McConnell Says Trumps Nominee Will Get A Vote On The Floor

[jimnyc]

Oh brother, idiot extraordinaire injects her political expertise.

--

AOC Sounds the Alarm in Wake of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Death: ‘November’s About Survival’

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) offered some words of advice to concerned progressives Friday following the news of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, stressing that a vote for Joe Biden is “not about whether you agree with him,” but about allowing democracy to “live another day”–because “November’s about survival.”

The freshman lawmaker took to Instagram after the news of Ginsburg’s passing and begged viewers to check their voter registration, all while she pitched why the upcoming election is so important.

“I understand why people say, ‘I don’t vote. What’s the point?’ I really empathize with it. I’m not here to dismiss you. I’m not here to pooh-pooh you. I’m not here to say you’re wrong or that you’re a bad person,” she said, proclaiming that voting is no longer about agreeing with Joe Biden (D) personally.

“What I’m here to say is that this year, this election voting for someone — voting for Joe Biden is not about whether you agree with him. It’s a vote to let our democracy live another day,” she warned. “That’s what this is about”:




Ocasio-Cortez said progressives must “act in solidarity” for the “most vulnerable” people who “have already experienced the violent repercussions of this administration”:

And the reason we need to do that is because, yes, the political middle is willing to sacrifice immigrants. The political middle, too often, is willing to play both sides when someone dies to police violence. Absolutely. That’s why we need to show up. We need to show up because if we don’t show up, those people don’t get protected. Our trans brothers and sisters will not be protected. Our immigrant brothers and sisters will not be protected. Our brothers and sisters who are not making a living wage that are working at McDonald’s and that they aren’t being paid a living wage or they’re working at Amazon and they’re being forced to work in unsafe conditions…we got to show up for them. That’s what we need to show up for.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...bers-survival/

[jimnyc]

RBG herself on nominees in an election year. She did tell her granddaughter that her wish was to wait until after the election. But a time not long ago at all, she spoke otherwise:

RBG Said Presidents Should Name Supreme Court Justices in an Election Year

As the debate over what to do about the vacancy on the Supreme Court is only getting started, perhaps we should heed the advice of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself as to what to do.

When a similar scenario occurred four years ago, following the death of Antonin Scalia, the Republican-controlled Senate blocked Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. It was a controversial move, and Ginsburg had something to say about it: Ginsburg publicly called on the Senate to go through with the nomination.

“That’s their job,” she said in July 2016. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.”

“Eight is not a good number for a collegial body that sometimes disagrees,” Ginsburg said on the issue a few months later during an event at the Smithsonian Museum of American History in Washington.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was with her, agreed. “I think we hope there will be nine as quickly as possible.”

“What we do is we automatically affirm the decision of the court below. No opinion is written, no reasons are given, and the affirmance has no precedential value,” Ginsburg explained. “It’s just as though we denied review.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) made the same argument was made Friday night, though he added that since the 2020 election results are expected to be contested, an eight-member Court poses a potential constitutional crisis.

“Democrats and Joe Biden have made clear they intend to challenge this election. They intend to fight the legitimacy of the election. As you know, Hillary Clinton has told Joe Biden ‘under no circumstances should you concede, you should challenge this election.’ And we cannot have Election Day come and go with a 4-4 Court,” Cruz told Sean Hannity on Friday. “A 4-4 Court that is equally divided cannot decide anything. And I think we risk a constitutional crisis if we do not have a nine-justice Supreme Court, particularly when there is such a risk of … a contested election.”

Unfortunately for the Left, their revered Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the case for Trump to nominate, and for the Senate to confirm, her own replacement back in 2016. You can point to the words of politicians who adjust their views to accommodate their desired political ends, and great, there’s plenty of that to go around on both sides, but are the same people mourning the loss of Ruth Bader Ginsburg going to say that she was wrong?

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politic...n-2016-n944778

[Black Diamond]

Cruz said, 'No thanks.' He's not done.

Well that's disappointing in a way.

[Black Diamond]

RBG herself on nominees in an election year. She did tell her granddaughter that her wish was to wait until after the election. But a time not long ago at all, she spoke otherwise:

RBG Said Presidents Should Name Supreme Court Justices in an Election Year

As the debate over what to do about the vacancy on the Supreme Court is only getting started, perhaps we should heed the advice of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself as to what to do.

When a similar scenario occurred four years ago, following the death of Antonin Scalia, the Republican-controlled Senate blocked Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. It was a controversial move, and Ginsburg had something to say about it: Ginsburg publicly called on the Senate to go through with the nomination.

“That’s their job,” she said in July 2016. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.”

“Eight is not a good number for a collegial body that sometimes disagrees,” Ginsburg said on the issue a few months later during an event at the Smithsonian Museum of American History in Washington.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was with her, agreed. “I think we hope there will be nine as quickly as possible.”

“What we do is we automatically affirm the decision of the court below. No opinion is written, no reasons are given, and the affirmance has no precedential value,” Ginsburg explained. “It’s just as though we denied review.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) made the same argument was made Friday night, though he added that since the 2020 election results are expected to be contested, an eight-member Court poses a potential constitutional crisis.

“Democrats and Joe Biden have made clear they intend to challenge this election. They intend to fight the legitimacy of the election. As you know, Hillary Clinton has told Joe Biden ‘under no circumstances should you concede, you should challenge this election.’ And we cannot have Election Day come and go with a 4-4 Court,” Cruz told Sean Hannity on Friday. “A 4-4 Court that is equally divided cannot decide anything. And I think we risk a constitutional crisis if we do not have a nine-justice Supreme Court, particularly when there is such a risk of … a contested election.”

Unfortunately for the Left, their revered Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the case for Trump to nominate, and for the Senate to confirm, her own replacement back in 2016. You can point to the words of politicians who adjust their views to accommodate their desired political ends, and great, there’s plenty of that to go around on both sides, but are the same people mourning the loss of Ruth Bader Ginsburg going to say that she was wrong?

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politic...n-2016-n944778

They will all change their minds given it's Barrett and not garland.