RBG on Supreme Court Vacancies in 2016 and in 2020

2016: Fill it. 2020: Don't fill it.

2016:

Asked if the Senate had an obligation to assess Judge Garland's qualifications, her answer was immediate.

"That's their job," she said. "There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year."

2020:

"My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Well . . . Eugene’s wish that we don’t speak ill of the dead didn’t last long, didn’t it?

Josh, you are not good enough for this blog.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It is sad, but not entirely unexpected that RBG has passed away. There is a political angle to it, as we all understand

But if we're speaking of decorum, well, you're not exactly a shining beacon here. In fact, you had the honor of the very first comment, and it wasn't a word of condolences for RBG's death. Instead...

"captcrisis
September.18.2020 at 8:14 pm
We will now see Republican hypocrisy on full display."

So, perhaps you hesitate to throw rocks.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I stand by that comment.

Condolences from anyone but liberals are bulls**t. To those folks, it’s not a death, it’s an opportunity.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You really don't understand other people who aren't liberals. That's sad.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

BIgoted. Racist. Gay-bashing. MIsogynistic. Superstitious. Gullible. Poorly educated. Stale-thinking. Rural. Southern. Backwater. With exceptions.

Culture war casualties. With no exceptions.

If I missed something, please complete the list.

[Darth Chocolate]

Describing yourself to a “T” yet again.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Arthur's a self-hating goober.

[Anne]

I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I'm working online! My work didn't exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…DSf after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn't be happier.

Here’s what I do…>> CashApp

[Hank Ferrous]

You've projected your personal traits, again, kirkland.

[AmosArch]

You think libs care about RBG outside of her politics? That they'd be weeping for her if she was the same person but with a different ideology?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes, I do.

If you’ve known people, as I have, who were the only one in the room of that gender, or that race, standing up and making an argument to judges for whom she already had two strikes against her . . .

[AmosArch]

Huh? Libs would care about RBG even if she had different politics if she had the same politics?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Some people fought bravely so that oppressed people could enter. Others got in as a shill for conservatives and slammed the door behind them.

[Adabsurdum]

Yup. None of my liberal friends celebrated Justice Scalia's passing, not said anything bad about him.

[neurodoc]

No one other than liberals could possibly be sincere with condolences? How about is Ginsburg had predeceased Scalia, would you have accepted an expression of condolences from Nino as sincere? No present day non-liberals you credit with the most basic integrity and humanity?

You impugn yourself, and uber partisanship on your part, not every non-liberal with your comment.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't remember the angst when Scalia died -- and unlike RBG, Scalia's death was totally unexpected. I mean, like, four different kinds of cancer, three broken ribs, all kinds of other morbidities that themselves often are fatal in someone of her age....

Nino was our hero the way that Ginsburg was the Left's hero, he overcame every bit as much bigotry, and she is entitled to the exact same amount of respect as he got -- no less, but also no more.

That's a concept that the Left is not going to understand.

[adopte]

RBG was used to her last minutes by "people who loved her"
give me a break do not love me that way !
a real shame

[Hank Ferrous]

What a laughable claim. The right certainly has its issues, but it is the left whose bread & butter is the suffering of others -never let a crisis go to waste being the maxim. You should get out more.

[Rossami]

Maybe there are some commentors here who don't deserve the moral high ground. But you are making a very strong claim for the moral low ground. RGB would be ashamed to have your so-called support. She understood and empathized with people even when she disagreed with them (perhaps, especially then).

You, on the other hand, seem incapable of reacting to anything but the strawmen in your own head.

[NOYB2]

Thee only reason RBG’s death and retirement coincided was because she decided irresponsibly to cling to power despite her terminal illness. She deserves condemnation, not respect.

[Red Tony]

Is it speaking ill of the dead if the dead are speaking ill of themselves?

[librarian]

Really, let it rest.

[ravenshrike]

Did Eugene's proscription apply to RBG herself?

[AmosArch]

Everythings political. If RBG life was exactly the same except she was a conservative you'd be cracking wise with all the Twitter blue checkmarks like when Scalia died. If she was just some old lady and Blackman made a snarky comment about something hypocritical she said. You'd say nothing because you wouldn't be here.

RBG's importance to practically everybody on this planet save for family some friends and a small circle of people is nearly or entirely political. Don't try to pretend otherwise.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Speaking of political, NLPC is *still* going after Schumer's law license: https://nlpc.org/2020/08/05/new-york-sweeps-schumer-bar-complaint-under-the-rug-appeal-filed/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

“Josh, you are not good enough for this blog.”

I believe he is a perfect fit for this blog.

This white, male, stale, movement conservative blog.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Captcrisis -- remember this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRJecfRxbr8

Now you condemn Josh?

[Sam Gompers]

If it wasn't recorded I don't believe it.

[AmosArch]

Trump slamming the troops wasn't recorded but its gospel apparently.

[Sam Gompers]

The "installed" bit gives it away. Puppets are installed. Presidents are inaugurated.

That quote came from the Color Revolutionaries who are currently attacking our country.

[MK Ultra]

By Monday the death-bed quote will be updated and corrected.

[QuantumBoxCat]

She said her fervent wish was that she will not be replaced until a new president is installed. Sounds like she also let it slip that the Deep State and Globalists were going to be "installing" a "new" president.

Luckily Josh Blackman is all over this. Well, until he gets cancelled .. but, fortunately, there will always be a line of Josh Blackman's ready to fill the spot.

[bacchys]

Qanon much?

[MarkW201]

Interpretations like yours require that single word "installed" to do pretty much all of the lifting. Your spin on what Ginsburg meant by that word is hardly unquestioned fact.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We're also all presuming that she had no loss of cognitive function in the last year -- and when you look at all the medical problems she had, I'm not so sure....

[markm23]

So RBG wants her seat to remain open until President Pence nominates a replacement in 202%?

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Why wouldn’t she wish for a specific person to replace her?? Or wish for world peace??

[Ben_]

Exactly.

Also, what difference do wishes make? None.

[bacchys]

This is a pretty weak attempt at pretend hypocrisy. Ginsburg's "wish" wasn't to die before the election and not get replaced.

Try being less of a diseased, America-hating hack, Blackman.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

I would wish to live forever.

[Hank Ferrous]

That's a weak argument. An opinion, a guess, and an ad hominem.

[NOYB2]

Ginsburg acted selfishly and politically, a disgrace to her office. As usual.

[MarkW201]

Context matters. Ginsburg's words from earlier this year were said in a world where a Senate Majority Leader had refused, out of blind partisanship, to allow a vote on a very well qualified Supreme Court nominee for nearly a year. They were said, to be blunt, after McConnell changed the rules of the game for partisan reasons. Her 2016 comments took place before that unprecedented event. As Lord Keynes said, "when the facts change, I change my mind. Tell me, sir, what do you do?"

Despite your implicit accusation, Prof. Blackman, it is McConnell who is the hypocrite in this situation. Not Ginsburg, but McConnell.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, a SCOTUS judge should act in a partisan manner? As opposed to a legislator acting in a partisan manner?

[StellaLink]

I don't think that it's a particularly partisan sentiment to hope to be replaced on the Supreme Court by someone other than a moronic wanker.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Luckily there are 100 Senators to advise and consent there.

[MarkW201]

How is Ginsburg's simple expression of a reasonable aspiration somehow equivalent to McConnell's naked partisan power play?

[Armchair Lawyer]

How is equating the partisan behavior a supposedly non-partisan SCOTUS judge with a Senate Majority Leader a rational comparison?

[MarkW201]

I didn't "equate" their behavior. I explained how one of them, but not the other, is a hypocrite.

[DRM]

Despite all the rhetoric and bluster, everyone with a better-than-room-temperature IQ knows that if Obama had nominated an ideological clone of Kennedy before the election, McConnell would have gone ahead and rushed the nominee on to the court rather than hold the seat open for Hillary Clinton to fill.

Obama freely made the political decision to refuse to withdraw Garland's nomination and put forward someone that the McConnell-led Senate would confirm, instead betting that the outcome of the 2016 election would strengthen his side's hand.

Complaining afterward about the dastardliness of McConnell's partisanship is simply a way of trying to refuse to acknowledge that Obama gambled and lost a Supreme Court seat.

[MarkW201]

What specific evidence from 2016 can you point to that supports your empirical claim? When did McConnell commit to confirming a "Kennedy clone?" How many GOP Senators made similar commitments?

[DRM]

So, let's see:

1) You think a statement of what would have happened in a history that never happened is an "empirical claim", despite the fact that it is completely unobservable.

2) You believe that public statements from politicians have any real evidentiary value when it comes to they'll actually do when faced with a situation.

3) Despite 2016 polling indicating a very high probability of a Clinton victory and a roughly 50-50 chance of the Democrats winning control of the Senate, you consider it less than blindingly obvious that the Republicans would have been delighted to go along with a Kennedy clone and declare victory, rather than leaving the seat open for Garland to fill.

Mmm-hmm.

[MarkW201]

Your assertion that a claim is "blindingly obvious" is not evidence.

[bernard11]

This is bullshit.

You're saying that if Obama had nominated whoever McConnell told him to the nominee would have been confirmed. Well, yeah, but so what?

Garland was no left-wing radical. He is very much a moderate who had previously been highly praised by Republicans.

[DRM]

Garland was no left-wing radical. He is very much a moderate who had previously been highly praised by Republicans.

To coin a phrase, "Well, yeah, but so what?"

Given the composition of the Supreme Court, the difference between Garland and a far-left Justice in actual outcomes would have been almost zero; Garland was not convincingly rightward of Breyer. So Obama was offering the Republicans next-to-nothing by nominating Garland as the successor to Scalia, rather than an actual compromise candidate. Accordingly the Republicans instead chose their BATNA, having the seat open during the election to drive voter turnout to preserve their Senate majority.

The true source of emotion on the left over what happened is not that they (in the main; there are a trifling number of genuine exceptions) actually believe a President's nominees should be shown deference, but the ordinary frustration and disappointment that came from their entirely rational expectation of replacing Scalia with a solid liberal vote being dashed by the surprising victory of Donald Trump.

[MarkW201]

Nonsense. You can find plenty of areas where Breyer is to the right of the other Democratic appointees--criminal procedure cases, just for one major example.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The difference is that in 2016, Obama was a lame duck. Trump isn't.

[MarkW201]

That is what is known as a distinction without a difference. At what precise point in a President's term do they become a "lame duck," and which specific Presidential powers are curtailed by that "lame duck" status.

To put it somewhat differently, President Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy in November 1987. How was he not a "lame duck" at that point, when Obama supposedly was when he nominated Garland only a few months further into his term?

Please answer by citing only specific Constitutional language that demarcates the line between "lame duck" and "non-lame duck" status in unambiguous terms.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don’t think you understand the term “lame duck”. Look it up.

[NOYB2]

The difference is that in 2016, the senate didn’t like the candidate and chose not to have hearings. That’s all. The rest is fairy tales invented by Democrats.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, imagine Ted Cruz saying to what Schumer did -- imagine McConnell saying it.

Hypocrisy much?

[Hank Ferrous]

What rules? That potus selects, informs the senate, who then confirm, or not? Where in the Constitution do any of these other 'rules' appear?

[SimonP]

You're a despicable human being, Josh.

[AmosArch]

why? Did God come down one day and say people shouldn't quote those who died for at least a week?

[StellaLink]

No, because he is imputing to RGB a sentiment that she did not express.

[StellaLink]

Oy, RBG!

[Armchair Lawyer]

Which sentiment is that?

That RBG didn't want to be replaced under a GOP president or GOP senate?

[StellaLink]

The sentiment that she wanted the senate to deny a sitting president an evaluation of a supreme court nomination.

[Ben_]

Who cares? It's not her choice and she doesn't get a vote. Whichever it would be has exactly zero impact either way.

[Anne]

I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I'm working online! My work didn't exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…ESd after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn't be happier.

Here’s what I do…>> CashApp

[Dr. Ed 2]

Like Trump and Veterans?

[SimonP]

He knows why. I don't give a shit about you.

[NOVA Lawyer]

He is. I stopped reading him because of it. Came here because that just floated across my screen and was disgusting. Josh is despicable.

[Ben_]

If I were Josh, I would get a little lift out of that, coming from you.

[SimonP]

You don't know me or have any basis for believing this. You're just being a piece of shit because it gets you off.

[Ben_]

I read your comments. It's based on that.

[Hank Ferrous]

One need only read your comments to derive a basis for believing that. And, honestly, an insult from some random knucklehead who doesn't refute their position? That would amuse most people.

[NOYB2]

Ginsburg could have reasonably retired any time during the last decade, people would have reflected on her career in different ways, and she could have died in peace as a private individual.

What is despicable is that she chose to hold onto power to the last second without giving a f*ck about the consequences. Like McCain before her.

[Ben_]

This is really similar to the lists of so-called Trump "lies" that Trump-haters have been passing around. When you want to make something out of nothing or make a lot out of very little, you can. It says more about you than about the person you're complaining about.

[AmosArch]

I'd bet a 1000 dollars RBG was in favor of filling the Garland seat but waiting out the 2020 election and that the main impetus for her was ideological rather than respect for legal consistency. Anybody want to offer systematic evidence from her life contradicting this?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Your comment doesn't make sense. As noted above, denying Garland a vote in 2016 was unconscionable and a change from prior practice (whatever lies Cruz, Cotton and McConnell spread). But having established that precedent, of course Democrats would expect a little consistency a mere four years later. Alas, the GOP is making clear they care about nothing but the raw exercise of power. I won't be crying for them if and when turnabout becomes fair play.

Nothing says it's all about power and that the GOP will do whatever they have the power to do like pushing through an SC nominee between now and Jan 20, 2021. In which case, I won't respect Democrats if they do not respond in kind. Garland becomes somewhat more acceptable if the GOP remains consistent and let's whoever wins in November replace Ginsburg in 2021. If they don't, SC legitimacy is gone because now anything goes to get control of it.

I suspect this will be the GOP overplaying their hand and ultimately losing far more than they gain.

[AmosArch]

There is zero Constitutional obligation and very weak if any moral obligation to rush Garland in 2016 or wait for the election in 2020. The Senate has been given the power to do what it wants and the Senate is the Republicans because they won the necessary elections. This includes using one method one day and another one another day for political reasons. Why are they suddenly obligated to act like they are a 50/50 split chamber? Can I willy nilly invalidate everything crazy thing the Cal Legislature because its acts like its chockful of Democrats? Don't like it? Win elections and you can do this too.

The most that could be said is that McConnell gave a BS reason like the Democrats did about why they behaved the way they did when he could have just told the truth that he has the right to get a centrist justice on the bench and so thats what he did. Lies and BS reasons aren't binding Constitutional law as we've seen over the centuries.

[neurodoc]

"he has the right to get a centrist justice on the bench"

You believe that McConnell and his R claque have only wanted to see "centrists" appointed to the courts. And furthermore, Garland has proven in the course of many years on the bench to be something other than a highly respected and supremely well-qualified judge?

Are Thomas and Alito "centrists" in your view?

[mulched]

You buggin. T didn't appoint either of those dudes.

[StellaLink]

There are probably a bunch of people, people like the only Jewish member of the KKK, yelling at Trump to make a quick nomination. There are also, probably, a bunch of people advising Trump to be cautious. With Trump's precarious re-election prospects, this may not be the glory-hole that he wants to bare his butt to, no matter the possible thrill.

[AmosArch]

If Trump makes a concession is the Left really going to just kick back their feet and say. Yeah Trump ain't that bad after all. Maybe we should just sit this one out? Conversely if he doesn't, what red button are they going to push that they weren't already doing? Were they just pretending with the riots and bile and the wave of propaganda until today and now they're really really really mad?

Should trump take the advice of concerned democrats and leave a dangling Court position that could shift the entire balance as part of a big brained scheme to demotivate the Dem base?

What exactly do you think he has to lose?

[Dr. Ed 2]

"I suspect this will be the GOP overplaying their hand and ultimately losing far more than they gain."

As opposed to the Impeachment charade?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Big difference -- GOP held the Senate.

[Squirrelloid]

It wasn't, actually. There are prior examples of the senate refusing to confirm a SCOTUS nominee because a new president would be elected shortly - when the opposite party controls the senate (see John Quincy Adams nomination of John J. Crittendon, for one). When the presidency and the senate are held by the same party in the same situation, then SCOTUS nominees are generally confirmed before a new president enters office.

Of course it's partisan. But it's hardly unprecedented. (In fact, disagreements between the senate and the president need not restrict the difficulty of getting a SCOTUS nominee confirmed or even a hearing - it can last a president's whole term. The difficulties Tyler had in getting any of his nominees even as far as a confirmation hearing demonstrates this).

[Ben_]

Yeah, probably. She was a consistent vote for the left.

Consistently supporting the left in court decisions doesn't come from independent, logical thinking. It comes from deciding how you want the decision to go and working backwards to a justification.

So what though? That's entirely common. Why pretend it isn’t? Why pretend that seeming contradictions are unusual and highly meaningful? They're common and they usually mean some motivated reasoning or some other human-like thought process happened.

People say shit. It's a mistake to take it too seriously. Except when it's not done by mistake — then it's a sort of phony dramatization. We should all learn to ignore those. Why let yourself be manipulated by phony drama?

[David Nieporent]

This is really similar to the lists of so-called Trump “lies” that Trump-haters have been passing around.

Otherwise known as http://www.twitter.com/realdonaldtrump.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Interesting left-wing reaction from Erik Loomis of URI at LGM.

"Ginsburg’s entire legacy is voided by her refusing to retire the last time Democrats held the Senate."

[AmosArch]

I was going to say the same thing. If anything from a game theory perspective which is what they really care about the Left should be furious at RGB.

You know what, I changed my mind I love RBG.

[MarkW201]

While I have not read the entire comment thread on that post--it is approaching 1600 comments--from my sampling of it, there has been quite a bit of pushback against Loomis for that remark. Some of it is suggesting that Loomis is being very ungracious in saying what he did, while others are taking issue with the substance of his argument. So while Loomis's statement is the reaction of one liberal, it is not shared by all of us.

[David Nieporent]

To be clear, Loomis is not a liberal. He's much farther left (and also possibly the dumbest person in academia, but that's another story) than that.

[NOYB2]

^ This. Ginsburg was selfish and irresponsible, and it blew up in the face of progressives.

[neurodoc]

2016: Asked if the Senate had an obligation to assess Judge Garland's qualifications, her answer was immediate.
"That's their job," she said. "There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year."

2020: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."
********************

I'm not sure I understand. Are those two utterances supposed to be so clearly in opposition, or at least inconsistent, so they show Ginsburg to have been a hypocrite? If that's Josh Blackman's point , I don't see it. And in any event, given all the circumstances, the putative hypocrisy of RBG's last wish would be as a gnat is to an elephant compared to the hypocrisy reflected in the actions of McConnell and most of his so unprincipled Senate R cohort.

[MarkW201]

As I noted above, yes, Blackman is implying that Ginsburg was a hypocrite. That is especially clear from the subtitle of his post: "2016: Fill it. 2020: Don't fill it." As I also noted, Blackman is refusing to address the change in the factual context between Ginsburg's first and second remarks.

[mulched]

The factual difference that it was a Democrat, not a Republican making the appointment.

[MarkW201]

No, the factual difference is that between her two comments, we saw a Senate Majority Leader refuse to hold hearings on a well-qualified, centrist nominee for nearly a year. McConnell's naked power play changed the rules of the game--what economists like me call the "policy regime." Ginsburg adapted to that new regime.

[Hank Ferrous]

Short of asking her, there's no way to substantiate this. And, yes, the Garland nomination & refusal was political, he was qualified. The past cannot be changed, let it go. This is political, and only the 'now' has bearing.

[MarkW201]

It is a very reasonable inference about her thinking.

[Hank Ferrous]

Reading minds is much less accurate than asking the person, especially if one is not a friend or close acquaintance of the person in question. Am not saying you may not be correct, but that there is no way to be sure -you have set up an argument that cannot be disproven.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://nlpc.org/2020/08/05/new-york-sweeps-schumer-bar-complaint-under-the-rug-appeal-filed/

[Hank Ferrous]

Are you certain this isn't your bias? Hypocrisy is a universal, in that it doesn't scale up or down depending on our viewpoint. Hypocrisy from a scotus justice, unacceptable.

[Jimmy the Dane]

It is no secret. This is going to be a straight up political power move. If the tables were turned and the Dems held the Senate and White House with a significant chance of losing both in a few months they would sure as hell fill that seat and jam in the biggest liberal they could get through.

A Supreme Court seat is a golden goose. If the Republicans leave it sitting on the table because of "elections" or "principle" then they are beyond stupid and deserve to cease being a political party.

So liberals this is when you walk on stage and do all the gnashing of teeth and hand wringing. Then Mitch jams through the appointment in late October. And take that issue to the ballot box. Just don't pretend that if the roles were reversed the Dems would do anything less then expect the Republicans to play the walk on role.

[MarkW201]

Of course, in 1988, the last time before 2016 that the issue came up, the Democrats in the Senate refused to vote on Anthony Kennedy's nomination. Oh, wait, they didn't. They held hearings, held a vote, and Kennedy was confirmed to the Supreme Court.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Politics in 1988 were nothing like they are today. Not even close.

[MarkW201]

However, since 1988 was the last time a Supreme Court vacancy was filled in a Presidential election year, it is relevant history.

[Squirrelloid]

But there are examples of SCOTUS vacancies going unfilled in an election year because the senate refuses to act on them too. It's hardly unprecedented.

The senate and the president being aligned with each other or not is frequently the determining factor on whether a president can get a last year appointment confirmed, or even a hearing for them. Sometimes it's not just the whole year - sometimes it's their whole term. (See Tyler's difficulties in getting any nominee through).

[MarkW201]

Other than McConnell's power play in 2016, how far back do you have to go to find these examples? Aside from Kennedy, Murphy in 1940 is a counterexample. Fortas in 1968 was also acted on, at least to the extent of a failed cloture vote on the segregationist filibuster.

[Squirrelloid]

Supreme court nominations don't come up that often, much less specifically in the last year of a presidential term. Even more rarely specifically when the senate and presidency are controlled by different parties. A handful of such examples in 200 years is pretty common, given how rare the underlying situation is.

Also, when the senate isn't interested in confirming a candidate, refusing to even hold a hearing or confirmation vote seems pretty common. Many refused SCOTUS nominees had their nomination tabled indefinitely.

[MarkW201]

So in other words, there are nowhere near enough examples to make any sort of generalization, the way that McConnell is doing to give himself cover.

[NOYB2]

He doesn’t need cover. His choice is legitimate.

And if he needed cover, Democrat behavior during Kavanaugh alone would be ample justification.

[AmosArch]

A centrist retiring for that lion of the alt right Kennedy? Uhhh...what point are you trying to make again?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look at it this way: If trump is re-elected and nominates someone next spring, will the Dems give her a 93-6 vote like RBG got?
Or confirm her if they are in the majority?

[Leo Marvin]

“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.”- Ted Cruz

So Josh, how should Ted vote on Trump's nominee?

“I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination." - Lindsay Graham

How should Lindsay vote?

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://nlpc.org/2020/08/05/new-york-sweeps-schumer-bar-complaint-under-the-rug-appeal-filed/

[Leo Marvin]

Ed, play with your squirrels elsewhere.

[StellaLink]

"How should Lindsay vote?"

That's a good question. If Trump nominates, for example, Barrett and it goes to a vote prior to the election, whatever Graham does is going to piss a lot of people off. If he abandons his role as first chair TrumpSucker he'll likely lose a lot of votes on the right. If he maintains his prone position it could energize his opposition. I'd guess that what Graham will do is try to get the vote delayed until after the election. Of course, as Kirkland has observed, if Trump is defeated it may be tough to get the 50 Republican votes necessary after the election if, as seems likely, Kelly wins in Arizona.

[Cannon]

Wouldn't GOP just force a vote before any new DEM senators get sworn in? Six prior Presidents got Justices approved after the President lost or withdrew from the election. There is no need to let the nomination wait for any results of this election.

[Leo Marvin]

I don't pretend to know how it would go, but holding a 52 member caucus (53 - McSally), all of whom have just been liberated from fear of the dreaded Trump tweet, and some of whom may have distant memories of principled consistency, might not be a gimme.

[arpiniant1]

Wow, no need for anyone else to say that Josh is human garbage just like his hero trumpski

you sir are a horrible human being

and inconsistent politically, but that goes without saying

[bernard11]

Blackman already dancing on Ginsburg's grave.

What a disgusting person he is.

[Aktenberg78]

Blah blah blah.

[Hank Ferrous]

Odd, he's doing nothing of the sort. Nor can you show that he is. That you dislike him, this is esyablished without the need for liying.

[NOYB2]

If Ginsburg had retired before her death, we could keep her personal passing and her professional conduct separate.

It was Ginsburg choice to leave SCOTUS the way she did, the final unprofessional choice of a SCOTUS judge with a history of unprofessional choices.

[bernard11]

This is utter bullshit from Blackman.

2016. She thought the Senate should consider Garland.

2020. She didn't want Trump to appoint her successor.

So WTF is Blackman's point? He's a moron.

[Flatulus]

I knew libtards would cry like little bitches when RBG croaked, but Jesus, this exceeds even my expectations.

[bernard11]

I knew libtards would cry like little bitches when RBG croaked,

This is an example of why I have no respect for the condolences or other warm sentiments about Ginsburg coming from 95% of right-wingers.

You guys are assholes, vultures who have just been waiting for her to die so you could pounce on the prize. All the tributes coming from you are lies.

So fuck you.

[Roman Moroni]

I don’t think that’s fair.

I’m not a right winger, but I know many and they are generally just as good as the many left leaning folks I know. Obviously that’s only anecdotal evidence, but I think you understand my point. Political leanings don’t dictate the goodness of someone’s soul. I think you’re wrong to convince yourself of this generalization.

This is the comment section of a political blog where you’re going to hear the most politically partisan perspectives. I’m sure there were plenty of left leaning commenters on political blogs that did just as much “dancing on Scalia’s grave.”

A good human being has died, and that’s sad. But for the general public this is absolutely primarily a political discussion, as it should be.

I don’t agree with Blackman’s implication that RBG was nakedly hypocritical, given the context, but he’s not fiendish for discussing it “too soon.” Her death and its aftermath are matters of national importance. We can discuss all of this while still genuinely honoring her life and the sadness of her death.

[NOYB2]

Ginsburg made the choice to retire by dying in office, a selfish and unprofessional choice that is causing chaos. You’re right that many of the condolences are not sincere, they are merely a necessary formality.

If she had retired responsibly, we could have separated well deserved criticism of professional life from her personal passing.

[StackOfCoins]

2016. She thought the Senate should consider Garland.

That nice. Obama put forward a nominee. The Senate had no obligation to give him a hearing. So they denied to give him one. No rights were trampled; the Constitution was respected. But this made some people VERY UPSET.

It's a good thing we have rule of law, not feelz, in this country. At least for now. If Schumer and the Democrats get their way, then you might get yours, Bernard.

[Adabsurdum]

Blackman 2016: no rush to replace Scalia, the court can function fine. https://www.wsj.com/articles/only-eight-justices-so-what-1456272088

Blackman 2020: published several articles in one day after RBG passes urging Trump's immediate replacement of the seat.

[sharpmisr]

https://www.patreon.com/sharpmisr

[VirginiaRPeck]

Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job.HERE ... Read More    

[marry_naaz]

its really great oppertunity of this post but..READ MORE

[gde18095]

I get paid more than $120 to $130 per hour for working online.YTg I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this i have earned easily $15k from this without having online working skills…Click For Full Detail.

[katrineramie]

That the most intreating topic, I have read today that was the good news for the people about the vaccine and now there was also a global issue. https://akamalifestyle.com/