Ruth Bader Ginsberg

I thought that she deserves a thread of her own seeing as how we cant really drag our tribute thread off topic too much.First, here is what was expressed there: Thanks Percy. This was in the news also:

quote:

---

WASHINGTON Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, just days before her death on Friday, shared her last wish: that her replacement to the highest court in the land be picked by a president other than Donald Trump.

​

"My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed," Ginsburg said in a statement dictated to her granddaughter, Clara Spera, according to NPR.

​

Ginsburg, who was 87 and died due to complications from cancer, had said during Trump's time in office that she planned to not retire until she reached 90 years old, as many on the left worried about her health.

---

If anyone on the Right has any heart, they would honor her dying wish. *perks up when Employer Rights is mentioned...*Edited by Phat, : punctuationEdited by Phat, : No reason given.

Article II of the US constitution: "...and he[the President] shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, ...That is all the constitution says about appointing Supreme Court judges. There is nothing relating to timing of the nomination/confirmation. Any change to this article would require a constitutional amendment, i. e., ratification by 2/3 vote of house of reps and senate and ratification by 3/4 of states. Not bloody likely given current attitudes of the various parties.However, congress has the constitutional authority to establish the number of judges on the SC, and has done so in the past. I think the Democrats need to be very cautious about making any such radical changes, such as packing the court with 15 judges, if they should win the presidency and congress. Long term consequences are always surprising and usually undesirable. But it might be an effective threat (which may backfire!).

There is other factors involved too. Several republicans said they won't vote on any replacement until after the eleciton, and a couple said they won't vote on it i n a lame duck session. If you can't get the 50 votes (plus pence), it won't happen. Next, there are a number of legal delaying tactics that could be put into place.. so, I really doubt that action will be taken at least until after the election.

I am not aware of any legal angles in this. No court has jurisdiction over Senate functions and the courts cannot stop the president from making nomination. Since the question strictly and only rests with the Senate and the president I don't see any other players having a role.You thinking of something sneaky?

Absolutely. For one, if a president is under impeachment, their nominiations are put on hold.

That would be sneaky. But, do you have Constitutional chapter and verse on this?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Despite not being a lawyer nor ever a law student, the same thought still keeps coming back to me: Give that Metamusil-colored POS a taste of his own medicine. File a flurry of lawsuits despite their lack of merit. The courts will have to decide that they do lack merit or that nobody has standing. But that would eat up time, delaying the entire process until we're into the new presidency. We only need to delay them for 120 days.

How would that delay anything? The Senate's rules are theirs. They don't have to stop functioning because of a bunch of lawsuits. And the courts cannot issue any restraining order that the Senate is required or bound to honor.Remember, we are dealing with a co-equal branch of government. The courts have NO jurisdiction over the Senate's rules or operations. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

AIG writes: So how could McTurdle block the Merrick Garland nomination?

Tell that to Metamucil Lad and his army of lawyers. In the Time of Trump, there is no such thing as the Constitution nor any silly talk about "co-equal branch of government." No rules, no laws, no norms. It's whatever you can get away with as you keep delaying the adults' ability to do their work. Deflect and delay, delay, delay.As evidence, I submit Trump's use of frivolous lawsuits to delay the subpoenas issued by Congress ... you know that "co-equal branch of government" you're talking about. When those frivolous lawsuits are decided against, his Army of Fallacious Claims then appeal that decision, get struck down and so appeal it up higher all the way to the US Supreme Court. And when that court also decides against them and sends it back down to the original court, Metamucil Lad's Army then just starts the same cycle all over again by making the same specious claims ready to appeal all the way back up to the US Supreme Court. Wasting months and even years during which Congress (Remember them? That "co-equal branch of government" in a world where the Constitution is meaningless) still cannot do its job investigating Trump. Delay delay delay. Of course not! But if you file lawsuits claiming that it does, then the courts have to process those lawsuits and come down with the obvious decision. That would take months to work through the system. All we need are four months (120 days) until Inauguration Day. 
Of course, suing the shit out of them is my own emotional reaction to all the anti-American, anti-Constitution crap that the Trump has been pulling and the GOP has been enabling.While such lawsuits may not be THE tactic to use, they do point to what must be done. Delay, delay, delay! Do everything we possibly can to delay McConnell's hypocritical sodomizing of America until a new President, a legitimate President, is in the office.Most of that will have to be done internally in the Senate using its rules and procedures to delay this travesty.

The Republicans "were" the Senate, just like now. In the Garland nomination they were well within their rights to do nothing until Trump was in office.The Republicans are "still" the Senate and it is well within their rights to confirm as quickly or slowly as they damn well please and no court or other body has any right to interfere with their decisions.

And during all this lawsuit flinging the House continued its investigations. That chamber of the co-equal branch continued its work regardless and the courts, as expected, refused to become involved telling the parties to negotiate a solution.The lawsuits were the president's answer to the House's subpoenas just as the House's lawsuits sought to enforce them. The courts bowed out. The lawsuits delayed nothing. No, they do not. They are of the habit, as seen in history, to say "go figure it out yourselves" while taking their damn sweet time "studying the issue" just as they did during the recent impeachment hearings. With the actions done the lawsuits were moot and no rulings were issued.Lawsuits seeking to bar the president from making a nomination or seeking to keep the Senate from voting to confirm will delay nothing. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

It is highly unlikely that RBG could be replaced before the election on account that it would go down as a lame duck session

"Lame duck session" means nothing. It is a social construct without any Constitutional meaning or affect. The Senate can meet and conduct business all it wants until noon January 3rd when the Constitution requires the next elected congress be seated. There are no bars to its legal actions during any part of its legal session whether before or after the election.Confirming before or after the election means nothing since lame duck means nothing. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Its a long process to include lengthy confirmation hearings. Yes, its theoretically possible to ram it through but I'm sure the Democrats are smart enough to know how to stonewall it. As Pelosi stated, they have arrows in their quiver