Ginsburg’s Embalming Fluid

[Flanders]

Ginsburg dosed off on Obama in 2015. Maybe Obama is the reason they could not find her catnap in their archives! No matter. If a little wine put her on the nod can the grim reaper be far behind?

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...96#post2870096

Here comes Ginsburg’s problematic health again —— problematic for the Parasite Class:

http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/087...g?v=1524688428

Democrats and hardcore Communists are conspiring to prop up Baby Ruth with embalming fluid if that is what it will take to keep her on the court until a Democrat president can replace her.

Let me remind everyone that then-Senator Orrin Hatch hinted he might willingly step aside if Romney replaced him. Hatch did step aside, and Romney got the seat. That was the definition of chutzpah since Hatch should have been gone after he gave the Communist ACLU a seat on the High Court:

Indeed, let’s also not forget the historical context. In 1993, then-President Clinton reached out to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a leading senator on the Judiciary Committee, even though Republicans were in the minority. Clinton solicited suggested nominees for a Supreme Court vacancy, and Hatch recommended Ginsburg. Clinton agreed and Ginsburg sailed through.

This isn’t ancient history; it was just 18 years ago. The radicalization of Republican politics in the years since has been so successful, the scenario itself seems vaguely surreal, if not completely bizarre. I mean, really — a Republican senator, considered conservative by most standards, recommended a Democratic president nominate a liberal ACLU veteran for the Supreme Court? And nearly every Senate Republican went along with this, without any controversy?

August 30, 2011 4:45 PM
It’s amazing Ginsburg is even on the bench
By Steve Benen

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2011/0...-on-the-bench/

Note that Norman Thomas founded the National Civil Liberties Bureau during WW I which morphed into the ACLU in 1920. Roger Baldwin, one of the ACLU’s founders, and its first director, laid out the ACLU’s judicial philosophy for all time irrespective of the ACLU barring Communists from leadership and staff positions in 1940. Basically, Baldwin realized that controlling the courts was more important in the long run than was keeping a few easily-identified Communists on the ACLU’s payroll.

I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.

March 24, 2011
ACLU v. Religious Liberty
By J. Matt Barber

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...s_liberty.html

Barber’s article is a must-read for anybody who believes the ACLU defends the Constitution.

Parenthetically, the NRA never got a child murderer out of jail, nor does the NRA tell people how to live. Americans remain a reasonably free people because of the NRA’s defense of the Second Amendment. The same cannot be said of the ACLU. The ACLU and Democrats are a bigger threat to individual liberty than the NRA ever was or ever will be.

[Guno צְבִי]

Ginsburg dosed off on Obama in 2015. Maybe Obama is the reason they could not find her catnap in their archives! No matter. If a little wine put her on the nod can the grim reaper be far behind?

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...96#post2870096

Here comes Ginsburg’s problematic health again —— problematic for the Parasite Class:

http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/087...g?v=1524688428

Democrats and hardcore Communists are conspiring to prop up Baby Ruth with embalming fluid if that is what it will take to keep her on the court until a Democrat president can replace her.

Let me remind everyone that then-Senator Orrin Hatch hinted he might willingly step aside if Romney replaced him. Hatch did step aside, and Romney got the seat. That was the definition of chutzpah since Hatch should have been gone after he gave the Communist ACLU a seat on the High Court:

Indeed, let’s also not forget the historical context. In 1993, then-President Clinton reached out to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a leading senator on the Judiciary Committee, even though Republicans were in the minority. Clinton solicited suggested nominees for a Supreme Court vacancy, and Hatch recommended Ginsburg. Clinton agreed and Ginsburg sailed through.

This isn’t ancient history; it was just 18 years ago. The radicalization of Republican politics in the years since has been so successful, the scenario itself seems vaguely surreal, if not completely bizarre. I mean, really — a Republican senator, considered conservative by most standards, recommended a Democratic president nominate a liberal ACLU veteran for the Supreme Court? And nearly every Senate Republican went along with this, without any controversy?

August 30, 2011 4:45 PM
It’s amazing Ginsburg is even on the bench
By Steve Benen

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2011/0...-on-the-bench/

Note that Norman Thomas founded the National Civil Liberties Bureau during WW I which morphed into the ACLU in 1920. Roger Baldwin, one of the ACLU’s founders, and its first director, laid out the ACLU’s judicial philosophy for all time irrespective of the ACLU barring Communists from leadership and staff positions in 1940. Basically, Baldwin realized that controlling the courts was more important in the long run than was keeping a few easily-identified Communists on the ACLU’s payroll.

I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.

March 24, 2011
ACLU v. Religious Liberty
By J. Matt Barber

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...s_liberty.html

Barber’s article is a must-read for anybody who believes the ACLU defends the Constitution.

Parenthetically, the NRA never got a child murderer out of jail, nor does the NRA tell people how to live. Americans remain a reasonably free people because of the NRA’s defense of the Second Amendment. The same cannot be said of the ACLU. The ACLU and Democrats are a bigger threat to individual liberty than the NRA ever was or ever will be.

Dumb goyim Jews don't embalm and stuff their dead like you savage goyim

[Flanders]

Dumb goyim Jews don't embalm and stuff their dead like you savage goyim

To guno: Asshole.

Democrats and hardcore Communists are conspiring to prop up Baby Ruth with embalming fluid if that is what it will take to keep her on the court until a Democrat president can replace her.

[Flash]

I thought she already died and was replaced by an imposter?????

[Flanders]

I thought she already died

To Flash: Not yet according to reports:

Incidentally, Democrats threatening to tear this country apart is a hollow threat:

CNN political commentator and Democratic strategist David Axelrod responded Friday to news that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had recently completed radiation treatment for a malignant tumor, writing that a vacancy on the high court could "tear this country apart."

"If there is a SCOTUS vacancy next year and @senatemajldr carries through on his extraordinary promise to fill it-despite his own previous precedent in blocking Garland-it will tear this country apart," Axelrod wrote, referring to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) blocking former President Obama's final Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, in 2016.

David Axelrod after Ginsburg cancer treatment: Supreme Court vacancy could 'tear this country apart'
By Rachel Frazin
08/24/19 10:57 AM EDT

https://thehill.com/regulation/court...-court-vacancy

Assuming Democrats will get television’s usual support, ten bitter Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee cannot convince three hundred million Americans to tear the country apart. Calling for violent revolution is a tall order for crackpots —— more so because the public’s contempt for every one of those Democrats on Judiciary is one helluva way to demand a revolution.

No doubt Democrats will go all-out trying to dictate when to hold the confirmation hearing for the next nominee. They will be pissing into the wind on that one, too.

In short: Ten Democrats are left with one option should Ginsburg drop out before November 2020: Pull another “Kavanaugh” at the conformation hearing.

In the aftermath of the news that liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has once again been treated for pancreatic cancer, talk of a potential vacancy on the court has once again heated up. While there will be disagreement over how to handle such a vacancy, it's clear that everyone knows a Supreme Court battle in 2020 will be brutal and contentious.

Chris Wallace, the host of Fox News Sunday, weighed in on Friday, "We all wish her a long, happy, healthy life. I will say this though, and again, there’s no reason not to think that she won’t be on the court the first Monday in October, but if she were forced to step down, this would make the Kavanaugh hearing, the Gorsuch hearing, Clarence Thomas, it would make it look like a tea party.”

Former Obama adviser David Axelrod warned Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell not to go through with filling a vacancy, should one occur:

If Ruth Bader Ginsburg were to retire, you can expect to be regularly reminded of Merrick Garland, Barack Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court following the death of Antonin Scalia. Garland was never given a hearing because Mitch McConnell was following The Biden Rule. In June of 1992, then-Senator Joe Biden, who was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time, gave a speech on the Senate floor arguing that then-president George H.W. Bush shouldn't attempt to fill a vacancy to the Supreme Court in the middle of an election year.

Should a vacancy occur in 2020, Democrats will argue, just as Axelrod has, that this is the precedent and McConnell should table any Supreme Court nomination until after inauguration day 2021, when there might be a new president and a different party in the majority of the Senate. Biden himself acknowledged the political intentions of delaying the naming of a replacement when he said, “Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention.” A vacancy in 1992 never happened, but had it occurred, you can bet that if George H.W. Bush had attempted to fill a vacancy in 1992, Senate Democrats, led by Joe Biden, would not have held hearings for that nominee. Joe Biden considered such a move established precedent.

Except there's one problem: Presidents have made nominations to the Supreme Court and seen them confirmed during election years.

● In 1912, William Taft nominated Mahlon Pitney to the Supreme Court, who was confirmed by the Senate five days later.

● In 1916, Woodrow Wilson had two election-year nominations to the Supreme Court, both of whom were confirmed.

● In 1932, Herbert Hoover nominated Benjamin Cardozo to the Supreme Court, who was unanimously confirmed just over a month later.

● In 1940, Franklin Delano Roosevelt nominated Frank Murphy to the Supreme Court, who was confirmed by a voice vote.

● In 1987, Ronald Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court, and he was confirmed in February 1988.

In all of these cases but the last one, the president's party had a majority in the Senate. Biden made his case about postponing an election-year nomination to the court while there was a Republican president and the Democrats controlled the Senate, and he was clearly hoping to avoid stalling a nomination. If there's anything Biden's 1992 speech tells us, it's that Democrats will establish or dismiss precedents based on their short-term convenience. Should a vacancy occur in 2020, Donald Trump will have every right to fill the vacancy, and the Republican-controlled Senate will have every right to confirm that nominee. The only precedent here is that the Senate can exercise advice and consent however they please. Mitch McConnell has already vowed that he'd fill a vacancy in 2020. Democrats will have to come up with another excuse other than citing a nonexistent precedent. The Biden Rule of 1992 may have come back to bite the Democrats in the rear in 2016, but that doesn't mean the GOP has to cave to their tantrums and rule changes that only serve their short-term political needs.

Democrats should be very scared of a potential vacancy on the Supreme Court in 2020. There is literally nothing to stop Trump and the GOP from filling the seat.

Here's Why Democrats Should Be Scared of a Supreme Court Vacancy in 2020
By Matt Margolis August 24, 2019

https://pjmedia.com/trending/heres-w...cancy-in-2020/

Conservatives have more to fear than Democrats.

I do not want to put a damper on the dreams and aspirations conservatives are placing on Ginsburg’s departure because I am reminded of the euphoria Chief Justice John Roberts spread around like butter on a hot bagel after Bush the Younger nominated him. Roberts turned out badly. He, and he alone, could have stopped the ACA. Instead, Roberts tortured the Constitution into a tax for socialized medicine.

And do not forget Eisenhower’s two major disasters ——Earl Warren & William Brennan —— Reagan’s Anthony Kennedy after Democrats borked Robert Bork, and President George H. W. Bush’s David Souter. My point. Supreme Court justices are a crap shoot at best. More so when when you remember that Trump’s judge of character leaves a lot to be desired.

A court permanently slanted left or right is not a bad thing so long as it is tilted to the right. Even then so-called conservative justices abandon ship and rule with liberals. Roberts and Kavanaugh are the latest deserters. Strict constructionists voting for big ticket items in the Left’s political agenda (the ACA for one) makes the rule of four as useless as tits on bull.

Kavanaugh did not change the rule where it counts the most so long as writ of certiorari remains in the hands of four activist libs. They will get their cases heard regardless of the other five. Even if libs lose in 5 to 4 rulings they get their talking points on the record in dissenting opinions.

Should Trump get another pick the head count would be 6 to 3. Six to three is a major change to be sure, but it will take 7 to 2 bring about a change of seismic proportions.

Bottom lime: Democrats will do whatever it takes to hold their grip on the rule of four.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...76#post2784676

[Flash]

To Flash: Not yet according to reports:

I was just mocking the crazy conspiracy theory posters.

American Jews are a dying population.

[MAGA MAN]

Her staying there proves just how sick the 'rats are for power.

[Cancel 2020.2]

Things are NOT looking good for the Dems concerning the Supreme Court situation. Ruth SHOULD HAVE stepped down years ago when her health started failing. Unfortunately her hatred won't let her step down and she won't be leaving until she takes in her last breath. Shades of John McStain…….

[MAGA MAN]

Things are NOT looking good for the Dems concerning the Supreme Court situation. Ruth SHOULD HAVE stepped down years ago when her health started failing. Unfortunately her hatred won't let her step down and she won't be leaving until she takes in her last breath. Shades of John McStain…….

Liberal politicians nearly all do that. They think that the world can't get along without them.