|
|
Post by Oakley on Sept 20, 2020 22:28:25 GMT -8
This is something that may be worth remembering.
Ginsburg herself was known to be very good friends with the late Justice Antonin Scalia -- a polar opposite in terms of ideology. The Trenton, N.J.-born jurist was an "originalist" -- while Ginsburg was a noted progressive.
When once asked about their friendship, Ginsburg answered that Scalia always told her "I attack ideas, I don't attack people."
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Sept 20, 2020 22:57:31 GMT -8
Sometimes you hear stuff, just accept it at face value and it isn't until down the road your brain says "hey, wait a minute". It is being widely reported, including the main obituary headline in many progressive platforms, that Ruth Bader Ginsburgs dying statement was “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”. This was supposedly said to her grand daughter, Clara Spera, a left leaning New York attorney who is currently supporting Biden in the upcoming election. No one else was there to confirm those words were indeed said. I don't know about you, but if I knew I was dying, the last thing I am going to talk to my grandkids about is me and my work. How selfish and narcissistic would it be to spend your dying moments making political wishes to your grandkids instead of just enjoying their love & company? From everything that has been said about Ginsburg, I can't imagine her as that type of person. So I call bullshit on this whole dying wish crap, I do not believe a woman of her integrity would make such a politically partisan statement with her last breaths. Rather, I believe this is just once again nothing more than a leftist (Ms. Spera) using a lie to attempt to pull on peoples heart strings in an effort to gain political power. Shame on Ms. Spera for such a stunt. If I am wrong and Ms. Spera is indeed accurately reporting the last words out of Ginsburg's mouth, it should change the public perception of this Supreme Court Justice. Why would anyone want to take seriously such a person who chooses to make a political statement as she passed while ignoring the pain her grandaughter would be experiencing during her "Bubba's" final moments? It reminds me of Vito Corleone's obsession with how his empire would be run during his last conversations with Michael as opposed to just enjoying his final days with his son. I'm forgetting exactly where the "dying wish" clause is located in the Constitution.... |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Sept 20, 2020 23:13:40 GMT -8
Had RBG retired in, say, 2013--when she should have at 80 years old--then she wouldn't have had to worry about who chose her successor.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 21, 2020 2:37:08 GMT -8
Yep...and now the same Republicans are defending trump for nominating someone in record time, and they plan to hold a vote...hypocrisy much? The Republicans flipped and followed the precedent set by Biden, stopping the nomination of Merrick Garland for the same reason. Except their was no election imminent at that time...there was no precedent to follow...the Republicans just refused to do their job for 8 months...no excuse...just a blatant power grab. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 21, 2020 2:40:12 GMT -8
I'm forgetting exactly where the "dying wish" clause is located in the Constitution.... Right after the clause that states the Supreme Court has only nine justices.  Be careful what you wish for. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 21, 2020 2:41:21 GMT -8
Had RBG retired in, say, 2013--when she should have at 80 years old--then she wouldn't have had to worry about who chose her successor. If you guys had elected a sane man to the Presidency she wouldn't have had to worry either...but you didn't so she did. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 21, 2020 2:43:45 GMT -8
This is something that may be worth remembering. Ginsburg herself was known to be very good friends with the late Justice Antonin Scalia -- a polar opposite in terms of ideology. The Trenton, N.J.-born jurist was an "originalist" -- while Ginsburg was a noted progressive. When once asked about their friendship, Ginsburg answered that Scalia always told her "I attack ideas, I don't attack people." Here's something else worth remembering. Republicans wont always be in the majority in Congress and the Supreme Court isn't limited to nine justices by the Constitution. |
|
|
|
Post by Oakley on Sept 21, 2020 3:02:31 GMT -8
The Republicans flipped and followed the precedent set by Biden, stopping the nomination of Merrick Garland for the same reason. Except their was no election imminent at that time...there was no precedent to follow...the Republicans just refused to do their job for 8 months...no excuse...just a blatant power grab. WTF are you talking about? What would an imminent election have to do with anything? That is just bullshit! What do you mean no precedent to follow? When a Supreme Court justice retires or passes away they are replaced - period. Your exaggerated melodrama and unwillingness to educate yourself is puzzling. Do you enjoy looking like an idiot? |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 21, 2020 3:11:21 GMT -8
Except their was no election imminent at that time...there was no precedent to follow...the Republicans just refused to do their job for 8 months...no excuse...just a blatant power grab. WTF are you talking about? What would an imminent election have to do with anything? That is just bullshit! What do you mean no precedent to follow? When a Supreme Court justice retires or passes away they are replaced - period. You really are stupid!!! Seriously dude, pay attention to the discussion and you'll know what's going on. Try to keep up...if you can with your limited intellect. |
|
|
|
Post by Oakley on Sept 21, 2020 3:19:04 GMT -8
WTF are you talking about? What would an imminent election have to do with anything? That is just bullshit! What do you mean no precedent to follow? When a Supreme Court justice retires or passes away they are replaced - period. You really are stupid!!! Seriously dude, pay attention to the discussion and you'll know what's going on. Try to keep up...if you can with your limited intellect. Go to the previous page where I spelled it out for you. The Democrats could have pushed harder for a vote, but decided not to because they thought Hillary was going to win the presidency. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 21, 2020 3:21:09 GMT -8
Seriously dude, pay attention to the discussion and you'll know what's going on. Try to keep up...if you can with your limited intellect. Go to the previous page where I spelled it out for you. The Democrats could have pushed harder for a vote, but decided not to because they thought Hillary was going to win the presidency. I understand you'd like to blame this on the Democrats but I'm not buying what you're selling. This is due to Republican corruption, nothing else. |
|
|
|
Post by Oakley on Sept 21, 2020 3:30:39 GMT -8
Go to the previous page where I spelled it out for you. The Democrats could have pushed harder for a vote, but decided not to because they thought Hillary was going to win the presidency. I understand you'd like to blame this on the Democrats but I'm not buying what you're selling. This is due to Republican corruption, nothing else. You are wrong! Obama is a Democrat and the Senate was Republican, therefore Garland would not have been approved! Do you get that? |
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,379
|
Post by SK80 on Sept 21, 2020 4:58:10 GMT -8
I see enough "This Post is Hidden" entries that I can only assume VP's (representing liberal minds) brain is exploding over the new SCOTUS seat about to be filled.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 21, 2020 5:48:58 GMT -8
I understand you'd like to blame this on the Democrats but I'm not buying what you're selling. This is due to Republican corruption, nothing else. You are wrong! Obama is a Democrat and the Senate was Republican, therefore Garland would not have been approved! Do you get that? No you are wrong!...feel better when you say that? Do you get that nominees are supposed to be voted on based on their legal credentials not their political ideology? I agree that Garland would not have been confirmed by the wildly partisan Senate regardless of the fact that he was considered a moderate nominee but that doesn't mean the Senate gets to take a pass on their obligations. The Republicans who concocted the "rule" that they used to block his nomination for 11 months were just making a blatant power grab. It will come back to haunt them. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 21, 2020 5:50:10 GMT -8
I see enough "This Post is Hidden" entries that I can only assume VP's (representing liberal minds) brain is exploding over the new SCOTUS seat about to be filled. I can see from your posts that your brain exploded a long time ago. |
|
