Notorious RBG dead at 87

[DandyDon]

RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Lets see if Cocaine Mitch follows the Biden rule. Of course not.

[Wut]

Good thread title, sorry to see her go, I liked her.

[Stapes]

Fuck!!!

[Reservoir Dog]

Gotta admit... I did not nail her back in High School.

[Wut]

Gotta admit... I did not nail her back in High School.

Your granddad did.

[DandyDon]

[CaptQuint]

Let's let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be,"

[megman]

RIP

[CHEEZY17]

Though I disagreed with her on many things I always respected her. RIP

[DandyDon]

Here we go.

Donald Trump to put forth nominee to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in coming days

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald- ... d=73107862

[necronomous]

Ding ding the witch is dead the witch is dead. Ding ding the wicked witch is dead

[WestTexasCrude]

Fuck!!!

May she burn in hell. Probably hasn't been a SC justice in history that has caused more damage to this country ever. Let me know the burial site. I'll piss on it every year. Perfect example of why SC age limits need to be enacted. Couldn't even be conscious during legal arguments not that it mattered. The Supreme Court is supposed to be non-partisan. She was the exact opposite, when your whole legal goal is to outlive the current Administration. Well, the Bitch lost. Now, when Trump romps in 6 weeks, its- 7-2 for decades. Best news this week.

[Deathproof]

Ding ding the witch is dead the witch is dead. Ding ding the wicked witch is dead

You beat me to it. May that evil cunt burn in hell.

[DandyDon]

I hope all of you get ass cancer that eats all the way to your fucking sick brains. You are the slime at the bottom of the rotten pickle barrel that gets tossed over the side.

[necronomous]

I hope all of you get ass cancer that eats all the way to your fucking sick brains. You are the slime at the bottom of the rotten pickle barrel that gets tossed over the side.

Ok hypocrite

[VinceBordenIII]

Lol it just gets worser and worser, don’t it?

[VinceBordenIII]

She was quite a beauty. Time is cruel.

[WestTexasCrude]

I hope all of you get ass cancer that eats all the way to your fucking sick brains. You are the slime at the bottom of the rotten pickle barrel that gets tossed over the side.

In the entire history of the SC going back 250+ years, there has never been a more vile person sitting on that bench violating their oath to be non-partisan than this witch. Instead of half staff- hope they can raise the flags double.

[VinceBordenIII]

No doubt her funeral will be a massive Democrat campaign event. Like Wellstone.

[Stapes]

I hope all of you get ass cancer that eats all the way to your fucking sick brains. You are the slime at the bottom of the rotten pickle barrel that gets tossed over the side.

In the entire history of the SC going back 250+ years, there has never been a more vile person sitting on that bench violating their oath to be non-partisan than this witch. Instead of half staff- hope they can raise the flags double.

The woman was a true revolutionary. A champion of women's equality and destroyer of institutional sexual discrimination. It's true progressives like her that move humanity forward out of the caves and towards enlightenment. I can see why you hate her. She had more balls than you'll ever have

[peterosehaircut]

Here we go.

Donald Trump to put forth nominee to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in coming days

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald- ... d=73107862

Well in his defense, He's not a lame duck president like Obama was when he had Scalia killed Scalia died.

[AnalHamster]

The hypocrisy could be a step too far even for republicans. Two have come out and said it's too close to the election, and if Moscow Mitch can wrangle the votes it'll likely be after losing both the White House and the senate, in a lame duck session.

[Wut]

I hope all of you get ass cancer that eats all the way to your fucking sick brains. You are the slime at the bottom of the rotten pickle barrel that gets tossed over the side.

In the entire history of the SC going back 250+ years, there has never been a more vile person sitting on that bench violating their oath to be non-partisan than this witch. Instead of half staff- hope they can raise the flags double.

What decisions of hers supports your position?

[CaptQuint]

Sixty years ago, Ruth Bader Ginsburg applied to be a Supreme Court clerk. She’d studied at two of our finest law schools and had ringing recommendations. But because she was a woman, she was rejected. Ten years later, she sent her first brief to the Supreme Court––which led it to strike down a state law based on gender discrimination for the first time. And then, for nearly three decades, as the second woman ever to sit on the highest court in the land, she was a warrior for gender equality––someone who believed that equal justice under law only had meaning if it applied to every single American.

Over a long career on both sides of the bench––as a relentless litigator and an incisive jurist––Justice Ginsburg helped us see that discrimination on the basis of sex isn’t about an abstract ideal of equality; that it doesn’t only harm women; that it has real consequences for all of us. It’s about who we are––and who we can be.

Justice Ginsburg inspired the generations who followed her, from the tiniest trick-or-treaters to law students burning the midnight oil to the most powerful leaders in the land. Michelle and I admired her greatly, we’re profoundly thankful for the legacy she left this country, and we offer our gratitude and our condolences to her children and grandchildren tonight.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg fought to the end, through her cancer, with unwavering faith in our democracy and its ideals. That’s how we remember her. But she also left instructions for how she wanted her legacy to be honored.

Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.

A basic principle of the law––and of everyday fairness––is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment. The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle. As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard. The questions before the Court now and in the coming years––with decisions that will determine whether or not our economy is fair, our society is just, women are treated equally, our planet survives, and our democracy endures––are too consequential to future generations for courts to be filled through anything less than an unimpeachable process.

President Barack Obama

[CaptQuint]

It’s likely just a matter of when, not if, President Donald Trump nominates a replacement for the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Friday of pancreatic cancer. He held a ceremony at the White House just last week to unveil a short list of future nominees, and at the same time the rest of the country was processing the news of Ginsburg’s death, an apparently oblivious Trump was onstage at a rally in Bemidji, Minnesota, talking about nominating Texas Sen. Ted Cruz to the bench. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who had previously gone around the country telling donors that Ginsburg’s death would be his party’s “October Surprise,” pledged Friday that “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

It’s a far cry from four years ago. When this same situation unfolded in 2016, after Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of that year, many Senate Republicans—most of whom are still in the chamber—drew what purported to be a principled line in the sand, insisting that it was too close to the presidential election for President Barack Obama to choose a replacement. It should be up to the voters to decide in November, they argued. Some of them even invoked the words of then-vice president Joe Biden, who as a senator several decades earlier had offered similar logic. They called it the “Biden Rule.” (Biden, in 1992, was not responding to any actual vacancy, but merely a hypothetical one.) When Obama nominated Merrick Garland anyway, no one led the charge as stubbornly as McConnell:


But it wasn’t just McConnell. This was the default position at the time. Here’s what a not-comprehensive look at what 17 active Republican senators said.

Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.” (source)
https://coloradotimesrecorder.com/2020/ ... ago/21327/


Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas):

“I believe the American people deserve to have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice, and the best way to ensure that happens is to have the Senate consider a nomination made by the next President.

Confirming a new Supreme Court Justice during a presidential election year for a vacancy arising that same year is not common in our nation’s history; the last time it happened was in 1932. And it has been almost 130 years since a presidential election year nominee was confirmed for a vacancy arising the same year under divided government as we have today.

In 1992, while serving as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and with a Republican in the White House, Vice President Joe Biden said his committee should “seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings” on any potential nominees until the campaign season was over.” (source)
https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/content/c ... rt-justice


Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.” (source)
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/cruz- ... precedent/


Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election” (This was actually what he said in 2018, doubling down on his previous stance. )


Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term — I would say that if it was a Republican president .” (source)
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a ... l-gorsuch/
.




Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.): “It makes the current presidential election all that more important as not only are the next four years in play, but an entire generation of Americans will be impacted by the balance of the court and its rulings. Sens. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid have all made statements that the Senate does not have to confirm presidential nominations in an election year. I will oppose this nomination as I firmly believe we must let the people decide the Supreme Court’s future.” (source)



Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.” (source)



Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa): “We will see what the people say this fall and our next president, regardless of party, will be making that nomination.” (source)
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story ... /80947374/


Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “Vice President Biden’s remarks may have been voiced in 1992, but they are entirely applicable to 2016. The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.” (source)
https://www.tillis.senate.gov/2016/2/n- ... rt-nominee


Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.” (source)
https://www.perdue.senate.gov/news/pres ... -elections


Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.): “The next President must nominate successor that upholds constitution, founding principles.”


Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.” (source)
https://archive.jsonline.com/news/state ... 8231.html/

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.): “The next Court appointment should be made by the newly-elected president.” (source)
https://www.toomey.senate.gov/newsroom/ ... rt-vacancy


Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.” (source)
https://www.burr.senate.gov/press/relea ... in-scalia-

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”


Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.): “There is 80 years of precedent for not nominating and confirming a new justice of the Supreme Court in the final year of a president’s term so that people can have a say in this very important decision.” (source)
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ation.html

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.” (source)
https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom ... rt-vacancy

Pointing out all the hypocrisy won’t get Democrats very far in what will be one of the most contentious nomination fights in the court’s history. But it should at least clarify who they’re dealing with.

https://www.motherjones.com/2020-electi ... tion-year/