Limbaugh: Dems blundered by not having Ginsburg retire

[Snarknado]

Rush is saying Ginsburg will die in office, to be replaced by a GOP President and a GOP controlled Senate.

Garland was attempted to be named with a GOP-controlled Senate in command.

Right, which is exactly why it wasn't a "blunder". If they had her retire in 2016, she would have been replaced by a conservative after the election. They had nothing to lose by keeping her there as long as possible. In fact I believe keeping her in gave dems some favorable 4-4 non-decisions toward the end of 0bama's reign...

[Cyber Liberty]

Right, which is exactly why it wasn't a "blunder". If they had her retire in 2016, she would have been replaced by a conservative after the election. They had nothing to lose by keeping her there as long as possible. In fact I believe keeping her in gave dems some favorable 4-4 non-decisions toward the end of 0bama's reign...

You bet they did.  4-4 decisions affirm the loony decisions of the 6th and 9th Circuses.  That's the unspoken goal of the Rats in stopping ANY Justice from being confirmed.  They'd block Garland if the President were foolish enough to nominate him.

[Fishrrman]

Cyber wrote:
"For some strange reason there is this belief that the "balance of the court" needs to be maintained..."

Your durned tootin' !
"Balance" be damned !
I want NINE hard-right Constitutionalists on the Court.

And I don't give a *#$&*# about how loudly the leftist/democrat-communists wail or protest in the streets.

*#$#$# 'em!

[Cyber Liberty]

Cyber wrote:
"For some strange reason there is this belief that the "balance of the court" needs to be maintained..."

Your durned tootin' !
"Balance" be damned !
I want NINE hard-right Constitutionalists on the Court.

And I don't give a *#$&*# about how loudly the leftist/democrat-communists wail or protest in the streets.

*#$#$# 'em!

 

Gimme a bite of that keyboard....

[cato potatoe]

One thing to keep in mind, when striking deals: There is quite simply no way a Democrat will nominate any kind of moderate if Clarence Thomas retires.  The moment that happens, *poof* the court becomes a progressive dictatorship.

[Snarknado]

One thing to keep in mind, when striking deals: There is quite simply no way a Democrat will nominate any kind of moderate if Clarence Thomas retires.  The moment that happens, *poof* the court becomes a progressive dictatorship.

I've been wondering if Thomas has been giving any thought to retiring while he could be reasonably assured of a suitable replacement. Hopefully he has a lot of years left, but there's something to be said for going out on your own terms...

[aligncare]

Rush's comment makes no sense - 0bama couldn't get Garland through - why would anyone think a wacko of Ginsburg's caliber would have a chance?

Obama had the House and senate his first two years in office. That’s when Ginsburg should have dusted off her shuffle board set and headed out the door.

Face it democrats. The liberal Ruth “Buzzy” Ginsburg blew her shot at cementing her true liberal legacy.

[Snarknado]

Obama had the House and senate his first two years in office. That’s when Ginsburg should have dusted off her shuffle board set and headed out the door.

Face it democrats. The liberal Ruth “Buzzy” Ginsburg blew her shot at cementing her true liberal legacy.

True, they could have replaced her any time before the 2014 mid-terms, and I suppose you could call not doing so a "blunder". But at that time they had no reason to think Repubs would have the guts to block a replacement even if they took the Senate. It's quite possible that she did plan to retire before the end of 0bama's term but was thwarted by McConnell's unexpectedly tenacious stand on Garland...

[goatprairie]

Cyber wrote:
"For some strange reason there is this belief that the "balance of the court" needs to be maintained..."

Your durned tootin' !
"Balance" be damned !
I want NINE hard-right Constitutionalists on the Court.

And I don't give a *#$&*# about how loudly the leftist/democrat-communists wail or protest in the streets.

*#$#$# 'em!

I'd try to find the most conservative justice possible. The libs can take a aeronautical sexual act at a rolling donut as far as I'm concerned. 
Obama nominated two far left cretins in Kagan and Soto-Mayor.  They're now making screwy, lawless leftist/fascist decisions.     Dems can shove "balance" up their hindquarters.

[Fishrrman]

Snarknado wrote:
"I've been wondering if Thomas has been giving any thought to retiring while he could be reasonably assured of a suitable replacement."

Justice Thomas is not going to "hang on until he dies" like Ginsburg.

I predict that he'll retire at the end of the 2019 term, almost certainly if the Pubbies pick up Senate seats in November (which they should).

I sense that (like Kennedy did before him) he'll also have a "pre-retirment meeting" with Mr. Trump and request that the most conservative/Constitutionalist replacement possible take his place.

I also predict that Mr. Trump will grant his request.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Pure conjecture at this point.  It's only a blunder if she dies, and Trump nominates a moderate.  (He will not replace her with a constitutionalist over the objections of Scylla and Charybdis.)  Her plan is to outlive this administration and be succeeded by a female 42 year old Pete Rose lookalike.

Considering the fire breathing screeds he's launched against the Rats at his rallies, I'd be floored if he nominated Anyone but a Constitutionalist to replace old Buzzy GB.