press that she did not want to think about the possibility of a Trump presidency.
2018: Another film, On the Basis of Sex, focusing on Ginsburg’s career struggles fighting for equal rights, was released later in 2018; its screenplay was named to the Black List of best unproduced screenplays of 2014.
2020: By January 2020, Ginsburg was cancer-free.

Except she wasn’t.

I disagreed with the majority of Justice Ginsberg rulings. She was not a Constitutionalist she was Political. Her decisions were based on her feelings about the issue not on whether or not the case she was ruling on met Constitutional Standards.

The job of every Supreme Court Justice is to REVIEW Laws and Case Rulings against the Constitution, nothing else. Ginsberg did not do this, she was going to “Fix Things” as she once said.

As a Woman and as a Person she is an example that everyone should follow. She broke barriers and excelled at everything she set her mind to letting nothing deter her even decades of fighting Cancer. She is and should be an icon of Pride and Commitment.

Now the battle to replace her begins. She will not be replaced before the Election, but her death will greatly influence it. Trump has a List of who would replace her, so far Biden has refused to provide a list of Judges of who he would choose.

Who this argument will benefit when it comes to the election is a toss up. Will it inspire Democrats to come out or will it cause Republicans to come out ?

Either way 45 days before a Presidential election the passing of THE Liberal Anchor on the Court adds gas for the fire on both sides.

R.I.P. Ruth, and thank you for your service. Godspeed.

17 Responses to “She couldn’t wait two more months…….”

  1. The moment President Trump was told was caught on camera. The NYT and The Atlantic must be so disappointed that they won’t be able to fabricate lies about how the president was happy.

    https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1307129293366079488

    The President and the Senate must do their constitutional duties regardless of elections and party politics. Didn’t the Dems go nuts over the Republicans delaying Garland’s hearing? So let the Dems show how the Republicans ought to have done it.

  2. President Trump must be praying that Biden’s handlers nominate some way out, wacko lefty headbangers. (I know, is there any other kind of leftist?)

    That would have his support in a dawn stampede to vote.

  3. She will not be replaced before the Election

    Are you sure about that Patrick? Trump wants the nomination hearings to start next week and the very same GOP senators who refused to allow Obama to nominate more than six months ahead of the 2016 election will now be doing a reverse ferret for their boss in order to get the job done in six weeks.

  4. Even if a nomination is put forth it won’t pass before the election. The republicans have a 3 vote margin Murkowski, Collins, and Romney have all said they won’t vote before the election and there’s Graham and a half dozen other miscreant’s who can’t be trusted.

    If he puts up a nomination before the election you put up number 2 that way when their shot is destroyed then after the election you put up Amy Coney Barrett, confirm her and go home for christmas.

  5. Surely they don’t need to get it done in six weeks ? Even if Biden wins and the Senate flips to Democrat control, Trump and the Republican Senate will still be in power until January so they have until then to confirm who they like. Of course it’s deeply hypocritical compared to what they did in 2016 but hey that’s politics.

  6. no it’s hypocritical of those that complained about what the republicans did by demanding it be done now.

  7. In recent history from nomination to confirmation the quickest confirmation was actually Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was confirmed 50 days after President Clinton nominated her. It was also a relatively uncontroversial confirmation (she was confirmed 96-3). The norm is around 60-70 days, when it isn’t controversial. When it is controversial it takes longer. Kavanaugh took 88 days. Alito who was heavily opposed by the Democrats took 82 (in comparison to John Roberts who only took 62 days – despite having his nomination withdrawn and repalced during those 62 days). Clarence Thomas took 99 days, Robert Bork 114. Controversial nominations tend to take longer. Whether a pre-election nomination, or (should Trump lose re-election) a lame-duck nomination, this nomination will be controversial.

    From today, at the very least, he has 105 days. Should the Democrats take 51 seats in the Senate in the election then on the 3rd January 2021 Chuck Schumer becomes the Majority Leader (if they take 50 and the Presidency then Schumer becomes Majority Leader on the 20th January).

    In my opinion a pre-election vote on a nomination either fails or hands the Democrats the Senate. Susan Collins loses re-election if she votes for a Trump nominee. Likely so does Martha McSally, Cory Gardener. Any Republican standing in a blue seat, or even a purple seat, likely has to vote against the nomination or they lose re-election (Susan Collins was untouchable in Maine politics until she confirmed Brett Kavanaugh). With Mitt Romney announcing he will vote against the nomination, and Lisa Murkowski likewise. Susan Collins has said she doesn’t support a vote being held – though interestingly didn’t say which way she would vote if it was held.

    McSally has announced she will support the nomination (though interestingly in not so much the pre-election vote but in a lame-duck vote because Arizona is a special election rather than a general election then if Mark Kelly wins then he replaces McSally as soon as the vote is verified – which will be by the end of November). Cory Gardner has been extremely quiet. If he votes for Trump’s nomination he loses in Colorado (he likely will lose in Colorado anyway but this would put a nail firmly in the coffin).

    If Collins and one other Senator (probably Cory Gardener – or one of the less hypocritical GOP Senators who doesn’t feel right after 2016) vote against the nomination (and assuming the likes of Joe Manchin votes against) then it fails, and assuming the Democrats take either the Presidency or the Senate in November then Trump likely doesn’t have time for two nomination processes.

    That being said if the Senate railroad this through, and the Democrats take all three (House, Senate, Presidency) then HR.1 should be a bill to expand the Supreme Court to 13 seats.

    “no it’s hypocritical of those that complained about what the republicans did by demanding it be done now.”

    It wasn’t precedent when the Republicans did it in 2016. It is precedent now.

  8. you’re assuming a lot.

  9. “you’re assuming a lot.”

    Relatively safe assumptions. This will harm Republicans in close elections in blue and purple states, and help Republicans in close elections in red states (hurt Collins, Gardner, McSally, but help Graham and Ernst).

  10. Except one of the MAIN reasons Trump Won the first time was due to his promise to appoint Constitutionalist Judges.

    You may be underestimating what this appointment means to both parties and which is going to be more motivated to vote by it.

    You’re banking on Democrats that vote for the rinos you name, but if they lose the base republican support they have to bring them to the point where those few dems would make a difference by voting against the Presidents choice they’ll lose enough of the R vote that any D’s that vote for them won’t be enough for them to win.

  11. “Except one of the MAIN reasons Trump Won the first time was due to his promise to appoint Constitutionalist Judges.”

    No it isn’t. Supreme Court was like the 9th biggest issue in the election in 2016.

    “You’re banking on Democrats that vote for the rinos you name, but if they lose the base republican support they have to bring them to the point where those few dems would make a difference by voting against the Presidents choice they’ll lose enough of the R vote that any D’s that vote for them won’t be enough for them to win.”

    Sure that is an issue for them. But ultimately those annoyed at them for voting against the nomination have no where else to go. They either vote Republican or the don’t vote. Those annoyed at them for voting for it have somewhere else to go. They can vote Republican, not vote or vote Democrat.

  12. Patrick

    Of course the behaviour of Republicans now is hypocritical it is ridiculous of you to imply only Democrats are being so. Both sides are of course supporting the procedures that will benefit their aims but there are no principles involved just opportunistic hypocrisy and on this matter the Republicans are demonstrating it blatantly and shamelessly.

  13. No Seamus for Trump to even get the full support of the base he had to list the Judges that he would name.

    In the last Presidential election in the primary it came down to two people Trump and Cruz. Nobody trusted the mainstream republicans. The vote came down to Trump and the Constitutional fanatics supporting Cruz when Cruz was the last to be eliminated the only way they could guarantee those votes to turn out was that list.

  14. oh I don’t disagree Colm, but all the arguments the dems made on why it was wrong when the reps did it they are now saying the same things they condemned the delay about before.

    So…….

  15. Patrick

    Yes agreed, but the onus is still mainly on the Republicans. They decided in 2016 to introduce this new protocol that a new Supreme Court judge nominated by a President shouldn’t be considered by the Senate in an election year. Now all of a sudden that protocol is being abandoned. They should simply be honest that “alls fair in love and war” and stop the pretence that there is any principle attached to their behaviour.

  16. Good on Trump for acting out his ‘regrets’ over the departure of that demon on the Supreme Court, and that hopefully Trump shall get a human to take its place. As a reminder…….

    https://irishsavant.blogspot.com/2020/09/just-in-time-satan-answers-my-prayer.html

    She’s called for the legalising of sex for children as young as 12 years. She’s argued for legalising prostitution, bigamy and interstate sex trafficking. She has worked tirelessly against sexual dimorphism, ruling for the forced integration of the Boy Scouts and the Girl Guides, college fraternities and sororities, women in the the armed forces (with the proviso that they must benefit from affirmative action), quotas for women in jobs….even finding that Fathers’ Day and Mothers’ Day to be, yes, offensive and possibly Unconstitutional. She claimed that the concept of husband-breadwinner and wife-homemaker “must be eliminated from the code if it is to reflect the equality principle”.

    While she claims to be a Constitutional scholar she has flouted and mangled that document to the point of national scandal. First by her blatant partisanship, threatening to leave for New Zealand were Trump elected, her open and unprecedented canvassing for the Sotamayor SCOTUS appointment. Such partisanship on the part of a Supreme Court Justice represents grounds for removal from theCourt. The Senate has that power. But can you just see them use it?

    I thought that I would check that last point because it’s important that judges on the SCOTUS be, or at least be seen to be, impartial:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-no-fan-of-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=nytpolitics&smtyp=cur

    These days, she is making no secret of what she thinks of a certain presidential candidate.

    “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” she said. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

    It reminded her of something her husband, Martin D. Ginsburg, a prominent tax lawyer who died in 2010, would have said.

    “‘Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand,’” Justice Ginsburg said, smiling ruefully.

    She should have been removed from the SCOTUS there and then.

  17. out of the last 9 justices confirmed in an presidential election year where the president and the senate were held by the same party 8 out of the 9 were confirmed.

    7 out of 8 judges have been confirmed in presidential election years where the senate was one party and the president was another.

    This is not an uncommon issue, it happens quite often.

    Were the Republicans dicks to Obama with his pick yes they were, we know what the dems want and hypocrisy has never meant anything to them when it comes to enacting policy. The only question is can the Turtle deliver 51 Republican votes?

    I don’t think he can, but I think he should force the vote anyway. It’s a win win. If he wrangles Romney, Murkowski, and Collins you’ve got your judge if he doesn’t get their votes which he most likely won’t because McConnell is the biggest waste of space and poster child for term limits that exists. Trump gets the campaign issue. And turning over the supreme court to the dems….. that is a bigger issue than you think.