2020.09.18 RIP RBG
I don't wish harm on anyone, but for jurisprudence reasons, I'm glad that RBG passed. She might have been a nice person, but there are lots of nice people that shouldn’t be on the Supreme Court. She was on the wrong side of virtually all the worst rulings during her tenure. Her selfish nature was demonstrated by not stepping down during Obama, but holding out expecting a Hillary win. And her divisiveness was displayed if her final wishes were as NPR reported that we should ignore the Constitutional power granted to the Senate, and hold out until after the election to appoint a replacement for her. The nation has the chance to become a much better place (as far as jurisprudence/lawfulness) with her no longer on the court. It would be great if they could replace her quickly with someone who actually values the Constitution as written, instead of as rewritten by the far-left's imagination.
According to NPR, Ginsburg made the following statement to her granddaughter, Clara Spera, shortly before she died: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."
If true, it shows what a petty and hyper-political justice she was. I choose not to believe it, because it only makes me feel less for RBG, that her last act (like her most memorable ones on the court) was putting petty politics above the Constitution -- and wishing that the law of the land was ignored, for the sake of her political biases.
Now, I don't think she said it -- I think others attributed it to her because of their political bias. Because if that was really her last thoughts, it shows what a petty person she was. Leave pettiness to the living, not the deceased... the latter (or soon to be latter) usually have higher priorities like love of family, love of the life they lived, some remorse/regrets, a little fear of the unknown -- but the idea that your goal is to be divisive in death as you were in life, turns a life of accomplishments into the life of a bitter partisan. That would be a sad thing to have to remember her for.
But even if she said it, it should have no influence on anyone rational. She was a bad justice, and justices dying opinions hold no legal binding sway over anyone -- nor should they.
Mitch McConnell Lie
The left wants to rewrite history, and pretend that Mitch McConnell said that we should not appoint Supreme Court Judges near elections. What Mitch said in the context of a lame duck (and far more unpopular) President, week before the end of his final term was, "you'd have to go back to the 1880s to find the last time a vacancy on the Supreme Court occurring during a presidential election year was confirmed by a Senate of a different party than the President".
McConnell was following the precedent that Democrats had done multiple times since the 1800's.
- Trump is not a lame duck (this isn't the end of his second term)
- Trump does not have the opposition party controlling the Senate
- Trump was elected in part because he pre-announced the pool of Supreme Court Justices he would appoint from if elected (so he was elected based on this opportunity)
The people that repeat that this is the same thing as Obama, or tit for tat, are either dishonest polemics or their ignorant tools. This is not the same thing. Now they can say they'd like to hold off since it's close to an election and set a new precedent -- that's fine. I disagree, but that's their prerogative to campaign for, even knowing that the Democrats would never be that magnanimous. What I have a problem with is the foundational lie, that this is the same thing as Obama and Merrick Garland, when they are not the same at all.
This is lifted from the Examiner article (and a Marc Theissen tweet).
- 29 Presidents have had election year or lame duck vacancy: all nominated someone. <- Republicans should nominate
- 8 x before election when other party controlled Senate - only 1 succeed <- this was the Obama (Merrick Garland) case
- 10 x before election when Pres and senate controlled by same party - 9 succeeded <- this is the RBG case
Remember, Obama was one of the losers -- but at least partly because the Dems capitulated quickly. They were betting that Hillary would win, and appoint Obama to the court, so they placed their bets accordingly. Then they lost big, and were whiney that their gamble didn't pay off and tried to blame it all on Mitch.
But, there's no time...
Remember, Ginsberg herself was approved in less time than is left between her death and Nov 3rd, despite her being a known far left activist judicial radical.
Even knowing the likely outcome, and the stunts the left had pulled with Justice Thomas, etc., the right sucked it up and let her get confirmed, because that was the law.
If the dems get to subvert it over this tantrum, that will be the new normal. Is that short term win worth the long term costs?
The left is up in arms about the fact that most of the lefts biggest policy achievements in my lifetime haven’t been legislative or through due process, but have been judicial through activist judges putting precedence and overreach over process and the law of the land. They are furious that is coming to an end. But we are less a nation of laws or freedoms, the more we tolerate 9 (or 5) oligarchs imagining in new powers on leftist whims. Think [v. New London] - where the cities/states were granted the power to sieze private property for other private interests. (One of RBG's many moral failings).
So the left is threatening America to use peaceful protestors to hold the nation hostage to their political agenda, "make the Senate stop doing their job, or else".
Or else what?
They will use peaceful protestors as human shields for their brown-shirted shock-troops like BLM and Antifa and the Women's march has done for the last 4 years. We've seen billions of dollars in public property burned and looted in the Democrats peaceful protests, not to mention 21 lives lost, in the last few months alone. The peaceful protestors may be sincere in wanting non-violence... but the feelings of the human shields don’t matter, the consequences of their actions matters more. They are being the tools of terrorists.
So the Democrats want to obstruct a President and Senate in doing their job. And they're willing to support the Constitutions enemies, both foreign and domestic, in order to achieve that ends. They are willing to kill and destroy, or at least aid those that will, all over not getting their way. So I ask the obvious question that no Democrat will answer, "then what?"
Biden in response to the death of RBG lied by saying she "stood for all of us"... except those who didn't agree with her. She was the furthest left activist Judge, after being a far left activist lawyer. She didn't stand for all of us, she stood for only the far left. Her rulings often fucked over those who didn't agree.
Biden then he went on to encourage the protestors rioters by claiming there's no doubt that we should hold off on confirmation (the President/Senate fulfilling their obligations under the law). He lied that this was the position the senate took in 2016, showing he is either too unaware of his surroundings to be President, or too politically biased to be a good one: following in Obama's footsteps of lying about the other side, and acting shocked that they are offended enough to call him on it.
Ted makes the argument that the Democrats mail-in voter corruption efforts are likely to make this election go to the Supremes, and a 4-4 split during a constitutional crisis, could tear the nation apart, so they need to get 9. 
I agree that this is all true... but I don't agree that's a valid reason to appoint. Look, you should appoint if it's precedent, and changing the precedent will be for the worse -- both of those are true / facts. But the idea that we should appoint because the Democrats are scummy and will tear us apart isn't a compelling legal argument -- it might be true, and there will be consequences if it doesn't happen -- but that's an emotional appeal to a legal/moral issue. We should do it's because it's right, and it's the norm, and the alternative is worse -- not because the Democrats will tear us apart if we don't. They'll try to do that either way. And their bad actions shouldn't change our ethics/actions.
Most Americans (67% of respondents) believed confirmation should proceed, while just 32% said the chamber should hold off.  Of course that was a couple weeks before RBG's death. While there was no partisan divide, I have full faith that the Democrats will change their tune once their leadership tells them what to think -- and this will have a different result in a couple weeks.
Should the process really be obstructed by the tantrums of the lawless (those who value their own feelings over the law of the land)? Yes or no. And where does rewarding that behavior lead? if you reward the left's violence long enough, how long until that emboldens more violence from the left, or retaliation from the right and other factions?
The left wants to have the standard that the standards don't apply to them, what they're doing doesn't matter, because this time (and every time) it's too important to obey the laws -- so the laws shouldn't apply to them. But the consequences of their lawlessness is just more lawlessness for all.