The passing of RBG roils 2020’s already turbulent waters

R.I.P.

Ruth Badger Ginsberg,
justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (09-18-2020)

More riots? This is national blogger Erick Erickson: We are here, at this moment particularly, because of something too few want to say out loud. One of those oligarchs decided to gamble with her own life, impervious to calls for removal, so that she could try to shape the balance of the United States Supreme Court.

“She could have left while Obama was still there. But no, Ruth Bader Ginsburg decided to hang on through a pancreatic cancer fight hoping to use herself as a rallying cry for the left to mobilize in November and shape the election. Now, thanks to her pride, we’re going to get more riots.

RBG “Our prayers should be with her family at this time.

“But we really should not dance around the fact that we are now, less than fifty days before a presidential election, in a new plot twist because she attempted to hang on for the sake of a progressive appointment to the Court.”

Source: An Inescapable Fight – Erick Erickson’s Confessions of a Political Junkie

Retired UW-Madison law professor Ann of Althouse:

“Let’s look at Ginsburg’s language: “I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” That is the form of her dying wish, as told to us by her granddaughter Clara Spera, who is a fellow at the American Civil Liberties Union. …We can make political arguments that Trump should wait and let us make filling that seat an issue in the election. I’d love to see Trump and Biden debate and give us the question: What kind of Justice do we want?

“Biden was chair of the Judiciary Committee for so long. Let’s grill him about what he did to Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas.  Let’s ask him to show us his list of potential nominees as President Trump has. I think that would be great. But I also think that if the tables were turned and a Democratic President had a Democratic Senate, we’d get the nomination and confirmation quickly and without fussing….” (More Althouse here.)

Kavanaugh

The Marxists at The Nation magazine:

“To honor RBG, we’ve got to fight with all our might to reclaim the Supreme Court — and that means packing it.” (Source here.)

Politico:

“Waiting to fill Ginsburg’s seat could be Trump’s key to victory. Keeping Republicans hungry for a more conservative court is the only guarantee of earning their support.”  (The rest here.)

Blaska’s Bottom Line: Delaying a vote on the Notorious RBG’s successor would also stimulate Democrats. Well meaning folks (we’ve never been accused of that, thank God!) suggest Senate leader Mitch McConnell would be a hypocrite if he did not delay putting up Trump’s nomination (assuming there is one) until after the election as he did with Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland (remember him?).

Those well meaning folks forget that the Constitution dictates two branches must tango in order to fill a vacancy in the third co-equal branch. In Garland’s case, the executive nominated but the Senate, fulfilling its end of the constitutional bargain, did not consent.

What do YOU think Republicans should do?

About David Blaska

Madison WI
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

93 Responses to The passing of RBG roils 2020’s already turbulent waters

  1. madisonexpat says:

    Full speed ahead! Damn the torpedos!
    That picture of the crying woman? Two observations:
    It’s worth a thousand votes, and ABob finds her credible.

    Like

    • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

      Hillarity Clinton, “Feel the Bern” Sanders, “Cryin” Chuckie Schumer and Elizabeth “Fauxchahontas-Lieawatha” Warren all agree that the sitting President should nominate the new Supreme Court Justice.

      Not doing so, and The Gotch quotes: “would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself.”

      Wait a minute.

      That was 2016?

      Never Mind

      The Gotch

      Liked by 2 people

      • richard lesiak says:

        More nonsense from CRANKY CORNY.

        Like

      • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

        (N)o longer even worthy of a STFU.

        The Gotch

        Liked by 2 people

      • Alfred E. Newman says:

        So Gotch, why didn’t quote those from the party you support, afraid of the outright Hypocrisy?

        Mitch McConnell – “the choice should be left to voters in an election year.”
        Lindsay Graham – ““use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president (elected) 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.’”
        Chuck Grassley – ” “I would not have a hearing on it because that’s what I promised the people in 2016.”
        Thom Tillis – ““the voice of the American people should be weighted heavily” in filling a Supreme Court vacancy, adding that the nomination “would be best left to the next president.”

        Not doing so would threaten the fundamental legal premise of applying rules with consistency.

        Like

        • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

          “afraid of the outright Hypocrisy?”

          Not in the least; if you think The Gotch has the interest, time, and desire to stand a post against both Lefty AND Righty, you’re barking up the wrong tree.

          ‘Sides, he doesn’t want to horn in on untalented, lickspittle Lefty’s ability to participate.

          C’mon, with the empty, worthless, angry, unsatisfying lives most of you lead, what else do you have?

          It gets worse.

          To paraphrase the self-anointed ‘4th Greatest President EVAH!!!!, I’d hazard a guess this is because elections have consequences.

          Showing the ubiquitous hyper-partisanship of the career Lefty, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has come down on both sides of the unwritten “Thurmond Rule.”

          “Senator Leahy rejected the rule in the closing months of the Democratic Clinton administration, but later invoked the rule in the last months of the Republican Bush administration”

          Kinda like he was against it before he was for it, am I right?

          And worse yet.

          IL junior Senator and Lefty demi-god Barack Obama “(i)n January 2006 joined 24 colleagues in a futile effort led by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of now-Justice Samuel Alito.”

          And even worser yet.

          “In the last year of George W. Bush’s second term Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) suggested that PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES THAT ARE NOT CONFIRMED BY JUNE of that year would not be confirmed at all.” (bolds mine)

          June 2016?? Wasn’t the Merrick Garland thing, like, you know, months AFTER that?

          Ah Lefty; so MUCH crippling ignominy, so little time!

          The Gotch

          Like

        • Alfred E. Newman says:

          I believe there’s a big difference between “suggested” and “did’.

          Like

        • patrickmoloughlin says:

          “Not doing so would threaten the fundamental legal premise of applying rules with consistency.”

          You see, there’s your problem right there. None of those things that you cite are actually rules. Those are political opinions designed to serve their party at that particular time. They are not making or breaking any rules, they are rationalizing their position. And if their position changes at a later point, so will their rationalization. It’s called politics.

          Like

        • Alfred E. Newman says:

          Not rules, not law, just plain old republican lying, cheating and stealing.

          Like

        • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

          “I believe there’s a big difference between ‘suggested’ and ‘did’.”

          Hardly; the only difference between a suggestion and a did is an opportunity to act on what you believe.

          The Gotch

          Liked by 1 person

        • richard lesiak says:

          thanks for your post Al. Now we will watch ‘Ol Corney twist himself into knots with some long rant of complete nonsense. What fun.

          Like

  2. Gary Kriewald says:

    I agree with the President that RBG was an amazing woman who led an amazing life; it’s a pity she had to besmirch the end of her long and distinguished career by not retiring after her last cancer diagnosis, thereby allowing time for the nomination/confirmation process to proceed at a more liesurely pace. Instead, she chose to hang on to the bitter end, thereby ensuring maximum chaos.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Marge Bils says:

    RBG did a lot of amazing things. And I would never want anyone to suffer with cancer. She persevered when maybe most of us would have retired to spend more time with family. She gambled thinking she would still be here after the election. But as the saying goes, “Man plans, God laughs.” I wonder if she might have changed her mind about retiring if she knew what would happen?

    Liked by 2 people

    • madisonexpat says:

      I think that the Left came to really believe their own BS that Hillary had a lock on the White House and thus fooled RBG and depressed their own turn out.

      Liked by 1 person

    • richard lesiak says:

      RBG did do a lot of amazing things. She gambled? I don’t think so. Committed to our country; yes.

      Like

  4. AdamC says:

    The President should, and probably will, do his job expeditiously and nominate a solid conservative justice, quite possibly a woman. Then the Senate needs to do its job expeditiously and vote.

    That is the Constitutional way and it is also the responsible adult way. Let the immature unhinged leftists riot…. it’s what they do. They will riot when Trump wins again. They will riot whether Trump fills the high court vacancy in 2020 or 2021.

    Let the voters see who the rioters are, clearly and plainly, so we can vote accordingly.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

      “nominate a solid conservative justice, quite possibly a woman.”

      Smart money’s on Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

      Have yer POPPED CORN ready for whatever reliably hysterical slobbering Lefty is sure to conjure up!

      The Gotch

      Liked by 4 people

      • AdamC says:

        They already have gone plumb nucking futs. This is every woke crazy liberal female — keep in mind this person filmed herself driving YESTERDAY.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

          No shortage of Lefties Going Wild, am I right?

          They’re nearing the 48th month of a dangerous, yet voluntary, immersion into a catatonic, apoplectic, pillow-biting, pants $#!tting, bed wetting, wind-sucking, chest palpitating, vital sign ramping, mouth-breathing, fist-pounding, foot stomping, safe-space seeking, triggered, weenie-whiny, simpering-whimpering, complete metaphysical, emotional, existential, psychological, philosophical, full-throated, freaking out, melting down, totally collapsing free-fall.

          Not an enviable state of affairs for those perilously close to the dark abyss to begin with.

          The Gotch

          Liked by 5 people

        • Liberty says:

          Someone made a comment on another platform that some therapists are actually treating TDS as a mental illness. Not certain of the validity of this comment, but I think most of us can agree that this is abnormal.

          If they want to scream like idiots in the privacy of their own spaces and show the world how unhinged they are, that’s their business. But cross the line by engaging in criminal behavior like rioting and domestic terrorism, then your A belongs in a cage.

          Liked by 3 people

        • westsidesue says:

          I first saw this on a usually conservative post, but thought she looked “off”…the clothes, the demented look, and then my radar for this crazy was RIGHT!!! Best laff I’ve had in a long while. Thanks for giving me a re-laff 🙂

          Liked by 1 person

        • Liberty says:

          Westsidesue, she’s not an outlier. Have seen LOTS of this. And they video themselves, to boot.

          In every one of these, it’s eff this, eff that.

          They need professional help.

          Like

      • richard lesiak says:

        you mean Amy the Handmaiden?

        Like

    • Scott F says:

      ‪Democrat behavior during the Kavanaugh confirmation removed any consideration fo r fairness, restraint or deference in selecting Ginsberg’s Supreme Court replacement. I don’t expect their tactics and morality will be any different now. You reap what you sow.‬

      Liked by 4 people

      • Liberty says:

        Scott, I suspect they’ll be even worse. They’ve been emboldened over the summer.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Kevin S Wymore says:

        Scott F_One of those Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats soberly deliberating on the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings was Kamala Harris. That’s the same Kamala Harris seeking a “Harris Administration.”

        Liked by 1 person

        • Alfred E. Newman says:

          Yet Kavanaugh’s behavior throughout his life is acceptable?

          Like

        • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

          “Yet Kavanaugh’s behavior throughout his life is acceptable?”

          Frechrissakes; set the Kool-Aid down and step away from the glass!

          Kavanaugh’s record on the bench, and life, are unbesmirchable.

          As far as Blasey-Ford’s slobbering that someone did something to someone (her) somehow somewhere at sometime? A Leap of Faith over a Bridge Too Far!

          (bolds/caps/italics mine throughout)
          “In written testimony sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, a third named witness has rejected the allegations made by Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser. Having been asked by a Senate staffer to comment on the charges advanced against the nominee, a lawyer for Leland Ingham Keyser wrote:

          SIMPLY PUT, MS. KEYSER DOES NOT KNOW MR. KAVANAUGH AND SHE HAS NO RECOLLECTION OF EVER BEING AT A PARTY OR GATHERING WHERE HE WAS PRESENT, WITH, OR WITHOUT, DR. FORD

          “Ms. Keyser, whom CNN confirms is ‘a lifelong friend of Ford’s,’ is the third named witness to deny any knowledge of the allegations. The other two, Mark Judge and Patrick Smyth, issued written statements to that effect earlier in the week. Thus far, NOBODY HAS BACKED UP THE ACCOUNT ADVANCED BY KAVANAUGH’S ACCUSER, while Kavanaugh and three other named witnesses have rejected it outright.”

          The Gotch humbly suggests this may not be the hill upon which to die…

          The Gotch

          Liked by 3 people

        • dad29 says:

          BINGO!! Trump wants to fill the seat to keep Harris busy in D.C. rather than out lying on the campaign trail.

          Liked by 1 person

    • richard lesiak says:

      A woman? Your kidding right. Fat, old, white guy. That’s what trump will give you.

      Like

  5. Cornelius Gotchberg says:

    DementiaJoe to Georgetown law students March/2016: “I was responsible for eight justices and nine total nominees on the Supreme Court – more than, I hate to say this, anyone alive […] Some I supported, a few I voted against. But in all that time, every nominee was greeted by committee members, every nominee got a committee hearing, EVERY NOMINEE GOT OUT OF A COMMITTEE EVEN IF THEY DIDN’T HAVE SUFFICIENT VOTES TO PASS WITHIN THE COMMITTEE..” (bolds/caps/italics mine)

    Whooooooopsie!! It gets worse.

    2016 Arguments Support GOP Vote on New Supreme Court Justice

    DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL nominee Joe Biden argued furiously in 2016 for the Senate to consider a Supreme Court nomination in the midst of an election season

    “In justifying their decision to block Merrick Garland’s appointment to the Supreme Court in March 2016, Republicans at the time cited a floor speech Biden made as a senator in 1992 in which he staunchly opposed the idea of holding confirmation hearings for prospective justices, calling it the ‘Biden Rule.’

    “But Biden, by then the vice president, blasted the GOP justification as ‘frankly ridiculous,’ saying that such a rule ‘doesn’t exist.’ ”

    “Doesn’t exist”? Isn’t that cute; DementiaJoe obviously thinks that Lefties are as clueless as he is, the one thing upon which he & The Gotch will agree.

    And if you think Lefty has been breathtakingly Bat #@!t Crazy these past ~ 46 months, you ain’t seen NUTHIN’ yet!

    The Gotch

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Alfred E. Newman says:

    Well now we know the Republican party to be the racists we always thought they were. During President Obama’s term when he had the constitutional right to appoint, under the advise and consent of the senate a new SCOTUS Justice, the republican controlled senate decide it was in the best interest of the voters to postpone any nomination till after the seating of the new president. They knew that the incoming president would be white. Now that we have a white president, damn the voters, lets get on with filling the vacancy, it seems it was all about deny a Black President his constitutional right to fill a vacancy on the SCOTUS. It should surprise no one that the McConnell controlled Senate wants to swiftly fill the vacancy. Lie, cheat, steal and lie again is their motto.

    It is interesting to see the remarks of the likes of Erik Ericson, The head grounds keeper and posters here try to out think one of the greatest minds to ever serve our country, interesting? I mean laughable.

    Like

    • madisonexpat says:

      If you think a president “appoints” anyone to the SC you’re high on something. Two; the Left can’t complain about hypocrisy while they embody it. Three; bitch to Harry Reid. 4; RBG could’ve and should have retired at 80 and given Obama the chance to nominate (not appoint) Garland or Michelle. 5; the evil done to the Kavanaugh family means the gloves are off Lefties….. and Karma cometh.
      And thanks for beating the racism horse yet again. You prove it can’t get much deader and that you have no other arrow in your quiver. Sad.

      Liked by 8 people

      • Liberty says:

        Well done, madisonexpat, well done.

        Like

      • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

        “the gloves are off Lefties”

        That they are…THAT_THEY_ARE!!!

        Despicable Lefties!

        The Gotch

        Liked by 2 people

      • George Parrino says:

        I believe I said Appoint with the advise and consent of the Senate. It’s an appointment for life, why didn’t Scalia retire earlier?

        Like

        • Alfred E. Newman says:

          OH, I wasn’t beating the racism horse, I was just looking at the inconsistencies of the Republican controlled Senate logically. “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.”

          Like

        • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

          “why didn’t Scalia retire earlier?”

          ‘Sup…, muh Bruthah From Anothuh Bruthuh?

          Anywho, Scalia, a mere 79 at the time of his sudden death, was not noticeably failing.

          RBG? Let’s just say she was NOTICEABLY FAILING, and her death wasn’t…um…sudden; inopportune…but not sudden.

          She made a bad bet that Hillarity (heh!) would be POTUS, and she’d be replaced by someone ideologically certified.

          The Best-Laid Plans Of Mice And Men Often Go Awry

          The Gotch

          Liked by 3 people

        • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

          “we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment.”

          Isn’t THAT sweet!

          Anywho…to paraphrase the self-anointed ‘4th Greatest President EVAH…elections have consequences.

          Showing the ubiquitous hyper-partisanship of the career Lefty, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has come down on both sides of the unwritten “Thurmond Rule.”

          “Senator Leahy rejected the rule in the closing months of the Democratic Clinton administration, but later invoked the rule in the last months of the Republican Bush administration”

          Kinda like he was against it before he was for it, am I right?

          It gets worse.

          IL junior Senator and Lefty demi-god Barack Obama “(i)n January 2006 joined 24 colleagues in a futile effort led by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of now-Justice Samuel Alito.”

          And worse yet.

          “In the last year of George W. Bush’s second term Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) suggested that PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES THAT ARE NOT CONFIRMED BY JUNE of that year would not be confirmed at all.” (bolds mine)

          June 2016?? Wasn’t the Garland thing, like, you know, months AFTER that?

          Ah Lefty; so MUCH crushing hypocrisy, so little time.

          The Gotch

          Liked by 3 people

  7. Liberty says:

    Prayers for Justice Ginsberg’s family.

    Was just observing how classy conservatives (including Trump) have kept it, offering condolences and prayers, complementing her decades of public service and her intellect.

    Compare and contrast with the left, who celebrated when Trump’s brother died, or with Schumer, whose initial words were not about RBG’s legacy but about how Trump shouldn’t take control.

    I’m proud to be conservative.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

      “Compare and contrast with the left…” when Antonin Scalia passed.

      You know, the guy that both RBG AND Elena Kagan positively LUVED.

      Despicable Lefties!!!

      The Gotch

      Liked by 2 people

  8. madisonexpat says:

    Neuman! You sure did whip the dead racism horse. For sure not because it’s accurate or topical, probably out of habit. And yes both parties have been on both sides of ‘the Biden Rule’ depending on who the president is.
    I’m thinking your doofus reliance on the RAY-cism card indicates the emptiness of your shot locker.
    “Hmmmm, says the Left, rioting didn’t work, doesn’t seem to poll well. Let’s Bork the nominee. No, we’d have to resurrect and sober up Ted Kennedy and make Biden speak intelligibly so that’s out on both counts, Gotta be something……….”
    To be continued…..

    Like

    • Alfred E. Newman says:

      So then please explain to me why Senate republicans blocked the choice of a black president 6 months prior to an election, but are saying they won’t block the choice of a white president a mere 1.5 months away from an election? If not racism, it must be blatant hypocrisy.

      Like

      • madisonexpat says:

        Sure it’s blatant hypocrisy and there is more than enough to go around. Barack an Po’ Slo’ Joe were all for it when Barack was in the White House. Now? Not so much. But I see you are backing away from the racism slur. As I surmised, probably just a bad habit. Does anyone not in the rabid Left even hear it anymore?

        Like

        • Alfred E. Newman says:

          Not backing away at all, after all the current republican administration as shown support for the only enemy army to attack the USA in order to preserve racist policies.

          Like

      • Serendipity says:

        Alfie: By blocking President Obama’s pick (Merrick Garland) from his rightful place on the Court, Mitch McConnell and righties effectively stole that seat. Not racist, it was a party line thing. Now, Mitch and his followers will support a Trump nominee who is sufficiently conservative.

        Like

        • patrickmoloughlin says:

          You can’t steal what you already own. The Senate OWNS Supreme Court confirmations. The president owns the nominations. Merrick Garland was merely the latest in a long line of nominations who were not approved by the Senate. And believe it or not, it’s very often political. Just ask Robert Bork.

          Liked by 2 people

      • georgessson says:

        Alf, It seems Richard-Mind-If-I-Call-you-Dick has a new protege. Thus more mindless, fact less prattle to chuckle over. P’raps before submitting comments, get a six or seven year old to assist. Politics elude ya, It appears yer forte is… changing a light bulb…

        Like

        • richard lesiak says:

          I am glad to see Al here. He’s already has Crotch in a spin. I see your posts haven’t changed; off topic and nonsense.

          Like

  9. madisonexpat says:

    Neuman! Are you drinking already? Do you allege that the Trump administration supports the Democrat confederates over the Republican party that emancipated the slaves?

    Like

    • Alfred E. Newman says:

      Living in the past are you? Isn’t it the republican party that today wishes to enslave anyone of color, and white for that matter if they can profit off their labor.

      Like

  10. Serendipity says:

    By not considering and bringing to a vote the nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016, senate Republicans did not fulfill their constitutional responsibility. They snatched that Supreme Court seat from “we the people”. This time I fully expect Senator McConnell to speedily ram through Trump’s nominee. He probably hasn’t changed his tactics.

    Like

    • patrickmoloughlin says:

      Wrong again. The Senate’s responsibility is spelled out in the Constitution. They are to provide advice, and if they approve of the nominee, give their consent.

      The Senate at that time gave the President their advice: Don’t send us Merrick Garland.

      The President ignored their advice, and sent them Merrick Garland.

      The Senate withheld their consent, just as they said they would. Responsibility fulfilled.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Cornelius Gotchberg says:

    Hillarity’s Late Night Phone Call To The Donald

    The Gotch

    Like

  12. FoodForThought says:

    “In the last year of George W. Bush’s second term Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) suggested that PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES THAT ARE NOT CONFIRMED BY JUNE of that year would not be confirmed at all.” (bolds mine)

    June 2016?? Wasn’t the Merrick Garland thing, like, you know, months AFTER that?”

    No, Cornelius it was not. Garland’s name was put forth for nomination on March 16, 2020 (which was still over a month after Scalia’s passing).

    Further, even if you had been correct that Feinstein was hypocritical, you’d be doing nothing but deflecting from the dozens of GOP Senators who seem poised to prove themselves massive liars and hypocrites in the days and weeks to come. Our own Ron Johnson stated in 2016, “Let’s let voters have a voice in this through their vote for president and for the control of the Senate,” … “In the politicized atmosphere of an election year, you probably shouldn’t even nominate someone,” he said. “It’s not fair to the nominee, it’s not fair to the court.”

    Now he states that his willingness to vote immediately isn’t hypocritical because “We had divided government (in 2016). That’s a valid argument when you have divided government (saying) ‘Let’s let the American people decide.’ Right now, we don’t have divided government,” he said. “That makes all the difference in the world.”

    First, that’s a gigantic caveat that he did not mention in 2016. Second, it’s also a lie. We do have a divided government vis-a-vis the Democratic House (whose representation is a far more current barometer of the public’s wishes seeing as how the entire House is elected every 2 years, unlike the Senate).

    Like

    • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

      Aw, Hell Hath No Fury Like A Lefty Scorned, am I right?

      Remember when your Hopey Changey Hero said Elections Have Consequences?

      The Gotch does.

      Howse about when Dingey Reid invoked the Nuclear Option?

      Lefty was warned it would come back to bite them on their over-sized @$$e$…Lo and Behold!

      The Gotch

      Like

      • richard lesiak says:

        You RWNJ’S are lucky we had Obama, who else would Dopey Don try to blame for every screw up he has made.

        Like

      • FoodForThought says:

        Lol, classic Pelosi move there Cornelius you simply deflect yet again rather than own up to your factual errors (and here the right claims to be the party of personal responsibility). You can bring up the Nuclear option all you want in invoking McConnell’s stalling tactics in 2016 – in each case Reid and McConnell were establishing new precedents. But in no was it that relevant to the way Graham, Johnson, Grassley, and the gang are proving themselves to lack any ounce of integrity by their actions this week. I genuinely thank you though for underscoring further how vacuous any attempts to defend their current actions are though.
        And as I’ve said on here before, I’m hardly a lefty, I just call out the hypocrisy when I see it — and the GOP Senate is dousing themselves in a golden shower of it right now.

        Like

        • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

          “I genuinely thank you though for underscoring further how vacuous any attempts to defend their current actions are though.”

          The Gotch’s pleasure.

          Probably not a good time to compare-n-contrast Righty’s treatment of Garland with Lefty’s treatment of Justice Kavanaugh…?

          The Gotch

          Like

        • FoodForThought says:

          “Probably not a good time to compare-n-contrast Righty’s treatment of Garland with Lefty’s treatment of Justice Kavanaugh…?”
          On the contrary, bring it up all you want but it’s apples and oranges and thus again irrelevant here. Garland vs. Ginsburg is apples to apples.

          Like

        • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

          “but it’s apples and oranges and thus again irrelevant here.”

          If this happens to be other than just because you say so, please elaborate.

          One more thing.

          The Gotch (who maintained the Senate should have granted Garland a hearing in 2016) notices you don’t call out the Resident Idiot’s SEXist treatment of the eminently qualified Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

          Haven’t gotten a Round Tuit…?

          The Gotch

          Like

        • FoodForThought says:

          It is very much apples and oranges. Garland and Ginsburg are about if/when the hearing should take place in a presidential election year. Kavanaugh was a case of smear tactics during the hearing. (And to clarify, I probably shouldn’t have even really called Garland vs. Ginsburg an apples to apples comparison in my previous comment because there are some differences there as well, but they are far more comparable to one another than to Kavanaugh)

          “Resident Idiot” – you’re going to have to be more specific.

          And good to hear you think Garland should have been granted a hearing, but you’re not one the I’ve accused of hypocrisy. I’ve only questioned your attempts to deflect such criticisms when leveled towards Johnson and the rest.

          Like

        • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

          ” ‘Resident Idiot’ – you’re going to have to be more specific.”

          Say what???

          The rest? In a NUTSHELL

          The Gotch

          Like

        • FoodForThought says:

          I have yet to see an example of Tammy Baldwin, Biden, or Obama contradicting anything they said about the Senate confirmation process this year vs. 2016. If you have any quotes illustrating that please share it. There are copious examples however of Republicans directly going back on their 2016 claims of how Supreme Court nominations should not get hearings in election years.

          And I’m not trying to be snarky, I literally don’t know who you’re referring to.

          Like

        • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

          Joe Biden in 2016: ”I would go forward with a confirmation process as chairman, EVEN A FEW MONTHS BEFORE A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate, just as the Constitution requires.” (bolds/caps/italics mine)

          “DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL nominee Joe Biden argued furiously in 2016 for the Senate to consider a Supreme Court nomination in the midst of an election season

          “In justifying their decision to block Merrick Garland’s appointment to the Supreme Court in March 2016, Republicans at the time cited a floor speech Biden made as a senator in 1992 in which he staunchly opposed the idea of holding confirmation hearings for prospective justices, calling it the ‘Biden Rule.’

          “But Biden, by then the vice president, blasted the GOP justification as ‘frankly ridiculous,’ saying that such a rule ‘doesn’t exist.’ ”

          Biden’s False And Exaggerated Supreme Court Claims FactCheck.org

          Like

        • FoodForThought says:

          Cool, that still doesn’t apply today seeing as we’re now just six weeks from election day – not months. Thank you for again confirming these claims of mutual hypocrisy are baseless.

          Like

        • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

          Major Lefties On The Record

          The Gotch

          Like

        • FoodForThought says:

          Haha, seriously bro there isn’t a single quote in that entire video that lays out a strict timeline for how quickly the confirmation process needs to happen. You keep further validating my claims. By contrast the many of the 2016 GOP said over and over there shouldn’t be any hearings or confirmation in an election year period.

          The title of the video in fact lies because not a single person in the video says the word “immediately”. And pretending that rushing this process through in 6 weeks is the same as the GOP stalling for 9 months is comical. The court had a vacancy for over a year as a result vs. a few months if they were to wait now until after the election or even the inauguration.
          Obama didn’t even nominate Garland until well over a month after Scalia passed away. Scalia died before Valentine’s Day – in 2020 terms that would be a over a month before COVID lockdowns, aka a long time ago.

          Like

        • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

          “there isn’t a single quote in that entire video that lays out a strict timeline for how quickly the confirmation process needs to happen.”

          Soooo, had this taken place two (2) more weeks earlier, making it a couple of monthS, you’d be A.O.K. with it?

          The Gotch calls Bull $#!t!

          The Gotch

          Like

        • FoodForThought says:

          I never laid out a strict timeline myself, but if this had happened in August it would potentially make Biden a hypocrite based on that quote you gave if he came out against a pre-election confirmation then (there’s a little wiggle room given that “a few months” is somewhat squishy). And none of the other Dems in that video set out any kind of hard timeline.

          As for me – I do, as you said you agreed with, absolutely think 9 months is way too long and that Garland should have gotten a hearing. If Ginsburg had passed away in February, or even in say July or early August I’d personally think it was fair game (though it would still make giant hypocrites of most of the GOP given they claimed the entirety of election years was off-limits).
          You can call B.S. all you want but I am a man of my word, often to a fault to the chagrin of my loved ones.

          I find it absolutely repulsive how these GOP senators are equivocating and somehow trying to reconcile the very hard lines they laid out four years ago vs. backing a hyper-fast tracked process now. The right constantly champions integrity only to have their leaders demonstrate it was all just a double standard.

          Believe me, I have no problem calling out hypocrisy from the left too, they espouse it in spades on any number of issues, but the right are the only ones embarrassing themselves here.

          Like

        • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

          Righty’s doing this because they can, and they’re on sound Constitutional ground.

          If you tell The Gotch that, given a similar set of circumstances, Lefty wouldn’t be doing the exact same thing, he’ll then know that you’d lie about other things as well.

          “the right are the only ones embarrassing themselves here.”

          Riiiiiight; by issuing violent ultimata like the Reza Aslan tweet If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire fucking thing down, “visiting” legislators’ homes, threatening to “pack” the court, etc., etc., etc.

          Wait a minute.

          That’s Lefty?

          Never mind.

          The Gotch

          Like

        • FoodForThought says:

          Reza Aslan? You know you don’t want to play that game and see the depths to which every GOP talking-head is or was saying on the opposite side. Let’s stick to the actual elected officials or candidates involved. I’ve stuck strictly to the statements of Senators or Obama/Biden in my comments.
          And I do firmly believe if Scalia had died six weeks before the 2012 election Obama/Reid would not have tried to ram through the nomination. But even then, it would have been far more forgivable given that he and Reid had no precedent of breaking precedent to play stalling tactics for 9 months in a previous cycle. I have never once doubted McConnell’s Constitutional ability to do what he’s attempting now, only the credibility of him and every other falsely righteous GOP Senator who goes along with these changing goalposts in direct contradiction to what they said four years ago. (And by extension those trying to defend it and falsely claim the current Dems are being equally hypocritical, when you still have yet to give a single example of a current elected Dem contradicting their 2016 statements.)

          Like

  13. madisonexpat says:

    The Constitution only says the President must have the advice and consent of the Senate. Any president can nominate anyone to replace a supreme anytime there is a vacancy on the court. If Mitch McConnell puts a nominee up for a senate vote that fulfills the constitutional requirements.

    Ruh ro, no posturing by Spartacus, no stupid grandstanding by Kamala, no senate judiciary committee circus. No chance to Kavanaugh the next nominee…..
    Let’s do it.

    Like

  14. Cornelius Gotchberg says:

    The notorious RBG, regarding SCOTUS nominations:

    There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year. THAT’S THEIR JOB.” (bolds/caps/italics mine)

    Imbecilic Lefties go berserk in 5…..4…..3…..

    The Gotch

    Like

    • richard lesiak says:

      Drumpf wasn’t president from day one. I would be more worried about RWG than RBG’s last wishes. Obama put up Garland because it was his job. The Turtle is the one who didn’t do his job and now the Goobers On Parade will pay the price. Tell women today that they will not be in control of their bodies any more, tell people that their healthcare will disappear. Sit back and watch what happens. The repucks will be running out of people to blame for the ass-kicking they are about to get.

      Like

  15. Cornelius Gotchberg says:

    It would be cute were it not so pathetic; poor RBG was so deluded that she, and idiotic Lefties, think there’s a Dying Wish clause in the Constitution of the United States of America.

    HINT: There’s Not!

    Anywho, anyone that can fog a mirror is unequivocally aware that Lefty struggles with anything remotely resembling critical thinking.

    Heck, they still earnestly believe Hillarity got robbed by the democratically conducted/Constitutionally sound election of Still Yer President; c’mon, how pitiable is that?

    The Gotch

    Like

    • You mean the popular vote loser who became President? The only thing you RWNJ’S haven’t figured out is that the country shuts down in 9 days because we are out of money. Nobody working; no voting in the Senate. You want a budget; talk to Nancy. Maybe she will give you a few bucks to stay open. Shut down the government, send everyone home and nothing moves including putting the Handmaiden on the SC.

      Like

    • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

      (N)o longer even worthy of a STFU.

      The Gotch

      Like

      • dad29 says:

        By the way……….let us not assume that the Judiciary committee will get a shot at the nominee. Cocaine Mitch can simply call for a vote of the full Senate.

        Boom!

        Like

  16. Cornelius Gotchberg says:

    Just read Lefty’s sexist comments about the eminently qualified Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

    Despicable Lefty’s True Colors of HATRED are clearly shown in bright, cleansing sunlight.

    The Gotch

    Like

  17. Batman says:

    Here is jabberin Joe on *The View* addressing his long standing proclivity for molesting females and those under the age of 12 in particular (even boys) and lefty freaks have the gall to make fun of The Orange Master.
    Begin at the 3:19sec. mark:

    Like

    • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

      You want gall?

      Howse about DementiaJoe, who wrote the 1994 OmniBus Crime Bill (which TRIPLED minority Mass Incarceration), essentially telling black voters (whom Lefty treats as chattel!) that, and The Gotch quotes: ”If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”

      Ah Lefty; so MUCH crushing arrogance, so little time!

      The Gotch

      Like

Comments are closed.