It is truly harrowing news about Ruth Bader Ginsberg's latest health issues.

[pink]

I hope that the Democratic Party has a plan if she sadly loses her fight before late January. I remember that Mitch McConnell refused to acknowledge Obama's selection for Supreme Court judge months before the 2016 election, saying that because it was so close to the election that the "people" should choose.

I dont have any legal experience, but I am hoping that a precedent has been created. Does anyone think that the Democrats can tie up such a case in the courts until Trump is safely out of office?

[blitzen]

1. It's not a legal issue, it's up to Congress...

The courts have nothing to do with it. It's different in other countries, such as Russia.

[texasfiddler]

2. If we can win a net of 4 senate seats

The window closes at the beginning of January. This election is so terribly important. John Lewis would want us to all get out and vote.

[mr_lebowski]

3. It wasn't just because it was 'close to the election' ... it was because it was the end of the 2nd

term. I.E. Obama would NOT be POTUS next term. That was Turtle's 'argument'.

Don't get me wrong, it's total bullshit on it's face, there's no such 'rule'.

However, there's not going to be any sort of precedent or way to 'tie it up in court', regardless.

F*ckhead Mitch gets to just do whatever the f*ck he wants ... if he has the votes he'll let Trump install a new Justice and there isn't shit anyone can do.

It's not up to any Court to decide.

[Renew Deal]

7. That was not his argument in 2016

[mr_lebowski]

8. It was, in fact ...

More commonly yes he just 'shortened' it to 'let the next President decide' but I distinctly recall his making a point in an interview or something of that nature where he made it clear that this was specific to the end of a 2nd term.

If I must look it up for you I will but I know I'm not wrong.

[Renew Deal]

9. Ok.

[mr_lebowski]

10. Which is NOT to say that had Scalia passed in late 2011 he wouldn't have pulled the same bullshit

To be clear ...

[Renew Deal]

14. I agree

I think it would have been the same if he died in early 2015

[KT2000]

11. he has said it was not to be

precedent setting so he will do what he can get away with.

[mr_lebowski]

15. And even if he said it then, he'd now say it doesn't apply to a POTUS' first term ...

Given that the current POTUS is a Repuke.

[KT2000]

17. Yes,

there will always be justification.

[rusty quoin]

4. I hope she can hang on. She is some kind of great hero.

[Jeebo]

5. I've been thinking for months, what if RBG keels over in late November...

...three weeks after Biden wins the White House, and the Democrats win the Senate and hold the House. Let's be optimistic and say one of the Democratic pickups in the Senate is Amy McGrath over the turtle. At that point, it will be about five weeks before the new Senate and House are sworn in, and about seven weeks before Biden's inauguration. But, for those five weeks, the Republicans will still hold the White House and the Senate, and the turtle will still be the Senate majority leader.

And now, suddenly, a Supreme Court seat opens up.

What do you suppose the orange con man and the turtle will do?

This is just a hypothetical, of course, but I am sure the orange con man would IMMEDIATELY name RBG's successor, and the turtle would hold hearings and a Senate vote in RECORD time. It would happen so fast that if you stood there in the Senate gallery and watched it, you would see only a blur.

While watching that blur, you might remind the turtle that four years and 10 months earlier he said that we should "wait and let the American people decide" on Scalia's successor, but the turtle would not care one whit about the stunning hypocrisy, he would do it, I am sure.

Would the orange con man and the turtle be able to get away with it? Would we, the American people, let them?

I hope Ruth Bader Ginsburg can hang on until Jan. 3 at least, when the new Senate and House are sworn in, or better yet, until Jan. 20. I hope she lives a lot longer than that, of course, but AT LEAST that long.

-- Ron

[AlexSFCA]

12. if that happens, dems better be ready to expand SC to 11 immediately if win presidency and senate

[Salviati]

16. Agreed.

You know they'll try to ram someone through as late as 11:59 am on Jan 3rd if they need to.

We need to play hardball as well.

[AlexSFCA]

20. no doubt

mitch can change the senate rules within 24 hrs for confirming justices, bypassing each and all hearings, moving right to the floor vote. And you bet collins will be ‘concerned’ but will vote to confirm, so will romney, not that his vote is needed.

[FBaggins]

23. That would be tough to do

It's one thing to "go nuclear" and rule that the filibuster does not apply to judicial nominations... but it's another thing to pretend that filibusters don't apply to legislation.

[Sympthsical]

6. Liver cancer can go south very quickly at that or any age

I’m heartened by the fact that, as a Justice, she’s getting the best care on earth. I imagine Democratic (and no small number of Republican) doctors and surgeons are probably falling over themselves to make sure she’s as taken care of as humanly possible. 5.5 months. That’s all we need.

[Baclava]

22. First she had a lung removed for cancer, then the pancreatic cancer, now the liver? What a fighter

[Crunchy Frog]

13. If they have a chance to replace her, they will jump at it.

The only precedent that they established was that they will grab every possible opportunity to fill a SCOTUS seat, using any and every possible maneuver and excuse.

If something happens to her, we're fucked.

[pink]

18. She is a good person and I'd love for her to live forever however,

on CNN tonight Dr Gupta said that the type of chemo she was getting is not to aim for a cure but to give comfort. is there a time limit one can be kept on life support for.

[Awsi Dooger]

19. I saw that segment on CNN

It was not encouraging

If she dies on January 19 McConnell will try to ram through a replacement

[Books_Tea_Alone]

21. Scalia died in February (!) and they still pulled that bs n/t