Limbaugh: Dems blundered by not having Ginsburg retire

[rangerrebew]

Limbaugh: Dems blundered by not having Ginsburg retire
'This is how bright they are'
Published: 13 hours ago

 

The Democrats committed a huge blunder by not having Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg retire while Barack Obama was president so her “liberal” seat could be filled by a younger liberal for years ago come.

One reason?

There’s no obligation on the part of a president to replace a “liberal” justice with another “liberal.”

Rush Limbaugh on Tuesday pointed out that the “left” now is counting on the personal trainer and the workout routine of Ginsburg to keep her healthy enough to be on the bench until Trump is out of office.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2018/07/limbaugh-dems-made-critical-error-under-obama/#oFUYR4CMXf26F6WP.99

[goatprairie]

I told my wife the same thing last week....the Dems should have told Kennedy and Ginsburg to flake off during Obama's reign. Now they're in a pickle.  It will be difficult for Ginsburg to make it through Trump's term(s), and undoubtedly Trump will appoint another conservative if given the chance.
So the Dems should be castigating themselves rather than Trump for doing what any president does.
But it's not like I'm shedding a lot of tears over the Dems' predicament.   
Here's my sympathetic message to liberals.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Nobody has any leverage to force her to retire if she doesn't want to.  I recall reading lots of stuff from Democrats/progressives urging her to retire, and she just didn't.  So the truth is that if there is any blunder...it's on her, not on Democrat in general.

[Jazzhead]

Nobody has any leverage to force her to retire if she doesn't want to.  I recall reading lots of stuff from Democrats/progressives urging her to retire, and she just didn't.  So the truth is that if there is any blunder...it's on her, not on Democrat in general.

True.  If Ginsburg the partisan was concerned about her legacy, she should have retired under the last Democrat.  Of course, it's reasonable to assume that, like so many others, she expected Hillary to be President today.   Now she's gotta hang on, through dementia and physical degradation, for another eight years.   

[Snarknado]

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?

[cato potatoe]

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.

[Jazzhead]

Maybe Trump should strike a deal: (i) permit Kavanaugh to be confirmed, and (ii) allow RBG to resign, in which case Trump will nominate Garland as her replacement.

Garland is not a Federalist Society type, but neither is he RBG.  He's actually a fairly moderate jurist who is perfectly qualified for the Court if one takes off one's ideological goggles for a moment.   As much as the right was apoplectic at its lion Scalia being replaced by a liberal,  so would the left be (with equivalent justification) apoplectic at RBG being replaced by a Federalist Society type.

I know that compromise for the good of comity is not in the vocabulary of most here,  but in reality a Court with both Kavanaugh and Garland on it (and no RBG!) would be a distinct improvement.   

[Snarknado]

Maybe Trump should strike a deal: (i) permit Kavanaugh to be confirmed, and (ii) allow RBG to resign, in which case Trump will nominate Garland as her replacement.

Garland is not a Federalist Society type, but neither is he RBG.  He's actually a fairly moderate jurist who is perfectly qualified for the Court if one takes off one's ideological goggles for a moment.   As much as the right was apoplectic at its lion Scalia being replaced by a liberal,  so would the left be (with equivalent justification) apoplectic at RBG being replaced by a Federalist Society type.

I know that compromise for the good of comity is not in the vocabulary of most here,  but in reality a Court with both Kavanaugh and Garland on it (and no RBG!) would be a distinct improvement.

If it came down to needing a deal to confirm Kavanaugh, that might be worth considering, but I don't think it will come to that. It's not really a compromise unless you get something in return. And our track record with so-called "moderate" appointments is not a pretty sight.

Worst case is losing the Senate, but even then there wouldn't be any great urgency to replace Ginsburg, and Trump for example could try to find a genuine "moderate", or at least someone older who wouldn't lock down the seat for another generation...

[Cyber Liberty]

The Rats have used every opportunity that came their way to politicize the SCOTUS and push it to the Left.  I see no reason for any Republican President to allow that to become a ratchet.  No, President Trump needs to take every opportunity to shift the court back to where it belongs.

Screw the Rats, they'd do the same if the situation was reversed.  Elections have consequences.

[Snarknado]

The Rats have used every opportunity that came their way to politicize the SCOTUS and push it to the Left.  I see no reason for any Republican President to allow that to become a ratchet.  No, President Trump needs to take every opportunity to shift the court back to where it belongs.

Screw the Rats, they'd do the same if the situation was reversed.  Elections have consequences.

The whole situation is all the more gratifying when you consider that the dems were slavering at the prospect of a generation-long liberal stranglehold on SCOTUS. Whatever else anyone might think about Trump, if nothing else his election has already averted that nightmarish scenario for the foreseeable future, and with a bit of luck, for decades to come...

[jpsb]

Maybe Trump should strike a deal: (i) permit Kavanaugh to be confirmed, and (ii) allow RBG to resign, in which case Trump will nominate Garland as her replacement.

Garland is not a Federalist Society type, but neither is he RBG.  He's actually a fairly moderate jurist who is perfectly qualified for the Court if one takes off one's ideological goggles for a moment.   As much as the right was apoplectic at its lion Scalia being replaced by a liberal,  so would the left be (with equivalent justification) apoplectic at RBG being replaced by a Federalist Society type.

I know that compromise for the good of comity is not in the vocabulary of most here,  but in reality a Court with both Kavanaugh and Garland on it (and no RBG!) would be a distinct improvement.

Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed so there is no need to make a deal. That said, I'd trade RBG for Garland in a New York second.

[TomSea]

The Senate surely had the numbers to block Merrick Garland under Obama, why give in and allow someone like this now? Repubs may well be in the WH for the next 16 years.  Yeah, let's wave the white flag now. Let's not compromise with evil, the American left and Democratic party. Sheeesh!

[Fishrrman]

Amy Coney Barrett will be Ginsburg's "replacement", when the time comes.

Unless Sotomayor retires first (for health reasons)...

[Jazzhead]

Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed so there is no need to make a deal. That said, I'd trade RBG for Garland in a New York second.

But that's the point.  The deal gets rid of RBG.

I think it is well worth doing, partly because Garland is well qualified, temperate and moderate,  partly because he is 65 and won't hold the seat too long, and partly because a bit of political healing could do the nation some good.   

[Cyber Liberty]

But that's the point.  The deal gets rid of RBG.

I think it is well worth doing, partly because Garland is well qualified, temperate and moderate,  partly because he is 65 and won't hold the seat too long, and partly because a bit of political healing could do the nation some good.

No.  No deals. We get screwed every time we make a deal with the demonic Dems.  They don't need to be dealt with, they need to be defeated, as Rush would say.

[Snarknado]

But that's the point.  The deal gets rid of RBG.

I think it is well worth doing, partly because Garland is well qualified, temperate and moderate,  partly because he is 65 and won't hold the seat too long, and partly because a bit of political healing could do the nation some good.

I still don't see the point. Garland might change a 5-4 decision to 6-3 once or twice a term, but the idea of him ever casting a deciding vote on the right side is laughable. OTOH, 10 years in, he could be casting the wrong deciding vote every day of the week.

At the moment odds are that RBG will finish her term before she gets a chance to do much damage, and I like that chance a lot better than banking on 10 or 15 or 20 years of Garland.

And is "political healing" really how the dems would see it? Or as a crushing victory that would only strengthen their resolve to destroy Trump in any way possible?

[Cyber Liberty]

I still don't see the point. Garland might change a 5-4 decision to 6-3 once or twice a term, but the idea of him ever casting a deciding vote on the right side is laughable. OTOH, 10 years in, he could be casting the wrong deciding vote every day of the week.

At the moment odds are that RBG will finish her term before she gets a chance to do much damage, and I like that chance a lot better than banking on 10 or 15 or 20 years of Garland.

And is "political healing" really how the dems would see it? Or as a crushing victory that would only strengthen their resolve to destroy Trump in any way possible?

For some strange reason there is this belief that the "balance of the court" needs to be maintained.  That's BS, and the Rats never followed this "principle."  Elections have consequences.  President Trump would be defying the will of the people if he named Garland to the SCOTUS.

[Axeslinger]

No.  No deals. We get screwed every time we make a deal with the demonic Dems.  They don't need to be dealt with, they need to be defeated, as Rush would say.

@Cyber Liberty

What?   You don’t want to take TBRs resident liberal-cum-concern troll recommendation on  who to put on SCOTUS?  Why, what incredible  sanctimony!   

ANYTHING...and I repeat ANYTHING that @Jazzhead suggests that conservatives should do...it’s a really safe bet that we should do the exact opposite.

[truth_seeker]

I can't find the single and only definition of "conservative"

Reagan implemented "Amnesty" in 1986 and Goldwater failed to hate homosexuals enough to suit current opinions. (Chances are strong, that Reagan also failed in this area)

Ironically for this site, Trump comes the most close to "conservative" as judged by the positions favored by most "conservatives" during the post Reagan era.

[Axeslinger]

I can't find the single and only definition of "conservative"

Reagan implemented "Amnesty" in 1986 and Goldwater failed to hate homosexuals enough to suit current opinions. (Chances are strong, that Reagan also failed in this area)

Ironically for this site, Trump comes the most close to "conservative" as judged by the positions favored by most "conservatives" during the post Reagan era.

@truth_seeker
All very true (and that’s said as one who thinks of himself as a NT)...but when TBR’s version of He Who Must Not Be Named advocates for gun control, abortion, Gov run healthcare and now the confirmation of Garland...yeah I gotta call bullshit on his conservative bona fides.

[Cyber Liberty]

@truth_seeker
All very true (and that’s said as one who thinks of himself as a NT)...but when TBR’s version of He Who Must Not Be Named advocates for gun control, abortion, Gov run healthcare and now the confirmation of Garland...yeah I gotta call bullshit on his conservative bona fides.

You forgot gay rights.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I told my wife the same thing last week....the Dems should have told Kennedy and Ginsburg to flake off during Obama's reign. Now they're in a pickle.  It will be difficult for Ginsburg to make it through Trump's term(s), and undoubtedly Trump will appoint another conservative if given the chance.
So the Dems should be castigating themselves rather than Trump for doing what any president does.
But it's not like I'm shedding a lot of tears over the Dems' predicament.   
Here's my sympathetic message to liberals.   

That will be the mother of all nomination fights.  What is going on now with Kennedy's seat  is nothing in comparison.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

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?

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.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Maybe Trump should strike a deal: (i) permit Kavanaugh to be confirmed, and (ii) allow RBG to resign, in which case Trump will nominate Garland as her replacement.

Garland is not a Federalist Society type, but neither is he RBG.  He's actually a fairly moderate jurist who is perfectly qualified for the Court if one takes off one's ideological goggles for a moment.   As much as the right was apoplectic at its lion Scalia being replaced by a liberal,  so would the left be (with equivalent justification) apoplectic at RBG being replaced by a Federalist Society type.

I know that compromise for the good of comity is not in the vocabulary of most here,  but in reality a Court with both Kavanaugh and Garland on it (and no RBG!) would be a distinct improvement.

Absolutely, positively not what should be done.

Only those lacking power or resolve would ever consider that.

Think about Clarence Thomas.  The 'Black Seat' in SCOTUS went from one of the most progressive judges to ever occupy the seat to one of the most conservative judges.

I thank God we were blessed with such an individual.  It is the crowning achievement of GHW Bush's tenure in power.

We should insist on nothing less if given the opportunity.

[Cyber Liberty]

Absolutely, positively not what should be done.

Only those lacking power or resolve would ever consider that.

Think about Clarence Thomas.  The 'Black Seat' in SCOTUS went from one of the most progressive judges to ever occupy the seat to one of the most conservative judges.

I thank God we were blessed with such an individual.  It is the crowning achievement of GHW Bush's tenure in power.

We should insist on nothing less if given the opportunity.

Perzackly.  If Trump were to do something as stupid as nominating Garland, he will have taken away the main reason a lot of us voted for him:  Judicial appointments.

It takes a leftist trying to salvage the tatters of the Obastard legacy to suggest it.