How about THAT for fair and impartial?
Posted on 02/14/2014 1:23:33 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Commanding dissent? Sane people regarded it as "confounded dissembling."
I think their worries are more immediate. A SC justice has to be confirmed by the Senate, so they're thinking Ginsberg's replacement should happen before they lose the majority.
If they have to rely on Senate Republicans their candidate can't be the kind of hardcore lib they'd like to see in SCOTUS.
If they were certain they'd retain the Senate, Ginsberg could remain until 2016, right?
exactly what I was thinking.
We could win EVERY Senate seat up for grabs and they STILL would rubber stamp ANY nominee of Obama’s to the supreme court.
How about THAT for fair and impartial?
Not really, the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment (which is the crux of the argument here) and the Congress is basically a lifetime appointment as long as they keep getting re-elected. John Dingel being a classic example: 87 years old and in office for 58 F'n years...........
I really don’t understand Ginsberg on this. She doesn’t trust Obastard, but why?
” and in the process undo much of what they’ve worked for their entire careers”.
So much for judging each case by the merits and defined law.
She may have the vestige of a conscience lurking somewhere.
I really doubt that.
I at least appreciate the writer’s candor here. If Ginsburg does retire, it’ll be a clear indication to me that they think they could lose in 2016.
The Guardian is infested with Leninists and Trotskyites who stick icepicks in their heads in order to stimulate their pseudopods to reach for their paper cups filled with absinthe.
The truth of the matter is most likely that she wants her seat to remain a “Jewish” seat on the court at all costs. She knows that Obama despises Jews, so he would do something outrageous, like appoint some low level Muslim traffic court judge to the court.
Which he would, and Harry Reid would ram through.
If she can hold out until there is a Republican POTUS, the worst that could be appointed is a justice who would still be tolerant of Jews. Of course, if it is another president Bush, he will likely appoint some scoundrel like Karl Rove.
This would not be a good political move at all. His confirmation hearing would be a complete replay of every Obama scandal with a lot of details that the low-information voters ignored the first time. With polls showing the voters becoming increasingly skeptical and hostile to Obama, the last thing the Democrats need would be these hearings. I doubt they would run that risk.
—— I doubt they would run that risk-——
You are probably right, but........ You assume there would be hearings.
By ending the rules in the Senate, there may be no hearings. Harry Reid just calls a vote.......zap it’s done
No fuss, no muss.
With something this controversial, if Reid pulled a stunt like that even the compliant RINOs would have a fit. Obama and the progressives like Reid would want Holder but this isn't a hill that all Democrats would be willing to die for. The optimist in me holds out hope that there is a Democrat or two out there with ethics but the ones running for re-election are pragmatic enough to know that they would not want to defend this.
I agree but....... so what? He has the power and it is now or never
I didn’t think he would engage the nuclear option. He Did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.