Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Granddaughter: Ginsburg Didn't Retire Under Obama Because She Wanted a Woman (Hillary) to Name Her Successor

submitted by [deleted] from (ace.mu.nu)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

oops

well mitch wouldn't have allowed a vote anyway lol, based.

[–]ReeferMadness 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

She would have retired earlier and there wouldn't be any of this "election year" propaganda to play with.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

I guess so. I was thinking with repubs having more than 50 votes in the senate, Obama would either have to put in a repub friendly conservative nominee, or repubs would just keep voting no on each nominee. But maybe Mitch knew the woman from alaska would support merrick garland or some others would or something. I think if he knew that even earlier and not during an election year he would just not allow a vote. Obama got to put in Sotomayor and Kagan. Sotomayor was in 2009 and Kagan in 2010 and the dems had a senate majority then. Repubs regained the senate majority in 2014. Obama tried to put in a new supreme court justice in 2016, Mitch said no. Ginsberg would have needed to retire before 2014.

[–]ReeferMadness 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

If the Republicans pulled half the shit Democrats did with Kavanaugh they would lose the majority.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Sometimes I think dems want to just show their bases they're trying to do something, so they do stuff they know will make no difference, like kavanaugh rape lies which only delayed his confirmation, or muh russia conspiracy theory which was to blame russia for winning when really it was because Obama was such a disappointment. You're right these kind of shenanginans end up hurting dems in elections but I also think they don't care that much about it. They get voted out of office yeah but they got their bribes and retire in luxury. Hillary lost but she is still rich. Back when Obama was president and in 2009 and 2010 dems briefly had a house majority and senate super majority, there was a lot of pressure on them to do something about healthcare, they gave us obama care which just mandated we give tons of money to private insurance, this was copied from romneycare. They also kept the wars and bailouts going. Reports got out Obama was trying to cut social security and only couldn't because repubs didn't support it which is funny. That huge sellout led to dems getting slaughtered in elections all over the country. So they lost the house in 2010 and lost senate seats each years till they did lose the majority there.

[–]ReeferMadness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I guarantee they care about losing 3 seats in the supreme court. The left has been using the judicial system to rewrite laws with corrupt judges. I doubt you could even find examples now because Google is corrupt and manipules results. You need to be a next level sleuth. But I distinctly remember reading stories about judicial activism and some absolutely shocking judicial decisions that directly contradicted the law. But this was like decades ago and I can't even remember what it was about.

But I definitely agree that most Dems don't believe their own propaganda. Their strategy for elections is simply to appeal to the poor with whatever bullshit they can sell. There are lots of examples of representatives on both sides writing legislation that has zero chance of passing and then voting against the same or similar proposals when put forward by someone else. They are all full of shit and the media is too corrupt to call them out.

Imagine if your local news station regularly covered what your representatives did rather than the fluff pieces they are always running.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'm sure they care but what can they do about it. The lesson here is you need 51 dems in the senate to get a supreme court justice approved. In order for dems to have that they need to win elections and when they have it, not lose elections. How can they do that, they keep selling out. Like you say they try to appeal to poor people but then when they're in office they do nothing to help poor people. And so we have trump and they attack him as if he is a literal nazi. Well it worked to get control of the house in 2018. But we're talking senate, a bit harder because they get 6 year terms so it takes longer to get enough there for a majority. No one is really talking about that right now probably because it is mathematically impossible for dems to retake the senate. Biden could be president and then a supreme court justice dies but he never gets to replace him or her for 4 years. They talk about packing the court with more than the 9 but can they even do that, would it need to get voted on in the senate, yeah, mitch would just say no. Back with FDR he talked about expanding it past 9, which the constitution does not say it has to be 9 so he could, because the supreme court was saying the New Deal was unconstitutional. FDR had a senate majority so it could have happened. But then the 9 on the court changed their mind so he didnt have to.

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Can we just have ranked choice already and be done with the two party system? It's the elephant in the room in this entire thread and especially this discussion.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Maybe some day but it's probably like this supreme court issue, it's a change that would need to be voted on first. And Mitch would say no. Even most dems would probably be against it because that would take power away from DNC. Rich donors would not donate to anyone that supports it.

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yep, it's saddening.