Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed

JerryBobCo

This is just now being reported on Fox News.  The news alert is giving background on her life.  I don't know if anything has been posted on any network sites.

I didn't agree with her politics, but may she rest in peace.

bullsi1911

Things are REALLY going to get sporty now

knitepoet

Not sure posting my actual thoughts would be appropriate, so I'll not say anything. 
A song from a 1939 movie comes to mind though

Diver43

Even if I did not agree, she was entitled to her own thoughts on politics.  
She did do a lot for woman
RIP

Justsomedude

I wonder who the liberal media will crucify come SC Justice time.

DrawbarFlats

I'm not going to type warm and fuzzy Stockholm Syndrome sentiments and I will not sugar-coat her passing. Death occurs to us all. I could give two squats about her life. She was an anti-American leftist who ruled in favor of every piece of constitutional destruction during her tenure. I hope she rots in Hell. Good riddance. My concern is this: Will President Trump be able, in short time, be able to nominate a worthy Justice who will defend our Constitution and Liberty as originally intended by our Founders? 

GunNut

bullsi1911 said:

Things are REALLY going to get sporty now

Yep...

GunNut

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,” Schumer, D-N.Y., tweeted Friday. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

And so it begins...

Some_Mook

Trump should nominate Merrick Garland.  It would be worth it just to see the looks on the Democrats faces.  😇

Garland would be nowhere near the utter disappointment Roberts turned out to be.

Linefinder

GunNut said:

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,” Schumer, D-N.Y., tweeted Friday. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

And so it begins...

Exactly. Saw this coming 6 months ago.

Mike

zorba

Let's hope for a new justice who is conservative when they need to be, but NOT when they do not need to be. The Left is going to foam at the mouth regardless!

It ain't gonna be pretty...

DrawbarFlats

DrawbarFlats

Some_Mook said:

Trump should nominate Merrick Garland.  It would be worth it just to see the looks on the Democrats faces.  😇

Garland would be nowhere near the utter disappointment Roberts turned out to be.

I could go with that. Another good one on Trump's list is Mike Lee, Utah U.S. Senator. Not sure if he would accept though.  

RugerFan

McConnell has already said that the Senate will vote on a nominee.

I figure he and Trump have had someone vetted and ready to nominate for several months now.

Linefinder

Just a guess on my part. The nominee will be a female and person of color. Nothing wrong with that, except that this will likely be the sole criteria prior to further consideration for admission to the Hunger Games.

Mike

zorba

Let the Left-led riots begin!

Linefinder

zorba said:

Let the Left-led riots begin!

Unfortunately, I think you are right.

Mike

orchidman

zorba said:

Let the Left-led riots continue!

FIFY

You are welcome........

GunNut

That's cool because the left has not figured out that by defunding the police they have taken out of the game the ONLY folks that could protect them.  "People" that don't understand history seem to forget OR have never learned that historically police were "invented" to keep the rule of law.  Before that towns would just hang/shoot miscreants...

Bigslug

GunNut said:

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,” Schumer, D-N.Y., tweeted Friday. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

And so it begins...

Well Chuckie. . .not wanting your gal Hillary to be the one appointing SCOTUS judges was THE prime motivator for a lot of us in the 2016 election, so Trump can EASILY say he got his mandate 4 years ago when it came to replacing Scalia.

Bigslug

RugerFan said:

McConnell has already said that the Senate will vote on a nominee.

I figure he and Trump have had someone vetted and ready to nominate for several months now.

Given the hyper-partisan shenanigans the Dems put forth with Kavanaugh, I tend to think this is right, proper.  It might even be a good political tactic.

At any rate, I bet Chris Wallace is furiously re-writing he debate questions right now.

RugerFan

Linefinder said:

Just a guess on my part. The nominee will be a female and person of color. Nothing wrong with that, except that this will likely be the sole criteria prior to further consideration for admission to the Hunger Games.

Mike

I really don't know anything about her politics, but it might be interesting to see  how democrats go after Condi Rice. 

No idea if she's an attorney. But, IIRC, the Constitution does not list ANY qualifications to be a SC justice.

earlyagain

You guys know how this will play out. Maybe a nomination can be rammed through, but why? Vote right/left if you want the court correctly seeded. Its election bait for both parties. No ones going to consult any of us. Tune in for the next exciting episode.....

As far as defunding the police. So far its just more hot button rhetorical noise. The citizens of one of our cities here already found out what the results are of ham stringing the PD. First they demanded less policing. They got it. Then they complained about it when it came home. Its a good indicator of how this stuff will go.

Diver43

Sure just what we need, another liberal on the Supreme Court.  

earlyagain

Maybe not. 50/50 odds.
The process will be filled with drama for everyones viewing pleasure either way.

GunNut

Regardless of the narrative, a Senate of the opposing party is voted in to stop a lame president from doing more stupid stuff, and a senate of the same party is voted in to help one the people support.  Period!  

What happens with this judge’s nomination and confirmation will not change votes.  I believe those lines are hard cast already BUT any concessions to the other side will only serve to feed the anti trump old rhetoric of him being some sort of closet liberal and hurt Mitch.

Make_My_Day

knitepoet said:

Not sure posting my actual thoughts would be appropriate, so I'll not say anything. 
A song from a 1939 movie comes to mind though

It took me a bit of time to find this, but:  "The Munchkins Parade," "Ding (D)ong The Witch is Dead," Wizard of Oz!

X104RFAST

The whole of Washington DC will need a good pressure washing when this is over. Buckle up 

Gene L

She was what she was.  I didn't agree with her, but she wasn't the only SCOTUS Justice I disagree with.  What's surprising is the amount of hatred coming out against her.  It demonstrates why such emotions have no place in politics.  Disagreement and opposition, yes.  Pure hatred, no.  Such displays of hate tell more about the hater than they do about the subject of hatred.  Especially, but not limited to statements of pure hate not qualified by reason.  It illustrates a sort of activity displayed by the Antifa movement and is not flattering.  I'm surprised and discouraged to see it here.  I find it disqualifying on other opinions here or elsewhere.  I have a very low tolerance for hate.

DrawbarFlats

Gene L said:

She was what she was.  I didn't agree with her, but she wasn't the only SCOTUS Justice I disagree with.  What's surprising is the amount of hatred coming out against her.  It demonstrates why such emotions have no place in politics.  Disagreement and opposition, yes.  Pure hatred, no.  Such displays of hate tell more about the hater than they do about the subject of hatred.  Especially, but not limited to statements of pure hate not qualified by reason.  It illustrates a sort of activity displayed by the Antifa movement and is not flattering.  I'm surprised and discouraged to see it here.  I find it disqualifying on other opinions here or elsewhere.  I have a very low tolerance for hate.

Do I hate those who are openly trying to destroy our nation? Yes, I do. I hate them with every ounce of my being. As far as some here paralleling Antifa? Nonsense. 

ETA: As far as having disagreements in politics i.e., commerce, trade, economics, military strength, budgets, community planning etc., that is healthy, it's what makes our nation what it is, or at least what it is/was supposed to be, and, for a time, the two parties were defined over those differences. However, today we're seeing the Marxist/Maoist movement gain more and more strength. We have some politicians who are openly embracing and encouraging communist insurrection in many cities. Some are openly embracing that ideology with the "de-funding" of law enforcement and are literally turning their backs on general rule of law while their law abiding constituents get looted, robbed, murdered, and beaten by these thugs. Do you think those people have any love or compassion for you or any other freedom loving person? This nation is falling apart at the seams so yes, I have hatred for those who support it.

Gene L

Sorry, but you've lost any credibility you had.  Your speech is as like KKK (basically, the same argument of destroying our nation) or any other radical group.  You've adopted an extreme interpretation of RBG's life and work.  She simply had a different opinion from mine, she wasn't an enemy of America.  It's hate speech, plain and simple.  Wish you weren't such a hateful person, but that's up to you.