Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies By Walrus.


As if there isn’t enough uncertainty in the forthcoming elections, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died. May she rest in peace. There is talk of a recess appointment since there is no way Congress will facilitate a Presidential nomination through normal procedures.

Who will President Trump nominate and how can an appointment be made?

We live in interesting times..  Walrus

This entry was posted in Justice, Walrus. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies By Walrus.

  1. John Minehan says:

    This needs to be left to the new Administration, much as Scalia’s replacement was left to the next Administration in 2016. Either way the election goes, this vacancy will have an out sized impact.

  2. Eric Newhill says:

    eh..not even news…you don’t “suddenly” die from pancreatic cancer. More bed time stories for idiot perpetual children….a few months ago one of her arms fell off and the taxidermist put it back on..under the prob…last month an over-excited intern bumped her chair too hard and her head fell off…taxidermist to the rescue again….but now that it is clear the Supremes will play a role in the farce that will be the 2020 election, they couldn’t keep the ruse going and they declared her dead….no more interns ghost-writing her opinions……on to plan B (She hated Trump to her dying breath!). …. She should have resigned a long while back; would have if she had any integrity. Political animal to the end. Adios

  3. Yeah, Right says:

    He could wind up a lot of people by nominating David Friedman.
    Sure, massively underqualified and an obvious example of jobs-for-the-boys. Though neither argument is likely to carry much weight with Trump.
    But Friedman has one qualification that means voting against him can damage your prospects of campaign funding.
    So that’s a big plus as far as Trump is concerned.
    Trump may just have the balls to try it.

  4. JMH says:

    RBG seemed a genuinely decent person, may she rest well. My wish was that she would have lived to 100.
    With respect to the vacancy on the court, another wave of violence over this will truly doom the Democrats. Another round of histrionics by demonstrators inside the halls of Congress will not be permitted due to the Coronavirus. Justice Stevens was confirmed in 19 days and there are 46 days to the election.

  5. JMH says:

    Eric Newhill,
    She boxed herself in; there’s a lot of that happening on the left these days. Boxed in on schools, boxed in on honky-tonks, boxed in on street violence, and the list is growing.
    Let’s not forget the mayor of Portland getting boxed out of his condominium.

  6. turcopolier says:

    IMO Walrus is mistaken. The only questions about a replacement justice is how many days Trump will wait to nominate someone and whether McConnell has 50 votes in the senate.

  7. Fred says:

    I concur, may she rest in peace. “there is no way Congress will facilitate a Presidential nomination through normal procedures.”
    Christine Beasley Ford’s actions and her 17 ‘go fund me’ accounts and all the wealth that brought her were not normal. Senate Majority Leader McConnell understands this quite well. The president nominates, the senate confirms or rejects. Ginsberg could have retired at 80 and Obama could have nominated a replacement. She clung to power, just like the left is trying to do with “the resistance” and the ongoing revolution.
    Trump announced a number of potential judicial nominees weeks ago. Where are Biden’s? The confirmation vote will happen within a few weeks. We’ll see what Romney and the lady from Maine are loyal to then.

  8. turcopolier says:

    I didn’t like her politics and view of the constitution but IMO she was an admirable woman and an attractive personality. She liked opera. SWMBO and I are Gilbert and Sullivan people. I remember a performance of one of the operettas at the performing arts high school in DC in which she actually appeared in some minor role. It was charming. We all loved it. I was on a flight from the UK once when to my surprise she and Scalia appeared from First Class to walk around the plane together talking to passengers. I was sitting on the aisle in Business. She recognized me from some TeeVee appearance and started a conversation on the subject of whatever I had said on the program. She was friendly, curious and cordial. I don’t generally warm to people that far Left but she won me over in a few minutes in spite of her authorship of the opinion on the admission of women to VMI. On the subject of her relationship to Scalia. It was apparent that in some sense they were a couple. It is wonderful to have a friendship like that.

  9. Bobo says:

    RBG served her country with dignity to the best of her ability. May she rest In Peace. While she and Scalia had opposite views they found comfort in each other’s company, that showed a great lesson to all that somehow is not being followed in today’s divided world.
    The act of nominating a new justice is the duty of the President and the Senate has the duty to advise and consent. That is how things are done in this republic and I await the nomination after a period of mourning. Anything else is pure horse puckey. Power is Power and if you have it you use it.

  10. A, Pols says:

    There’s nothing hypocritical about the Republicans’ pushing to fill that seat. It was purely naked political advantage that gave them the power to block an Obama nomination in 2016 and it’s the same now for them to push through Trump’s. “Principle” be damned: it’s politics and one should use any advantage one has, particularly in the peculiar instance of Supreme Court composition.

  11. Polish Janitor says:

    This is huge and my thought immediately turned to Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s famous “Black Swan Theory” which in lawman’s terms suggests how unexpected and peripheral events may bring about profound changes and overshadowing other ongoing trend on its way.
    If Trump’s campaign plays this correctly, it could seal the deal in November for sure.
    Trump’s supreme court nominees list that came out a few says ago seemed kind of out of context then, but now it makes quite a lot of sense. It is interesting that in the aforementioned list there were Ted Cruz, John Hawley, and Tom Cotton among some lesser know career judges, all except Cruz are known Trumpists. I won’t be surprised if Tom Cotton got the nod from the Trump admin to sit on the bench temporarily, as Walrus alluded to. Call me crazy, but I think since Trump’s campaign is relatively low on cash, compared to Biden’s and because he needs money to air ads to remain competitive in swing states, especially Florida (which according to recent polls is slipping away), Arizona and upper mid-west. And now we have big GOP donors, notably Bernard Marcus and Sheldon Adelson who will pour money into their super-PACs, such as the one “Preserve America” PAC whose main objective, among others seems oriented to foreign policy. The PAC recently aired an ad that focused solely on praising Trump’s foreign policies in the ME.
    If you read the Politico piece (below) it mentions that Marcus and Adelson’s top priority is foreign policy and national security, i.e. Israel. Tom Cotton has very close relations with both of these donors and is staunchly pro-Israel. Cruz and Hawley are too but not on the scale of Cotton’s. I guess nowadays all roads lead to Jerusalem.
    I hope I will be proven wrong in the coming days and weeks…
    ___________________________________________________________ (Preserve America PAC AD)

  12. Deap says:

    Nomination does not have to go through “Congress”, only the Senate.
    The people elected a GOP majority Senate, who are now tasked to carry out their advise and consent duties, granted under the US Constitution.
    The House of Representatives and Speaker Nancy Pelosi plays no role in this express Constitutional mandate. The House is for short term solutions; the Senate is for decisions that take the longer considerations – like judicial appointments.

  13. Deap says:

    Voters had installed a GOP majority in the Senate when Scalia died. Obama could not act without the consent of the governed as expressed by the Senate GOP majority.
    That was not sinister nor “political”; it was honoring the elected will of the people. Obama was constrained only because voters demanded his abuses of executive power be checked and balanced.
    Just the opposite today – voters wanted both a GOP President and a GOP Senate to finally rebalance the political equation in this country. Respect this and let the President and Senate carry out their elected duties.
    Timing has nothing to do with this- delaying this duty is merely hoping for later partisan political advantage. Not a good foundation for our system of constitutional governance.
    Everyone really should go back and re-read the US Constitution and The Federalist Papers and reground themselves in how and why this country is exceptional.

  14. Vegetius says:

    Too many here at SST seem unable to grasp the situation we are in. The supposedly ‘principled’ world of your post-war childhoods is gone, and it is never coming back.
    We are in a culture war. That is to say, we are in a WAR.
    The enemy understands the nature of this fight, which is why they have spent a decade using media power to fashion this now-dead lawyer into some sort of Ikon for anti-Americans to worship.
    Weak conservatives have spent half a century losing every battle in this conflict, and yet think more ‘principled’ losing is the answer.
    In the midst of all this respectful bleating and blather about how wonderful this unelected law-priestess was, can anyone name, off the top of their heads, any decision she made that benefited you, your family, or the foundation of this republic? Crickets.
    Now this culture war is nearly over. Your children and grandchildren will suffer the most a result of being on the losing side, reduced to a hated minority in the land their forebears just gave away being ‘principled’.
    Setting aside the idiocy that is the sanctification of any lawyer, understand: if you believe in the Constitution, the basic principles of this nation and its founding stock, then you need to recognize that Ginsburg was your enemy.
    Her legacy needs to be trashed, then erased. If you can

  15. J says:

    Obama Calls On GOP To Delay Vote On Ginsburg Successor Until After Election
    I wonder how this will play with both Trump and McConnell. Schumer is chiming ‘next president’ verbage. Schumer appears lost without the stroke he used to have.

  16. JerseyJeffersonian says:

    Vegetius, and all,
    It does need to be understood in the bones that everything at this point is a Famous Last Stand against the sedition of the left.
    The fake conservatives of the institutional Republican party have landed us in these dire straits; 30 pieces of silver from the Chamber of Commerce and corporatist globohomo bought them this party. To them, the course of events was just one, long personal gravy train, and the Devil take the Republic which, ironically, they failed to protect given their party’s name.

  17. TonyL says:

    Thanks for the beautiful anecdote.
    “On the subject of her relationship to Scalia. It was apparent that in some sense they were a couple. It is wonderful to have a friendship like that.”
    And indeed, it is wonderful to have such friendships. In my small group of close friends, we span the political spectrum from liberal to conservative, but we are still close friends after 4 decades.

  18. Jack says:

    Harry Reid and the Democratic majority in the Senate removed filibusters for judge approvals. Now it may bite them.
    The Republicans blocked Garland because they had a majority. Whatever excuses they gave then was just cover for the exercise of power. Does anyone think that Chuckie Schumer wouldn’t have done what McConnell is proposing if the tables were reversed?
    In any case with the Democrats stating they will contest the election if Harris/Biden lose. And with Pennsylvania and Michigan appearing to count mail-in and absentee ballots without signature verification it is important that SCOTUS have an odd number of justices to prevent absolute chaos.
    It’s not a done deal that the Republicans will approve a nominee. Already Murkowski, Collins and Romney have stated they’ll not vote to confirm.

  19. Yeah, Right says:

    There is no reason to delay this process. None.
    The US Constitution gives the President the responsibility to nominate a replacement, and the Senate the responsibility to consent to that nomination.
    There is a President. There is a Senate. Both are perfect capable of carrying out their respective roles, and so that’s what they should do.
    Everything else is just white noise and should be ignored.
    There is just one reason why this process should be delayed, and it is this: Trump can’t decide who he wants to nominate.

  20. Hal Rounds says:

    About fifteen years ago RBG officiated at the wedding of one of my colleagues (a fellow engineer) I thought that was very nice.

  21. Deap says:

    Cankles is croaking. That alone is reason to celebrate.
    She almost single-handedly is creating the urgency to appoint a 9th justice immediately, so a full court is up and ready for her admitted post-election shenanigans.
    Cankles is the one who should wait until after the election to “lawyer up”, but she already admitted she is three deep in legal obstruction talent for any issue they can drum up.
    Cankles at this point is not putting that much into assuming Biden will win and what does she want for his POTUS agenda; not just complaining already about a Trump win.

  22. turcopolier says:

    If “cankles” is HC, I suspect that she and the Ft. Brooklyn crew have been at the heart of “the resistance.”

  23. J says:

    Sad and Intriguing….does Fox know how to read the yearly calendar, or were they already prepared for her death last year?
    Now to something that is appearing on the horizon, namely is something in the works to come out regarding FISA perhaps?
    Supreme Court Appointment Process: Senate Debate and Confirmation Vote — CRS Report

  24. Jack says:

    !! @GStephanopoulos asks @SpeakerPelosi if House might move to impeach @realDonaldTrump or AG Barr to stall the SCOTUS process in Senate. “We have our options. We have arrows in our quiver that I’m not about to discuss right now,” Pelosi says
    The war between the Republicans and Democrats seems to be ratcheting up. It’s funny in a way considering they work for the same masters – the Party of Davos.

  25. Jack says:

    The obsession on the right with Kavanaugh’s virtue, despite his obvious dishonesty as a Senate Judiciary staffer and his hackery on corporate power issues, is why they are more trapped by woke capital than the Democrats. There is no conservative populist movement.
    There’s some merit to this observation. In many ways contemporary “conservatism” has become synonymous with big corporate power. The conservative principle that a level playing field is a necessity for competition has become lost in the obfuscation through sophistry in the service of oligarchy.

  26. turcopolier says:

    Grossly over-pessimistic.

  27. Chuck Light says:

    Bobo and A, Pols: If I may, I would like to ask you both a hypothetical question, in order to make sure that I understand your stated position(s) above.
    First let me say that I am a Democrat, and that I have come to the conclusion that a high probability exists that the president will win re-election, and the Senate will remain in Republican hands. I believe this is so because with the death of Justice Ginsburg, the evangelical Christian right and the extreme right wing of the Republican party (call them Federalists, White supremacists, White Nationalists, or whatever you will, but they are a potent political force) will be extremely energized to vote. The evangelical Christian right, especially, has waited for decades to overturn Roe v. Wade, and this is their best opportunity. The extreme right wing of the Republican party wants power, now and for as long as they can keep it, by whatever means. Prior to Ginsburg’s passing they might have been disheartened by Biden’s steady lead in the polls, but now they will vote like their futures depend upon it, and I have concluded they have a pretty good chance of keeping the White House and the Senate.
    If I understand your positions as stated above, you both appear to argue that what various members of the Senate said in 2016 — when Scalia passed away and Obama nominated Merrick Garland — should be disregarded as mere politics, and what matters is who has the power, and who uses it to best advance their own political interests, prior promises be damned.
    If that is your position, and please correct me if I am wrong, then here is my hypothetical:
    Assume I am wrong about the election. Assume that somehow Biden wins, convincingly enough that the president accepts the result and a peaceful transition of power to the Biden administration occurs. Assume further that not only does Biden win, but that enough Republican Senators lose, sufficient to flip the Senate. (I said it was a hypothetical.)
    Assume also that either before the election, or in a lame-duck session, the current president nominates, and the current Senate confirms, a jurist to replace Associate Justice Ginsburg on the Court, and that this new Justice is firmly committed to the repeal of Roe v. Wade, and to act to further right-wing political goals, including ending campaign finance, the Affordable Care Act, the Voting Rights Act in its entirety, etc., etc.
    With these assumptions, would you agree that the Democrats, hypothetically controlling both Houses of Congress and the White House, would be fully within their rights, and in fact obligated as they exercise the power given them by the electorate, to nominate to the Court and confirm to lifetime appointments four extremely liberal jurists, thus creating a seven to six liberal majority on the Court?
    As Bobo said, “Power is Power and if you have it you use it.” A, Pols said “’Principle’ be damned: it’s politics and one should use any advantage one has, particularly in the peculiar instance of Supreme Court composition.”
    Just curious. If it is good for the goose, is it equally good for the gander?

Comments are closed.