That's one of the most highly rated comments at "Why Ruth Bader Ginsburg Refused to Step Down/She could have had President Obama nominate her successor. But she didn’t get to the Supreme Court by letting other people tell her what she could do" by Emily Bazelon (NYT).
By the way: "Mitt Romney Supports Replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg Before the Election/Republicans are now almost guaranteed enough votes to replace the late justice before Nov. 3" (Buzzfeed). Romney offered what has become the stock GOP explanation: "The historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party’s nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own."
Nemesis ("In ancient Greek religion, Nemesis... is the goddess who enacts retribution against those who succumb to hubris (arrogance before the gods)"):
Posts
104 comments:
Cry me a river, libs.
...now in the form of a court that will pick apart and discard half her legacy...
Half?!?
'Romney offered what has become the stock GOP explanation: "The historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party’s nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own." '
Well, I guess pointing out historical facts that undermine all the Democrat lies about nominating and confirming USSC justices during election years can be labeled as a "stock answer".
Mitt wants to be seen in public again in Utah. Good.
If he had decided to wait until after November, I honestly think his safety was at risk in Utah.
Great painting, wow.
I always thought the mythologizing was a way to try to "play her off the stage". Like, "You've been amazing! You are a hero! Look at all the iconography we've created around you! You don't even need to be on SCOTUS any more for us to love you!"
But she didn't get the message.
Romney said he supports a vote, but now how he will vote.
"The historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party’s nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own."
Duh!
Can you imagine the precedent being the opposite?
She blew it!!! Thanks Ruth!! 3 Supreme Court Justices in one term? Is that a record?
Hubris, schmubris. Don't overcomplicate things. Ginsburg 1) liked her job, and 2) knew, like everyone else, that Hillary was absolutely going to be the next President. She did what any of us would have done.
RBG didn't step down because her illness made her a useful tool.
Are the Dems for the Court packing plan, if Trump wins and the Senate stays GOP?
Or is this one of the principled ploys by the Dems: if we have the power, we pack the courts; if you have the power, how dare you do that?
RBG gambled and lost. She coulda easily retired in 2014 at age 81, when Obama was Prez, and the Senate was Democrat.
That's on her, and her alone.
Nice, smart woman though. Disagree with her legal interpretation and politics, but an historical figure, nonetheless.
"This is the tragedy we are now facing."
Tragedy? Depends on your point of view.
She stayed because of ego. She loved the limelight. She loved the 'Notorious RBG' nonsense. She loved the 24/7/365 ass kissing she got from 95% of the media.
She was a narcissist and it came back to bite her in the ass...bigly.
Huge leadership move by Romney.
I cannot understand why she wouldn't, at 80 years old, want to spend time with her grandkids.
That seems to point to a personal failing of RBG's humanity.
And then there are the Margaret Sanger racism and murder angles.
Biden challenges Romney to push-ups. "Winner gets to decide how to rule on SC nominees. OK, one, one and a half..."
But to imagine that through sheer will power you can endlessly defy age and illness is hubris, and we know from the Greeks, hubris invites nemesis
Well, RBG got what she wanted out of it -- to be carried feet first off of the Supreme Court. In doing so, she totally screwed over her side of the political divide.
Then again, maybe they weren't "her side" as much as they thought they were.
Romney is a POS.
Romney represents Utah, one of the reddest states, so it makes sense that he's supporting moving the Court rightward. His vote to remove Trump doesn't make him a liberal.
Romney being on board with this is great, though. It should mitigate somewhat the predictable arguments from Democrats that the Court must be packed with more Democrats because Trump and his SCOTUS picks are illegitimate. Romney, a "good" Republican who voted to remove Trump, is voting to confirm. Although he wasn't a senator at the time, Romney has said he would've voted to confirm Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. In a weird way, Romney's defection back in February could serve to enhance the legitimacy of Trump's three SCOTUS picks.
Romney's decision of course is huge - and unexpected. I think we have a new SC Justice. (And I think this prospect of diminished resistance now increases Barrett's chances over Lagoa.)
I still loathe Mittens...just not quite as much as I did yesterday.
Grassley and Gardner, both questionable yesterday, are on board today, too. Preference cascade unfolding. This also gives Collins cover to keep her lefties happy.
“Huge leadership move by Romney”
Oh, I wouldn’t give him any props until the thing is done. The McCain Backstab is always on the table.
Who knows? Maybe he thinks Utah is turning Blue.
Looked that painting up. It is by Alfred Rethel and is at the Hermitage. Nemesis pursues the brigand with the sword of retribution and the hourglass, for the Grim Reaper will arrive.
And Romney explained once more the political nature of what is happening and the timing.
"There is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat. And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures."
Thus, RBG's "last wish" was more a plea to redress her hubris?
Romney won't vote against anyone in Trump's "binder full of women".
Like tcrosse, I wouldn't necessarily trust Romney's proclamation. I think if Romney can rise up and defeat the nomination by voting against it, especially if the vote is held before the election, then he will do so. What Romney did today (or was it last night?) looks like a strategic retreat from an untenable position- apparently McConnell had at least 50 votes without Romney and Murkowski. Let's see what Murkowski says now.
Still, though, I don't Romney would vote against Barrett or Lagoa just to get at Trump, so I think it likely he does mean to support the nominee.
>>Ann Althouse said...
Huge leadership move by Romney.<<
Huge hammer lock on Romney by Mc Connell.
For the record:
1. In 1987, the Dems smeared Robert Bork, but did allow a vote (voted down).
2. In 1990, the Dems smeared Clarence Thomas, but did allow a vote (voted up).
3. In 2002, the Dems identified Miguel Estrada as a future SCOTUS, so they smeared him, and filibustered him for DC Circuit seat.
4. In 2006, the Dems smeared Samuel Alito, but couldn't stop the vote (voted up).
5. In 2018, the Dems smeared Brett Kavanaugh, filibustered him, so McConnell abolished the filibuster, and got him confirmed 50-48.
In contrast, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, all just kinda sailed thru confirmation, not too much hassle.
In 2016, the GOP did not smear Merrick Garland, but they didn't allow a vote. They were pissed that Harry Reid abolished the filibuster for Circuit Court judges. A pretty balsy move. It required Hillary to lose in 2016, or Garland woulda been confirmed and seated in 2017.
Alas, it didn't happen.
That's history, folks!
Mitt Romney: "The historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party’s nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own."
How refreshing.
Much of my absent respect for politicians would be restored if they would just admit they're making decisions based on politics, i.e. not try to deny the blindingly obvious. I never have been able to respect anyone who repeatedly insults my intelligence.
Hubris has been one of the biggest problems in the Democrat party for a long time now. During the Obama years the narrative was that demographic changes meant that they no longer needed to pander to white blue collar rubes and could instead for a coalition of all sorts of different minority grievance groups. And pretty much everyone in the intelligentsia was all but certain that Hillary was going to win handily in 2016. Anyone who suggested otherwise was often mocked.
I wonder how the calls were going to Romney's office ? I think I know.
I don't think I've seen any reference to Wm O. Douglas, who did the same exact thing. Hung on until it was embarrassing for all.
I think Ginsburg liked her job. I wouldn't begrudge her that, even were I Democrat. I do think she probably bought into the "Democrat Permanent Majority" belief that was ascendant after Obama's strong reelection performance, and figured there was no reason to leave the court on her feet while Obama was in office.
On the other topic, Romney gets the principle right- it is the exercise of the power you have as a legal matter in the choosing and confirmation of SCOTUS justices. Only the completely dishonest will assert that Democrats wouldn't have made all the same decisions that McConnell made. The only calculus that matters here is what the voters will do in response to the decisions that are made, and even there the decision isn't in any doubt- McConnell and the Republicans face far more dire consequences from their own voting base for not blocking Garland/not approving the new justice Trump chooses than they would face from every other voting bloc. What the Democrats in D.C. do in any scenario is irrelevant, and always was.
Now, over at the temple
Oh, they really pack 'em in
The in-crowd say it's cool
To dig this chanting thing
But as the wind changed direction
And the temple band took five
The crowd caught a whiff
Of that crazy Casbah jive
RE Ice Nine's comment:
"...Ginsburg 1) liked her job, and 2) knew, like everyone else, that Hillary was absolutely going to be the next President. She did what any of us would have done."
I wonder what the thinking was when HRC lost? Would Ginsberg think to retire then, so Obama could nominate someone to fill the (not her) seat?
Or does that fall under "the Republican Senate will not entertain..." scenario?
I'm sorry. Reason I ask: a lot of this is damn confusing to me.
Thank You.
I do hope RBG rests in peace, but the politicization of the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, that Roberts tries to deny is embodied in the actions and opinion of RBG, even in her final statement. She's probably done more than anybody to destroy the impartiality and trust in the courts. This is proven by the political discussion of when she ought to have stepped down and the when and how she should be replaced.
Hubris applies to the GOP. Trump getting 3 appointments is a fluke. Jimmy Carter got none.
Nine unelected oligarchs-for-life is not sustainable in a democracy. The court will be
cut down to size, one way or another. It's too powerful. It's supposed to be a check on the other branches, not a second legislature.
There's judicial branch hubris, too. Nemesis is coming. When both parties have a stake in reducing the power of the courts it's likely to happen.
Yes, that was big of Pierre Delecto, since this was something like the very moment he anticipated when he ran for Senate. He had his moment, the most powerful man in the Senate, and he acquitted himself well. Collins and Murkowski in turn look craven, although to their credit all they said was that they would prefer there be no vote, and didn't commit to voting no. But Romney sure showed those two up.
RBG gained some wisdom late in life and this was her way of making amends.
And yes, huge mistake by Justice Ginsberg. The most important thing is knowing when to quit.
We may be saying the same thing about Justice Thomas, the oldest conservative, in a few years. "He should have retired in 2020..."
"Huge leadership move by Romney."
Were you being sarcastic? There is an angle we're not seeing here as Romney will do anything to screw Trump.
One of Romney's advisors was on the board of Burisma at the same time as Hunter Biden.
I wonder if someone from the DOJ had a quiet word with Mittens?
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/26/top-romney-adviser-worked-with-hunter-biden-on-board-of-ukrainian-energy-company/
Justice Thomas is 2 years younger than Do
President Trump. Why should he retire?
Isn't it about time Emily Bazelon jumped off a bridge, so someone else could have her job? She's looking mighty hubristical these days. Needs an aneurysm or something.
"Huge leadership move by Romney."
Oh, right! He should run for President!
MayBee said...
I always thought the mythologizing was a way to try to "play her off the stage". Like, "You've been amazing! You are a hero! Look at all the iconography we've created around you! You don't even need to be on SCOTUS any more for us to love you!"
But she didn't get the message.
9/22/20, 10:32 AM
I hear what you're saying but maybe disagree. Did the hagiography start in 2013-2014, when it was reasonable to jolly the old girl along, or after HRC lost and they needed false hope to buck up the side? Maybe the former, you tell me.
I do think that she would have immediately plonked into obscurity. Nothing whatsoever to live for. If you cared to extend her life, staying on probably provided that, a reason to live.
tcrosse said...
Romney said he supports a vote, but now how he will vote.
Fifty thousand Utahns have the equipment and the talent to pick him off at a thousand yards, that's how he'll vote.
We may be saying the same thing about Justice Thomas, the oldest conservative, in a few years. "He should have retired in 2020..."
While HE is a truly consequential Justice and will be sorely missed, this is possible. He is getting old, and I wonder if he would choose to quit in the wake of God forbid a PDT defeat, and be replaced during the lame-duck session. Wishing him many long healthy years and moderation in the article of fried chicken.
She may have had an epiphany, a remorseful respite, and didn't want the Choice of her replacement to be left to President "Burden". And, so there was Trump... President Pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Perhaps he proved his mettle, or the timing was not her Choice, but Her Choice. RIP
In other words, what you're saying is that Dems and leftists have egos writing checks that American electoral politics can't cash?
Say it ain't so!
"Anything you don't want me to do, just go ahead and tell me to."
- Supreme Court Justice and country music legend Ruth Bader Ginsberg
She died with her boots on, not in some comfy remunerative corporate take one for the team retirement pasture.
If any one is to blame, it's the DNC
Huge leadership move by Romney.
Message to the Dems - when you've lost Mitt Romney...
I recognize that there was only a limited degree to which Democrats could have influenced RBG’s decision but there is another way that Democrats could have avoided their current predicament that I’ve scarcely heard discussed.
If the political balance of the SCOTUS is of such an existential nature for them, then why didn’t they nationalize the midterm elections and campaign hard on the idea of retaking the Senate? Judging by the hysterical reactions of their base constituents I would think that fear of the loss of RBG would have driven turnout for them.
I doubt there's enough history to claim such a detailed precedent--we do ours but we don't do yours? How many times has that even happened?
The real historical precedent is that the Senate's advise and consent role is limited to making sure the nominee isn't a lunatic. The president nominates someone and if that person is at all credible, the Senate confirms and nobody gets too chuffed either way.
The Democrats broke with tradition over Robert Bork and it's been all downhill ever since.
Are they going to get 50 senators (who have to run for re-election at some point) to vote for ACB and thus almost automatically overturn Roe v. Wade?
I don't think even the blue states are quite that monolithically anti-abortion.
McConnell may have 50 votes lined up for "some generic Trump nominee", but I think that falls apart as he strays from a centrist pick. "Stridently anti-abortion" isn't centrist anymore.
Romney's calculated he needs to save some cred for when he proclaims Biden the legit winner.
Bay Area Guy said...
For the record:
5. In 2018, the Dems smeared Brett Kavanaugh, filibustered him, so McConnell abolished the filibuster, and got him confirmed 50-48.
Nope!
In 2017 the Dems didn't really smear Gorsuch, but they DID filibuster him. This was a major strategic failure on their part.
Trump had just been elected President on his promise to appoint someone like Gorsuch to the SC. Gorsuch was replacing teh conservative Scalia, there was no "shift" being imposed on the Court. There was 0 chance that teh Republicans in the Senate could let that filibuster succeed. So they unanimously nuked the filibuster for the SC.
If they'd had the strategic sense to wait, I do not believe that Murkowski and Collins would have voted to nuke the filibuster for Kavanaugh. There they would have argued that Trump needed to appoint a "moderate" to replace the "moderate" Kennedy.
But the Dem base was outraged about Garland (still is, which is amazingly funny), outraged about Trump, and wasn't going to put up with any "compromise".
So the Senate Dems shot their feet off with a machine gun
"And yes, huge mistake by Justice Ginsberg. The most important thing is knowing when to quit."
Even Kenny Rogers knows that...
According to the internet, "Notorious RBG" was coined in 2013 and at that time, people were encouraging her to retire while Obama was president.
She blew it!!! Thanks Ruth!! 3 Supreme Court Justices in one term? Is that a record?
I guessing Washington probably had more.
was a cosmic misjudgment.
Was that a typo? Should have been "comic."
" 3 Supreme Court Justices in one term? Is that a record?"
Nope. See Washington, George.
Carol said...
I don't think I've seen any reference to Wm O. Douglas, who did the same exact thing. Hung on until it was embarrassing for all.
I mentioned him two days ago as another example. I think this shows our age, or mine at least.
Romney, a "good" Republican ...
That is SO yesterday.
I would like to see Justice Thomas retire to spend more time with his loved ones. He should do so after Tommy Tuberville and John James are sworn into the next Congress. And Trump can name a fourth Justice.
That will make Readering happy.
I am also seeing pushback on all the adulation Ginsburg is receiving on the basis that she only represents a certain type of feminism.
From Kevin Williamson at Nat.Review: "Ruth Bader Ginsburg did a great many interesting and impressive things in her life, but she never did the one thing she probably really should have done: run for office. Ruth Bader Ginsburg wasn’t an associate justice of the Supreme Court — not really: She was a legislator in judicial drag."
Also, "For the New York Times, Justice Ginsburg was a “feminist icon.” And she was — but it was not her job to be a feminist icon or to impose feminist ideology — or any other ideology — on the law and on the American public, substituting her own desires and preferences for those that are the result of the actual democratic process, daft as it often is."
And this is the crux of it. Liberals look to the Supreme Court (and all courts) as an extension of or a bypass from the legislative branch. Conservatives would like the law to remain as is, with judges basing their decisions on what is actually written in the law, not something cut out of whole cloth to supplement the law.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn't understand her job
"We may be saying the same thing about Justice Thomas, the oldest conservative, in a few years. "He should have retired in 2020..."
Indeed.
I think the Griftocracy has decided not to go scorched earth on RGB's replacement. They are going to save it for after the election. Romney's announcement makes this clear.
One point I haven't seen covered (if I missed it here, my apologies), is that the only time you need "the voters to decide" is when there is disagreement between a majority of the Senate, on the one hand, and the President, on the other, as to a Supreme Court nominee. That's the real reason that it was appropriate to wait last time, but not wait this time.
Nine unelected oligarchs-for-life is not sustainable in a democracy.
Good thing we're a republic then.
Ice Nine said...
Hubris, schmubris. Don't overcomplicate things. Ginsburg 1) liked her job, and 2) knew, like everyone else, that Hillary was absolutely going to be the next President. She did what any of us would have done.
Yes, you're almost certainly right. Everyone to the Left was completely certain that Hillary! was a dead certain lock to win in 2016, probably bringing the Senate with her. Notorious RBG probably felt there was no need to retire. When Trump won instead, she did everything possible to outlast him but alas, came up short.
Speaking of HAGiography, didn’t Hillery have a 95% chance of winning? Hindsight is 20/20.
Bay Area Guy at 10:52 AM
In 2018, the Dems smeared Brett Kavanaugh, filibustered him, so McConnell abolished the filibuster, and got him confirmed 50-48.
I thought McConnell abolished the filibuster in relation to Gorsuch.
I have to confess I have not read much about RGB. What I have read informed me that during her legal education she began to develop her overall legal philosophy based on scholars that were dead white men. She had a classic legal education.
How does this pass today's purity tests? I thought we were supposed to burn it all down; how does this person with such old fashioned ideas garner so much adulation?
My brother from another Smith mother said it way better than I could have. I’ll just add as others have that Ms Ginsberg “knew” Clinton was going to win. And having her successor appointed by the first woman President appealed to her ego.
Karmic irony. Liberals deemed Ginsburg to be no longer viable. She disagreed, her Choice. Ultimately, it was Her Choice. RIP
a personal failing of RBG's humanity.
And then there are the Margaret Sanger racism and murder angles.
Progressive Diversity, Sanger's selective-child, and Mengele's clinical cannibalism. Perhaps there was one too many wicked solutions, and Ginsburg regreted her Choices. So much so that she could not in good conscience allow President "Burden" to choose her replacement. That said, ultimately, it was Her Choice. RIP
The worship of Ginsberg has always been weird, and even weirder is the Center-Right respect and love for her. She wasn't a woman pioneer on the court, Sandra O'Connor was. When O'Connor retired do you remember anyone saying that? I don't. Was O'Connor called "amazing" or "notorious"? Did anyone talk about how "smart" and "Kind" she was? Nope. Ginsberg was a partisan hack who didn't hide her contempt for Trump and cast almost every vote was based on her left-wing politics. Nor was she a good writer like Scalia. She wasn't a dangerous menace, because she didn't get the opportunity.
O'Connor did what should be done. She retired when she was 80 something after 20+ years on the court. Ginsberg didn't "do what we all would've done". Ginsberg was freakishly power mad - and she paid the price. She reminds me of the goofy old Chief Justice of the Wisconsin supreme court who sued in Federal court to remain chief justice. Both Ginsberg and winc. chick violated common sense, and paid for it. And its hilarious.
Romney is just doing what he always does, being a drama queen and trying to be the center of attention. Once he saw there wouldn't be 3 OTHER R votes to delay, he went the right way. But don't count on his vote YET. In any case, its the whole R party, not just Trump, that wants a justice confirmed. So, Mittens can't hide behind his distaste for Trump on this one. Nor can he play "the only adult in the room" - his favorite role.
Again, we shouldn't even have to talk this way about a Senator from one of the Reddest State's in the USA. It should be AUTOMATIC that any R Senator from Utah would support replacing a Liberal Justice with a Conservative. But no. For some reason the Utah R's just had to nominate Romney. And if they want to whine about Mittens lying to them, Hello? He was lying in 2008 and 2012. why would you believe he was "severely conservative"? All this unnecessary drama could have been avoided!
I really don't understand the deification of RBG.
"The historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party’s nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own." Senator Romney
He and they also now have the cover of the abysmal treatment of Justice Kavanaugh as good reason not to defer to the Democrats in any measure.
Re Nemesis. Which god did RBG offend? The Greek gods liked hubris (Odysseus, Achilles, etc) and Hector was not an arrogant man. They didn’t like humans who offended them. The use of Hubris as a synonym for Pride has a very Christian (non Greek) connotation.
This will be her legacy. She won't be remembered for some pithy phrase or distinguished dissent bur rather as the woman who didn't step down. If at some future point, the Dems succeed in packing the court, those Justices will be known as ginsburgers. If they pass a law mandating retirement at 75, it will be known as the Ginsburg Law. On the plus side, she's won undying fame or, anyway, a couple of generations of obloquy. How many members of the Warren or Tainey Court can you name?.....I don't think she was the only Justice who served past her time, and I don't think politics was the most decisive factor in their stubborn refusal to acknowledge that death happens to everyone. It's what many people do. They cling to power as they do to life.....The people who celebrated her indestructibility will now start vilifying her because she was, in the end, mortal.....There are a couple of other old timers on the court. Maybe they'll consider RBG's salutary example and retire gracefully. If Trump wins re-election, he might end up appointing six Supreme Court Justices.
Gay marriage and other LGBT negative rights are safe because of Roberts and Gorsuch plus Sotomeyer, Kagan, and Breyer. Positive rights, such as a right to free stuff, are in significant peril for every demographic. Obamacare will be curtailed as an over reach of the commerce clause.
Gun rights will be expanded. There’s also a chance that Sotomeyer, Gorsuch, and whomever Trump appoints will form a core that will do a better job of protecting 4th, 5th & 6th amendment rights. Maybe Kagan and Thomas join parts of this core. Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito, Kavanaugh, and whomever Trump appoints will likely do a better job protecting the 1st amendment.
Now, who will limit the commerce clause and curtail the administrative law state? Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas certainly have signaled their willingness to re-address those issues.
And then what will happen with the elephant in the court room — Abortion? The court likely tips towards relegating the legalization of abortion to the states. But, there’s also a chance that Roberts strikes a grand bargain and we end up with the European standard of 20 weeks of abortion for any reason and after that, only if the life of the mother is at-risk. I think that should come via a constitutional amendment but my guess is that it will be court imposed.
"Fifty thousand Utahans have the equipment and the talent to pick him off at a thousand yards, that's how he'll vote."
Amusing to think so, but let's face it. If we were really that violent as a people, there should be a lot more bodies in the streets, especially among the governors.
The insurance industry took a $2 billion hit; people have seen their businesses destroyed; families have been unable to mourn their dead while Fancy Nancy went to the beauty parlor and Cuomo violated quarantine rules.
Heck, in political thrillers, JFK was supposed to have been knocked off by the CIA or a dark political cabal because he threatened their existence. In real life, Trump is running for a second term. And the politicians who drove our country into multiple ditches are still alive.
So, Supreme Court aficianados - what do her fans consider her three most meaningful decisions? What are her three worst? I recall Kelo v New London and that was a stinker.
"a cosmic misjudgment"
Ah, that must be why Althouse called her a "giant."
Her dear departed friend, Antonin Scalia was an intellectual giant who altered the course of Constitutional Law. Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, a good woman and true intellect, became a predictable Left-wing vote and a meme. Memes are not cited in law review articles, textbooks, and legal briefs. In the end, Scalia had a law school named after him. RBG a brassiere. She suffered from hubris her sycophantic groupies were all too happy to nurture.
https://twitter.com/katherinemiller/status/1070435081112686592
https://harperwilde.com/products/the-base-notorious-rbg-ed
Nov 3? Even if Trump looses, he could nominate someone before inauguration and the confirmation vote might take place in February. Am I missing something (seems likely)? Can a new president rescind the nomination after being sworn in?
Scott Patton: A president's nominations expire at the conclusion of the Senate's term. A new Senate is convened at 12 PM on January 3rd 2021. A president may, but is under no obligation, re-nominate a candidate for Senate approval.
"...now in the form of a court that will pick apart and discard half her legacy..." What legacy are we talking about?
I can't get my arms around this "RBG Worship". All of a sudden she's become the 'anointed justice' whose actual work on the Court is hard to phantom as to what impact her decisions had on our society. Let's see, RBG's decisions had more impact than - John Marshall, Charles Evan Hughes and Earl Warren? How about Oliver Wendel Holmes, John Marshall Harlon, Hugo Black, and in modern times William Brennan.
AA - as a former Law Professor - enlighten us on RBG's society changing decisions. Try to keep the political narratives out of this discussion.
NY Post Opinion
Why Amy Coney Barrett is hands-down best pick to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg
By Sohrab Ahmari
'...Her rare combination of hyper-intelligence and humility is a matter of bipartisan consensus. “The smartest person in the room and also the most humble” was how Snead and two other sources intimately familiar with Barrett described her, echoing each other almost verbatim.
Harvard Law School prof Noah Feldman — a liberal who testified before Congress in favor of impeaching the president — hailed her as “a truly brilliant lawyer” in a 2018 column. Feldman should know. He and Barrett were members of the same class of Supreme Court clerks in 1998.
“She was one of the two best lawyers” of the 40 clerks “and arguably the single best.” Feldman concluded: “She was legally prepared enough to go on the court 20 years ago.”
When Trump nominated Barrett to the Seventh Circuit, every single one of those 40 fellow clerks endorsed her as a “first-rate” thinker, including such vehemently anti-Trump figures as Neal Katyal, solicitor general under Team Obama. The entire Notre Dame law faculty likewise endorsed her, “and that includes people who identify as liberal,” as Snead was quick to note...'
https://nypost.com/2020/09/21/why-amy-coney-barrett-is-hands-down-best-pick-to-replace-ruth-bader-ginsburg/
An interesting compilation of her pluses. Of course, Sohrab Ahmari, an Iranian immigrant perhaps most famous for his clashes with David French, is not the most unbiased observer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sohrab_Ahmari
Why all the surprise over Romney confirming Trump's choice? Romney may actually have cut a deal to allow him to be the deciding vote.
Remember 2012? Remember all the Democrats trashing Romney? Remember Romney's admirable efforts to promote women being twisted into some sort of misogynic act -- "Binders full of women"?
Remember how Democrats slimed Ann Romneys excellent work using horseback riding as therapy for MS sufferer?
Remember all the crap they threw at him? Haircuts? Dogs in dog carriers? Leaked private conversations, surreptitiously recorded? Nasty Morman jokes?
And to top it off, remember how Harry Reid lied about Romney's tax returns, and then Reid gloated about it, with no remorse? Yes, the same Harry Reid that nuked the filibuster? With the nodding support of Senate Democrats, many who now style themselves as Romney's colleagues? The very people who provided the rope that Romney is now going to hang them with?
And now, the opportunity to vote for an eminently qualified nominee, as per the wishes of the vast majority of those who voted for him? What a perfect bit of payback!
Romney is going to vote for cloture and to confirm, and I hope he smiles a big "FU" smile at the Democrat side of the Senate when he does it.
The Biden Rule, or McConnell rule, is being framed incorrectly. A Senate controlled by the opposition always has the option of not holding a voting. In theory the Senate could deny a vote for an entire Presidential term, but that would create a constitutional crisis and/or open the door for recess appointments. The "rule" is really nothing more than a clarification of when the Senate will and won't play that card.
@Birches: still no way Romney ever gets another vote from me -- I might have to join the R's again just to vote for his primary opponent (although I didn't succeed with Hatch when I tried it before).
Heck, in political thrillers, JFK was supposed to have been knocked off by the CIA or a dark political cabal because he threatened their existence.
Political thrillers? How about boring-ass works of meticulous history published by the prestige press in the UK, but not here. That's like, what happened, man. You fuck with the deep state, you better play to win. Especially if you double-cross them.
✦ I read somewhere that Ginsberg was within a couple of years of setting a new record for longest-serving justice -- I think that was a goal.
✦ WRT 2016, I think if Hillary had won, it would have been a race to see whether the Senate could confirm Garland with only Republican votes before Obama withdrew the nomination so Hillary could pick someone more radically left. Garland was toast either way.
✦ McConnell appears to be a man who can hold a grudge. He warned Harry Reid not to get rid of the filibuster, and promised the Democrats would regret it, probably sooner than they imagined. After talking the Republicans out of eliminating the filibuster under Bush (and promising they would never!), the Dems turned around and got rid of it the minute it was in their way. I think it's clear that no Democratic promise not to dominate the minority will ever be worth the molecules used to communicate it ever again. They'll try to pack the Court as soon as they get a majority (whether 2021 or later, regardless of whether Trump serves a second term), unless they're afraid the voters will hurt them for doing so.
On the third day she arose again from the dead...
The Supreme Court exhibited hubris when it ruled on Roe v. Wade and made abortion an absolute right. This took abortion out of the realm of politics to the realm of absolute Constitutional law. Abortion involves three parties: 1) the baby; 2) the father and 3) the mother, sorry I mean the fetus-carrier. RvW stripped the rights away from the baby and the father and gave them to the mother.
We've had 50-years of political fights to rebalance the rights of the three parties. Overturning RvW will put this issue back into the realm of politics; this is the realm where a compromise can be achieved and the abortion wars terminated, finally.
JaimeRoberto: "I really don't understand the deification of RBG."
Marxists always deify their earthly "gods".
JaimeRoberto: "I really don't understand the deification of RBG."
She hated Trump and said so publicly, although SCOTUS justices are not supposed to give their opinions on the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
As per usual, it's not only permitted to flout traditions and norms when you are a liberal, you are applauded and adored for doing so.
Duh.
"I read somewhere that Ginsberg was within a couple of years of setting a new record for longest-serving justice -- I think that was a goal."
She wasn't even the longest serving justice on the present court- that is Thomas. The longest serving justice was William Douglas who served from 1939 to 1975 and was replaced by John Paul Stevens who is the 3rd longest serving justice from 1975 to 2010 (if memory serves).
Finding it interesting that some commenters seem inclined to give credence to the "deathbed wish" tale revealed by one granddaughter with (AFAIK) no other supporting witness. Quite apart from the curiously inapt language (curious especially for a career constitutional lawyer), Ginsberg must have died a protracted death -- in all likelihood, given her liver cancer diagnosis atop the pancreatic, probably a truly miserable one -- and none of the instances of mortality I know of involved the patient in extremis fretting about matters political. Apart from anything else, liver disorders are notorious for causing seriously altered mental status and often derangement. And pain. With any cancer, often staggering level of pain which require narcotics to cloak by inducing stupor. Not a likely climate for making absurd demands for disposition of an appointment simply never in her gift.
I wonder if RBG was sanguine about not retiring to ensure a Democrat appointed her successor because she joined a Court as the sole Democrat.
The NYT said it? I despise, detest, and distrust the NYT. The WaPoo, too!
Post a Comment