RBG was a big part of the court's decline; she could have resigned under a Dem and been replaced by someone reasonable. Instead, she held on to her seat until she died (under Trump) and basically...
RBG was a big part of the court's decline; she could have resigned under a Dem and been replaced by someone reasonable. Instead, she held on to her seat until she died (under Trump) and basically gave her seat to the far right.
Aside from that enormous blunder, her record was pretty good.
While I agree with you, the GOP previously proved to be willing to block Supreme Court nominations for at least a year before an election. They obviously do not operate in good faith, so there...
While I agree with you, the GOP previously proved to be willing to block Supreme Court nominations for at least a year before an election. They obviously do not operate in good faith, so there likely wasn't a "winning" move that wouldn't wind up with the GOP obstructing the proper nomination workflow for Dems.
Honestly I think the SC is so broken at this point we ought to completely replace it with a structure that is less corruptible. No more life appointments, a balanced replacement pattern so one party can't stack the deck, and maybe even a set of behavioral guidelines to prevent outright bias and corruption. But naturally we can't get that until Congress wakes up from the Rip Van Winkle nap they've been stuck in for the last 50 years, and honestly I think ol' Rip might've passed away in his sleep this time...
You’ve got the timing flipped there - RBG could have retired in the first 7 years of the Obama administration. That bullshit happened in 2016. After that, yes it was clearly too late. But there...
You’ve got the timing flipped there - RBG could have retired in the first 7 years of the Obama administration. That bullshit happened in 2016. After that, yes it was clearly too late. But there had been talk well before that that she should retire.
Genuine question, because I can’t remember the actual mechanics of this one: did they actually block the Democrats from acting, or did the dems just capitulate to threats?
Genuine question, because I can’t remember the actual mechanics of this one: did they actually block the Democrats from acting, or did the dems just capitulate to threats?
The GOP never brought the nominations to a vote. At one point Obama nominated Merrick Garland, who had been suggested as a good compromise option by the republicans. But they explicitly said they...
The GOP never brought the nominations to a vote. At one point Obama nominated Merrick Garland, who had been suggested as a good compromise option by the republicans. But they explicitly said they would not bring any nominations to a vote until the next president was elected.
I have no idea if there's some congressional procedure to force a vote, especially by the minority party.
Ah, yes, the same Merrick Garland who later served as Attorney General under Biden and had four years to bring DJT to trial for January 6th, but just couldn't make it happen. I know he shouldn't...
Ah, yes, the same Merrick Garland who later served as Attorney General under Biden and had four years to bring DJT to trial for January 6th, but just couldn't make it happen. I know he shouldn't shoulder all the blame, but I think that was likely one of the most consequential events affecting our democracy today since the Civil War. But I digress.
As much as I agree that she could have, and should have resigned earlier, I don't think it's fair to put literally any blame on her when there are hundreds of individuals who actively contributed...
RBG was a big part of the court's decline; she could have resigned under a Dem and been replaced by someone reasonable
As much as I agree that she could have, and should have resigned earlier, I don't think it's fair to put literally any blame on her when there are hundreds of individuals who actively contributed to create the system that exists today. Aside from Trump and everyone under him , every single member of congress who actively blocked supreme court nominations during this term and every single member of congress who approved every single supreme court nomination since are the ones who deserve the spotlight and the blame. The erosion of civil rights involved large parties of collaborators and every single one of them needs to be held accountable for their actions.
I agree she should have resigned. Still, she was principled and level headed. My thoughts are in regards to her record and the effect that her replacement is having on the court.
I agree she should have resigned. Still, she was principled and level headed. My thoughts are in regards to her record and the effect that her replacement is having on the court.
Rest in peace RBG. :/ sorry things are going to shit so fast without you.
RBG was a big part of the court's decline; she could have resigned under a Dem and been replaced by someone reasonable. Instead, she held on to her seat until she died (under Trump) and basically gave her seat to the far right.
Aside from that enormous blunder, her record was pretty good.
While I agree with you, the GOP previously proved to be willing to block Supreme Court nominations for at least a year before an election. They obviously do not operate in good faith, so there likely wasn't a "winning" move that wouldn't wind up with the GOP obstructing the proper nomination workflow for Dems.
Honestly I think the SC is so broken at this point we ought to completely replace it with a structure that is less corruptible. No more life appointments, a balanced replacement pattern so one party can't stack the deck, and maybe even a set of behavioral guidelines to prevent outright bias and corruption. But naturally we can't get that until Congress wakes up from the Rip Van Winkle nap they've been stuck in for the last 50 years, and honestly I think ol' Rip might've passed away in his sleep this time...
You’ve got the timing flipped there - RBG could have retired in the first 7 years of the Obama administration. That bullshit happened in 2016. After that, yes it was clearly too late. But there had been talk well before that that she should retire.
Genuine question, because I can’t remember the actual mechanics of this one: did they actually block the Democrats from acting, or did the dems just capitulate to threats?
The GOP never brought the nominations to a vote. At one point Obama nominated Merrick Garland, who had been suggested as a good compromise option by the republicans. But they explicitly said they would not bring any nominations to a vote until the next president was elected.
I have no idea if there's some congressional procedure to force a vote, especially by the minority party.
Innuendo Studio's video about this exact tactic includes both a summary and what/why Obama chose not to do.
Ah, yes, the same Merrick Garland who later served as Attorney General under Biden and had four years to bring DJT to trial for January 6th, but just couldn't make it happen. I know he shouldn't shoulder all the blame, but I think that was likely one of the most consequential events affecting our democracy today since the Civil War. But I digress.
As much as I agree that she could have, and should have resigned earlier, I don't think it's fair to put literally any blame on her when there are hundreds of individuals who actively contributed to create the system that exists today. Aside from Trump and everyone under him , every single member of congress who actively blocked supreme court nominations during this term and every single member of congress who approved every single supreme court nomination since are the ones who deserve the spotlight and the blame. The erosion of civil rights involved large parties of collaborators and every single one of them needs to be held accountable for their actions.
I agree she should have resigned. Still, she was principled and level headed. My thoughts are in regards to her record and the effect that her replacement is having on the court.