the people voted last election for the direction they want the country to go. They put faith in a conservative justice. Trump has narrowed his picks to 2 likely women, both qualified and both recently vetted. Although I think it idiotic to pick a women or man and not just look at qualifications that is not the world we live in now. So Trump has the constitutional authority and the moral authority from .the people. There is not hypocrisy here, there is a duty.
Now if we want to talk about politics lets look at Ginsberg's comment about having the next President replace her. She gambled and lost. She was so sure Hil was going to win in 16 she stayed so that Hil would appoint an ultra liberal women to replace her. Well she gambled and lost. Trump won. He will appoint her replacement and it will not be ultra lib women. Suck to lose such a gamble doesn't it? It sucks even more for a sitting justice to play such games and become nothing more than a political pawn. Sorry but its all true.
There is every constitutional argument in the world to support Trump and the pubs moving forward with this appointment. The libs made most of them 4 years ago.
The problem is that, also 4 years ago, the pubs made a stand against appointments, even months ahead of the election, let alone weeks. They had some valid points, but none of them were supported by the constitution, and now, they'll pay the price, one way or the other.
The only real difference this time is that both the Senate and Executive are controlled by the same party. Had the pubs been honest 4 years ago, that was their only real argument. i.e. "We can so we will". And that would have cost them politically, so it's a "pay me now, pay me later" situation.
BTW, anyone who thinks this scenario would be playing out any different if dems were in this position has really not been paying attention.
all true Tim. I was just thinking Ginsburg playing her games gave the repubs an out they should capitalize on quickly.
Agree Tim.
Looks like a wonderful person is about to be nominated.
However, based on the history of the Dems/MSM, one assumes that we are going to hear plenty of reasons why this is really not such a wonderful person(especially for this job) despite all the the facts, her career and everybody that has known her during her life, but is instead, actually a bad person for the Supreme Court based on (speculative) opinions that nobody heard about her before Trump vetted and nominated her for the position.
Odds of that happening?
99.9%
Who was it who said "Show me the man, I'll show you the crime". This essentially means that a government can reach a scope in which no one can be innocent of law breaking. The government has enough power to convict anyone. Give that government control of the media, and any charge can be levied with conviction in the court of public opinion. And now, we can even get control of the social media. Personally, I don't form opinions based on Facebook posts, but apparently, many do. And that is the world that politicians, particularly dems, have learned to exploit. And they depend on it.
BTW, the above quote was originally attributed to Lavrentiy Beria, Chief of Soviet Secret Police, another leftist organization.