Ruth Bader Ginsburg

[dantana]

As to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I'm looking for someone to hold accountable here, and am thinking she should take some of the heat. For all of the accolades heaped upon her as to her insight, intellect and altruism, she sure didn't do us any favors. In her 80's, cancer survivor, Obama's first term, controlling the senate, she should have understood the potential consequences of not stepping down at that specific time. It seems though she liked the prestige... or whatever.

Now look at us. Lop sided court for who knows how long, and I happen to think that part of what is keeping Trump from stepping off, is his idiotic notion that his personal private high court is going to save him. We are/were just a couple of dickskins (Mich. vote certifiers,) an aashole (Texas AG) and three cotton suckers (elite strike force) away from this all going the other way, and actually making it to the top court. Gawd help us

Side note, when one thinks of the high court, I think some envision apolitical, saint status, top minds. All one need do to belie that thought though is remember Trump once had Ted Cruz on his short list

[Chap]

Yup, it's certainly a pity she died.

But once Trump won his unexpected victory in 2016, her only option was to hang on in there, which she did heroically. Sadly, though she nearly made it, the cancer got her in the end.

I think casting slurs on her character at this stage is, well, ungraceful as well as pointless. I wish you had not posted as you did.

[dantana]

Yup, it's certainly a pity she died.

But once Trump won his unexpected victory in 2016, her only option was to hang on in there, which she did heroically. Sadly, though she nearly made it, the cancer got her in the end.

I think casting slurs on her character at this stage is, well, ungraceful as well as pointless. I wish you had not posted as you did.

Okay. You're right. I have no standing whatsoever to opine as to her reasons for not ceding power. This topic has no real relevance. Just a random thought I had. You do slightly make a point for me though, in that the Supremes are revered as nobility. Hey I know, lets talk about the Queen instead. Should the Queen share some limelight or hold on to the end?

Edit add: See my sig.line

[dantana]

by the way, Chap, I did actually do a little bit of research before posting.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/natio ... story.html

"Obama had asked his White House counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, to set up the lunch so he could build a closer rapport with the justice, according to two people briefed on the conversation. Treading cautiously, he did not directly bring up the subject of retirement to Ginsburg, at 80 the Supreme Court’s oldest member and a two-time cancer patient. He did, however, raise the looming 2014 midterm elections and how Democrats might lose control of the Senate. Implicit in that conversation was the concern motivating his lunch invitation — the possibility that if the Senate flipped, he would lose a chance to appoint a younger, liberal judge who could hold on to the seat for decades. But the effort did not work, just as an earlier attempt by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who was then Judiciary Committee chair, had failed. "

[huckelberry]

I checked about the process as the current situation is completely new to me. Here is a bit of explanation for where we are at.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/faq ... on-process

Also under federal law, a joint session of Congress is required by the 12th Amendment to count the electoral votes and declare the winners of the presidential election. That joint session of Congress is held on January 6, 2021 at 1 p.m.

When the results from each state are announced, a member of the House and Senate can jointly object, in writing, to the election results from that state. The House and Senate then adjourn for up to one hour to consider the objection; if both bodies agree to uphold the objection, the votes are excluded from the election results under the terms of the Electoral Count Act of 1887.

There are several scenarios that could allow for this final vote count to be delayed in Congress. One scenario would be if House and Senate agree to exclude a state’s electoral votes, which would then result in a candidate not having the majority of electoral votes. Another would be a faithless elector causing a tie in the electoral college voting.

The 12th Amendment then calls for run-off or contingent elections in the House (to select a president) and the Senate (to select a vice president). Those elections would need to be finished by 12 p.m. on January 20, 2021 for the next president and vice president to take their oaths of office. If that does not happen, the Speaker of the House would serve as president until Congress certifies a winner of the 2020 presidential election.

Scott Bomboy is the editor in chief of the National Constitution Center.

More Resources from the National Constitution

///////
I admit my crystal ball is imperfect but I do not see this going to the court even it the Trump grandstanders shout and jump. I think it is unfortunate that Ginsberg was not replaced by a more liberal judge. Still I very much doubt that the court, even all conservative, would arbitrarily promote Trump. He is lawless.His claims are not conservative they are instead wishful thinking lacking any evidence.

[dantana]

Hunter Biden, thanks for posting that. It really does look like this business shouldn't involve the Supremes. I just think that Trump may think his court owes him, is going to save him, and that is part of why he is dug in.

[subgenius]

As to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I'm looking for someone to hold accountable here, and am thinking she should take some of the heat. For all of the accolades heaped upon her as to her insight, intellect and altruism, she sure didn't do us any favors. In her 80's, cancer survivor, Obama's first term, controlling the senate, she should have understood the potential consequences of not stepping down at that specific time. It seems though she liked the prestige... or whatever.
...

This is all Obama and the gamble, as head of DNC, that Hillary Clinton would win and get to make the appointment.
It is incorrect to say it is his "fault" because it was a legit gamble, but unfortunately the bunk pollsters mislead a nation on the odds.

[Gunnar]

Yup, it's certainly a pity she died.

But once Trump won his unexpected victory in 2016, her only option was to hang on in there, which she did heroically. Sadly, though she nearly made it, the cancer got her in the end.

I think casting slurs on her character at this stage is, well, ungraceful as well as pointless. I wish you had not posted as you did.

I'm not blaming anyone for this, but it is still unfortunate for the country that Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not choose to retire during the part of Obama's term when he could easily have nominated a younger, progressive Supreme Court Justice.

[Dr. Shades]

I'm not blaming anyone for this, but it is still unfortunate for the country that Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not choose to retire during the part of Obama's term when he could easily have nominated a younger, progressive Supreme Court Justice.

Yeah, but did the American people want a younger, progressive Supreme Court Justice?

[Lem]

[people may bring up]... the question of whether Ginsburg was right in refusing to succumb to the pressure to retire during Barack Obama’s second term, which critics say would have cleared the way for another liberal judge to be appointed in her place.

Ginsburg was skeptical about that logic. “When that suggestion is made, I ask the question: Who do you think the president could nominate that could get through the Republican Senate? Who you would prefer on the court than me?” she told NPR’s Nina Totenberg in 2019. Indeed, it’s worth remembering that Republicans led by McConnell successfully blocked Obama’s second-term Supreme Court pick, Merrick Garland, from joining the bench, refusing to consider a new appointment until the 2016 presidential election. McConnell indicated earlier this year that he’d have no such scruples under Trump. Within hours of the announcement of Ginsburg’s death, he vowed that her replacement would get a vote on the Senate floor.

There may have been a gendered element to the calls for Ginsburg to give up her spot on the court. She observed in interviews that people hadn’t leaned hard on justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer to step down, despite their advanced age, and she purportedly thought that justice Sandra Day O’Connor had effectively been forced out of the court before O’Connor was ready to leave. “I think that story is playing in the back of Ginsburg’s head when she’s like, No man is going to tell me it’s my time, because I saw that happen to a person who really, I think, in many ways was her sister at the Supreme Court,” journalist Dahlia Lithwick explained last year...

[Sarah Todd, in a tribute to Ginsberg]
https://qz.com/work/1906067/Ruth Bader Ginsburg-never-r ... eeded-her/