Ruth Bader Ginsburg hospitalized for possible infection

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

RBG should have retired in 2013 or 2014.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Jfc.

It is maybe in bad taste to ask, but what is the latest possible date “something could happen” that would give the GOP adequate time to confirm a new justice before everything changes over in January?

According to the Senate's legislative calendar for the rest of the year, they'll only be in session for a total of 24 days between Election Day & the swearing-in of the new Senate on January 3rd, because a lot of that in-between time is spent on recess (with the Senators going back home) for the Thanksgiving & Christmas holiday seasons.

Now, for a little bit of scale, the Kavanaugh nomination (pre-scandal) was expected to take a total of 90 days between Kennedy's retirement announcement & Kavanaugh's confirmation; before that, the Gorsuch nomination took 66 days between nomination & confirmation, & back in 2010 & 2009, the Kagan/Sotomayor nominations took 118 & 98 days, respectively, between their predecessors' retirements & their confirmations.

Given all of this information & understanding just how long the nitty-gritty of a Supreme Court nomination generally takes (e.g., shortening the long-list of potential nominees, vetting, background checks, interviews; & then, once a nominee is picked, meeting with Senators, committee hearings & all of the preparation (including those long ass-questionnaires) that entails, committee debate & voting, Senate debate & - finally - voting, & none of that even takes into consideration the possibility of a scandal arising), I'd be confident in saying that if we don't see a Justice announce their retirement &/or pass away by mid-October at the latest, then I'd have to presume that the Senate which takes office on January 3rd & the President inaugurated on January 20th will be the ones whom this potential nomination comes down to, for reasons of logistical efficiency if nothing else.

Of course, this assumes that the current Senate would still feel a need to do its due diligence & actually hold committee hearings & a debate & a roll-call vote. But if it looks like the writing's on the wall that the public wouldn't stand for that, then it's safe to presume that skipping all of that would be unlikely to happen.

Trump & Republicans already know who they want to replace RBG with and that person is Amy Coney Barrett.

Mitch would move expeditiously to hold a vote on Barrett, if "something were to happen" to RBG before November.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Ginsburg didnt retire in 2014, when Obama had the Senate, due to the fact, she expected Hilary to be elected as Prez. That's what Bill Clinton told Ginsburg

She miscalculated . Also, she expected Kennedy to retire and it would have been 6 to 3 Liberal than reversed

90-95% of problems Dems have had over the past 30 years can be directly attributed to Bill and Hillary Clinton. They are such a massive metastatic cancer.

LOL

Single dumbest thing I’ve ever read on this site, which is really saying something.

Bill Clinton saved the Democratic Party. Three elections in a row, Dems not only lost but were slaughtered in landslides. The party was on the verge of oblivion at the presidential level. Bill broke through and won, won big, and became a great and popular president in his own right. How the hell could he have possibly predicted a Supreme Court justice he nominated would get cancer and not retire early enough decades later, under the first black president but before Donald Trump became president? The things people blame the Clintons for are ridiculous. It’s like “Thanks, Obama” times 1000.

Only on the presidential level. On the congressional level Democrats were destroyed and since his presidency we have only held the house for 5 years, (2007-2011,2019-)

That's mostly due to the rise in polarization in America and also the cultural shift in America after the Civil Rights Movement.

The Republican Party became the solidly "social conservative" party. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party became the solidly "social liberal" party. Before the 1980/1990s, both parties were more ideologically varied.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Ginsburg didnt retire in 2014, when Obama had the Senate, due to the fact, she expected Hilary to be elected as Prez. That's what Bill Clinton told Ginsburg

She miscalculated . Also, she expected Kennedy to retire and it would have been 6 to 3 Liberal than reversed

90-95% of problems Dems have had over the past 30 years can be directly attributed to Bill and Hillary Clinton. They are such a massive metastatic cancer.

LOL

Single dumbest thing I’ve ever read on this site, which is really saying something.

Bill Clinton saved the Democratic Party. Three elections in a row, Dems not only lost but were slaughtered in landslides. The party was on the verge of oblivion at the presidential level. Bill broke through and won, won big, and became a great and popular president in his own right. How the hell could he have possibly predicted a Supreme Court justice he nominated would get cancer and not retire early enough decades later, under the first black president but before Donald Trump became president? The things people blame the Clintons for are ridiculous. It’s like “Thanks, Obama” times 1000.

I mean, he isn't wrong in that a lot of things that Bill did to win have been biting us in the ass since Obama's second term.

Since before then, actually (see: deregulation in the banking sector). While his presidency made lots of good reforms, some of the nastiest trends the Dems have faced (especially within WWC communities) since the Clinton presidency began or accelerated as a result of the destruction of unions and massive growth in wealth inequality he presided over. Moreover, not all of the errors Clinton made in government were things he did to win: he campaigned as a NAFTAskeptic, but rolled over on labour protections once in office. That it took a Republican president to make minimal improvements on this front should be embarrassing. In 1996, with his reelection looking likely anyway, Clinton enacted punitive Republican welfare measures that crushed some of the poorest.

People blaming "polarisation" and "cultural shift" need to recognise that these things do not happen independent of governance. Even ignoring the effects of his policies, Bill Clinton's naked corruption empowered the Christian right and damaged the image of the party long after he'd left office. If Ghislaine Maxwell actually talks, I hope no elected official tries to protect him from a thorough and fair investigation, but there'll probably be at least a couple arrogant enough to come to his defence. That will also hurt the Democratic Party.

You could have just stated my username lol.

Anyways, I didn't say anything about Clinton's impact on the Democratic Party. I was just addressing a specific point independent of that.