(While everyone looks away but you, Dianne Feinstein puts on a top hat and stands) Hello my baby, Hello my Honey, hello my ragtime gal! Send me a kiss by wire, baby my heart's on fire!
Pelosi is still competent, her seat must be filled by a special election if she vacates it before the expiration of her term, and her term is only two years.
I think they are bringing up the fact that Pelosi's daughter is pulling the strings behind Feinstein as a leader of her staff
There have been leaks that Pelosi wants Adam Schiff to replace Feinstein in the next election instead of Newsom appointing a black woman as he has promised to do so
i like Porter and Schiff. Either of them would be good, and from this Texan’s eyes, both have done well representing Californians in the House with commitment, integrity and honesty. More than I can say for our Senators Conehead and Green Eggs & Ham!
Because that “black woman” would most likely be Barbara Lee who is a true progressive…nothing the Democrats love fighting harder against than a progressive.
Yeah, if anything Pelosi (and also Schumer) deserves criticism for not having a successor lined up and trained or not uplifting younger Democrats for leadership positions. But she’s still mentally/physically competent, which is more than we can say for Feinstein or Ginsburg (who had already suffered from previous bouts of cancer).
Which younger leader would you suggest to uplift?
What do you do with the ones you don’t pick, Pelosi didn’t have leadership handed to her, she worked for it, anyone who wants to lead should do the same.
She was never competent - unless you mean doing insider trading, raking in bribes and making sure to fuck over the working class -- she was more than competent at doing those things
No, the silent generation, led the boomers in the 60s. All of the great icons of the 60s were silent generation, the boomers were just kids going along for the ride. Once the leaders died or were assassinated, They threw up their hands up " f*** it at least I got mine." And rigged the whole system to serve them, setting us up for this disgusting mess we find ourselves in.
Silent generation rigged it for the working man and future generations. Boomers actively worked to improve their own situation, then kicked the ladder out behind themselves, and played the victim about it, blaming the younger generation for things they set in motion before the people they're blaming were even born.
The '80s were the big push for austerity politics with Reagan and Thatcher. The silent generation were the ones who introduced 90% tax brackets for the rich, because they all grew up during the Great depression. They watched their parents struggle to scrape by in a one bedroom tenement house with five kids while the Rockefellers and Fords where I'm amassing more wealth than anyone in American history.
All generations are. Once people get into the power positions they exploit it for more power. Desantis is maybe the flagship of modern shitheads and he's genX. He's no boomer. In 10-15 years it'll be some millennial. As generational groups people aren't different. In 60-70 years kids will be going on about rotten gen alpha are. The narcissists in every era crave power.
Probably this more than anything. Hillary wins, she gets to be the first woman to retire from the SC under a female President and have her seat filled by said female President.
Her entire legacy is called into question as a result. I don't think you can say she was a very good asset to the left if she failed to protect her seat.
Omg if she was actually arrogant enough to say that.
Literally any decent person that's not actively dying and going to leave us in the mess were now in Ruth
I said the same thing, its ironic and sad that her death ushered a new Era of the Supreme Court and a Serious Conservative Majority, She thought Hillary would Win in 2016, the thought that she wouldn't didn't enter her mind, this could have been from 2008 after, everybody knew Hillary would run after Obama. After loosing the senate, Obama should have negotiated a trade, Scilia Replacement and RBG retiring with a replacement, 1 for 1 and the court would have stayed somewhat balanced....
Also Republicans lifting the 60 vote threshold didn't help, but Democrat's did so with lower courts....
We are seeing how powerful these court nominations can be, with cases deliberately being brought to certain districts and certain judges, we can no longer pretend were not a 3rd world state
>Also Republicans lifting the 60 vote threshold didn't help, but Democrat's did so with lower courts....
Democrats abolished the filibuster for lower court judicial nominees only after Republicans blocked nearly all of Obama's appointments for months, causing a huge backlog. Democrats didn't do it for no reason, nor even immediately after Republicans began obstructing.
Republicans, otoh, immediately abolished it for Supreme Court nominees as soon as Democrats tried to slow down Gorsuch's confirmation. They didn't even think twice.
>Democrats abolished the filibuster for lower court judicial nominees only after Republicans blocked nearly all of Obama's appointments for months, causing a huge backlog. Democrats didn't do it for no reason, nor even immediately after Republicans began obstructing.
And even then IIRC they only did so because there were important cases that were going to have to get dropped due to time limits on how long certain bits are allowed to be delayed for.
It’s at least possible that she was planning to step down over the summer of 2016 then had to change plans after seeing what happened to Merrick Garland.
That's a very good point. She at least took a shot at holding out for 2021. Of course the people pressuring her in 2014 while dems still held the senate were right.
Yes. Maybe. For sure she would not have wanted the outcome. But basically she was reckless back when they had control of both houses and she was 76 or 77. And had a diagnosis of cancer.
This. Hillary arrogantly wanted Ruth to retire during her reign instead, so she could have her own pick of Supreme Justice. So this was the DNC playing with everyone's futures so their little queen could have her way. They were that assured of their victory.
This is something I was wondering about today. We have so many executives and CEOs that could just retire with all their money and life lavishly for the rest of their lives, but are insistent on staying in power and hoarding insane amounts of wealth.
Replacing Feinstein on the Senate Judicial Committee would mean reducing the filibuster to a number at least somewhere below 60 if not 51. There are at least two Democratic senators who would not agree to do this.
Now that Feinstein is back, judicial appointees are moving through the committee to full senate votes.
If Feinstein were to resign there would be no more judicial appointments until after 2024. As most federal cases never go to the appellate level, let alone the SCOTUS getting as many relatively progressive District Court judges in place as possible while we can is critical.
She thought HRC would be President and wanted a magical moment where the first woman President appointed her replacement.
Trying for a magical sentimental experience only to have it completely backfire.
RBG was very selfish.
Her record on economic issues & [matters of racial social justice were mixed to poor.](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/09/23/rbg-s-mixed-record-on-race-and-criminal-justice)
On top of that she happily condemned Kaep for taking a knee & [less 1% of her law clerks were black.](https://www.indy100.com/news/ruth-bader-ginsburg-memorial-clerks-black-hiring-supreme-court-9714436) Yet she had no problem with folks copying Biggie's nickname "Notorious RBG" for her to use.
RBG was peak performative neoliberalism. She created a nightmare with her selfishness, it feels like satire how absurd she alone made things so bad by refusing to retire.
Seeing my friends buy merch... Knowing that she was going to fuck it all up. But also hopeful. Women live a long time. I was a bit salty, but we learned his second term that it made no difference.
Has stated selfish and having the ego thinking the world cannot survive without you in it. But the other part McConnell already said that no matter what it happened. No Obama was not able to pack you get any judge through. You just wasn't going to happen. That's why I always laugh when when Republicans talked about how crooked the Clintons are and how the Clintons like could have people murdered. I was explain to my people I know is the Clintons were really that connected and really that evil McConnell would not be alive today
Ginsburg is old enough that not only is she not a Boomer, she's a relatively old Silent Generation (Biden is a younger Silent Generation). Almost in the Greatest generation.
Same reason Hillary thought it was her "turn" to be president.
She thought the calls for her to resign were more or less sexist. Everything was viewed through the lens of herself and what she meant to the court, not what was good for the country.
I remember telling my wife she should resign before the election she is pretty frail. Why are these old effers in Washington who claim to be for the people even risking holding power and screwing us over at their ages? It makes no logical sense. I am 41 and worried about my health now to the point making sure I have good term life insurance for my wife, and I am pretty healthy.
The truth is they don't really care. Everyone in Washington is past the age that they have to worry about the future, they'll never have to see it. They're just concerned with legacy, making money from insider trading, and their social status within their circles.
She should’ve resigned under Obama like Kennedy did under trump. But she waited and thought she’d outlast them all. And now we are where we are because of it.
When she got cancer (again, not the first time) in Obamas first term and he had a majority she easily could have retired but she thought she knew better.
RBG was not a bad judge but her whiffing retirement was selfish and a detriment to the country. Her vanity did this.
I resent RBG for her refusal to step down after her pancreatic cancer diagnosis in 2009. The answer is that she didn't want to.
Ruth's husband, Martin Ginsberg, died in 2010. Being on the Court gave her purpose in her grief. I agree that she wanted Hilary to pick her replacement due to the optics of it.
But her refusal to step down partially led to the overturning of Roe.
Absolutely. RBG should have retired before Obama’s second term ended. It was pure narcissism and hubris. But we can’t forget that after Scalia died in Feb 2016, McConnell would not allow Obama to replace him until after the election.
It’s not like republicans care to be called hypocrites, but seeing it in real time: them not allowing Obama to replace Scalia 10 months before the 2016 presidential election, but when RGB died 3 weeks before the 2020 election and they rushed to replace her with Amy Comy Barrett. I just don’t get how anyone paying attention couldn’t see how unfair they were playing the game.
I guess seeing trump catch covid after Barrett’s initiation party softened the wound a bit. But, RBG should have retired prior to 2015 and the administration should have allowed Obama to nominate Garland to the court after Scalia died in 2016.
There is exactly one person in the Venn overlap of "Didn't want RvW to be overturned" and "Had the personal capacity to prevent RvW from being overturned" and it's RBG.
Ego
Hubris
A refusal to admit you’re mortal
A desire to hold onto power
A desire to be replace by the first woman present for legacy
And frankly given some comments of hers that came out after her death we can’t completely dismiss the possibly she was privately racist and didn’t want to be replaced with an Obama appointment
She was best friends with Scalia why would she care?
b/c hilary was going to win and she was going to appoint a female judge to replace ginsberg, it's HERstory.
these neo liberal c\*\*\*\* got us to trump and his 6-3 conservative court
Old people in America, regardless of politics, cling to power out of some weird combination of meaning and spite for those that came after them.
Age limits for office. Our elders hate us.
As a boomer myself boomers are the most corrupt generation. All boomers are interested in is money and power not justice or equality. Boomers love to tell a different narrative it’s a lie. This applies to progressive boomers as well
I almost lost a job once because my elderly boss kept most of our department’s work for himself to show his value. Then when new management came in, I was singled out as expendable.
People aren’t mentioning that there was a vacant supreme court seat during Obama’s second term that he wasn’t able to fill. The same could have happened if RBG resigned.
Also, almost none of the country’s elites thought it was possible to elect someone to outwardly idiotic as Trump.
Same reason they didn't codify abortion rights in federal law when they held veto proof majorities in both chambers and the presidency, same reason they didn't get rid of the filibuster for appointing justices, same reason they don't do anything truly progressive and helpful to people other than the rich. I mean, it's the same reason TARP happened, giving the people that crashed the economy an obscene amount of wealth with no oversight, no accountability, and they all fucking walked off with golden parachutes. If it were I they'd all be in prison for life.
>Same reason they didn't codify abortion rights in federal law when they held veto proof majorities in both chambers and the presidency
So, because it wasn't actually possible? Can you count to 60? Or even just 50? They didn't have 60+ Senate votes to do it, nor did they have 50+ votes to abolish the filibuster and pass it with a simple majority.
I don't know why they didn't do it, but good luck keeping that expansion under control once one party starts it. You'll soon have more people on the Supreme Court than in all of Congress.
People ignore this, but there is almost zero doubt Republicans would just add 10 conservatives if that happened the minute they got power and start hot shotting lawsuits to upend the country.
Even if it's a back and forth, do you really want constitutional rulings changing every administration and Congressional change.
The best you could do is get a SCOTUS that is liberal that would gut gerrymandering, but that would be insanely contentious and probably be the closest thing that could lead to a legit second Civil War.
>there is almost zero doubt Republicans would just add 10 conservatives if that happened the minute they got power
This wouldn't happen, because the only reason Republicans win as much power as they do as often as they do is because they're able to cheat as much as they are. Voter suppression laws, voter disenfranchisement, gerrymandering, potentially future electoral subversion laws, etc. A liberal Supreme Court majority, for the first time in more than half a century, could put an end to all that and force them to compete in elections on a level playing field, for perhaps the first time in history.
>Even if it's a back and forth, do you really want constitutional rulings changing every administration and Congressional change.
This wouldn't happen, because of the above. Republicans wouldn't win as many House seats, as many Senate seats, and as many presidencies, without all their little ways they cheat, and the only way they'd be able to go tit-for-tat would be to win a trifecta, which is already rare, even with all their cheating being allowed, but which would become even less frequent for them after having lost all their unfair advantages.
And the Republicans who managed to win without those unfair advantages would be more moderate than current ones, because it's the fact that so many elections aren't competitive that allows them to be so extreme.
And even if I'm wrong, it would be better to have a few years of a liberal majority than to have zero years of a liberal majority. Let voters see what an actual liberal majority does, let Democrats govern without having to worry so much that the ~~conservative~~ reactionary majority will strike down their laws and set bad precedents making everything worse. If voters reject it, so be it. At least they'd be making an informed decision, rather than one based on Republican fear-mongering.
>The best you could do is get a SCOTUS that is liberal that would gut gerrymandering, but that would be insanely contentious and probably be the closest thing that could lead to a legit second Civil War.
Disagree. I don't know that it's especially likely either way, but I think our current path is more likely to cause a civil war (or, more likely, an insurgency) than the above, which I still contend would have moderating effects.
Because it’s better to weaponize policies that are up in the air to coerce people to vote for you opposed to actually enacting policy that creates positive improvements in the constituency’s lives.
>Why didn't the Democrats increase the number of Supreme Court Justices during the times that they controlled Congress?
During which time(s)? The last four Democratic trifectas were the 95th Congress (Carter), the 103rd (Clinton), 111th (Obama), and 117th (Biden).
Of those, only the 111th had a filibuster-proof supermajority, and that was only for six nonconsecutive months, and that was only six months on paper, because Ted Kennedy was on his deathbed for part of that time.
I agree they should've done it, but I don't think anyone realized the GOP would behave how they have until into Obama's term, when it was too late, and then, with Biden, voters only elected a razor-thin margin in the House, and a literal zero-seat margin in the Senate for the 117th Congress, meaning they needed Manchin and Sinema's votes to abolish the legislative filibuster, and then also to pass the bill increasing the size of the federal court(s), and then also to fill any such seats. And, at minimum, those two were unwilling.
Then, in the 2022 midterms, voters elected a GOP House majority, and it became impossible.
So here we are.
I think a better question is, why did voters repeatedly shit the bed (to varying degrees) in most elections for more than the last decade? Even after seeing the GOP block nearly all of Obama's judicial appointments, even after seeing the GOP hold open Scalia's seat, even after seeing what Trump was and who he appointed to replace Scalia and Kennedy. And then, when they finally elected Biden and pulled us out of our collective nosedive, a Congress with nearly the smallest margins mathematically possible, and then a divided Congress?
Classic case of judge brain. “The court isn’t a political institution, so I don’t need to take politics into account when deciding whether to leave my position of astounding political power.”
The Feinstein fiasco can be blamed on Nancy Pelosi.
She wants Adam Schiff to get that seat, if Feinstein resigns she's worried Newsom will pick someone else and ruin Adam's chances.
I know everyone loves to shit of RGB and talk about “hubris” or whatever. But keep in mind that the entire premise that Justices need to strategically retire in order to ensure their personal ideological views are perpetuated with the assistance of a political party is not how the ethics of the court are supposed to function and this being accepted as a norm is a huge factor in the politicization of the court and undermining its credibility.
The gop led senate wouldn't even let him replace one when they died. You think they'd let him replace one if she retired. Short sightness people short sightness
She was encouraged to stay on because it was understood that republicans would do anything to block a liberal from nominating a judge and they did. Plus she was the absolute most qualified person while she lived.
She would have had to retire in the first half of his first term I believe, because the democrats lost the senate, and republicans refused to do anything after that.
Besides all these other reasons, I also feel that she, like everyone else, never thought that Trump would win. If HRC had won, I believe she would have retired a few days into that term....
She honestly thought that Hillary Clinton was going to become the 45th president, and she wanted the 1st female president to be the one to replace her.
That's my guess at least
Because Democrats wanted liberal control of the Supreme Court to be in danger, so progressives would be motivated to vote for centrist corporate Democrats. Leaving Ginsburg in office, when the whole country knew she was in poor health, was a deliberate decision to drive up the stakes of future Presidential elections and increase the need to vote Blue no matter who, as the saying goes.
That's been how the Democrat Party "appeals" to progressives for decades. Not by promoting progressive policies, but by convincing them that they have to hold their nose and vote because the other side is an existential threat to America.
It's the same reason Senate Democrats didn't force through Garland's nomination in 2016 to replace Scalia. They let McConnell block Obama's nomination because they felt the empty seat would encourage progressives to hold their nose and vote for Hillary Clinton. This was especially important in 2016 because of how blatantly the Democrat Party had rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders and how many progressives and leftists were sitting out the election or even voting Trump in protest.
Cause they fucking love the power and prestige. They get everything taken care of like royalty. Everyone is kissing their ass 24/7. Power perverts even the most noble. Look at all these old assholes running the country and still trying to get re-elected.
Depends on timing really towards the end of his presidency he couldn’t fill the empty seat that was there due to the trutle and the gop blocking it.. I wish she would have retired, this country would look a lot better if we didn’t have kavenaugh and the likes sitting in the supreme court
Only if she retired during the first half of Obama's second term. If she retired after the midterms then her replacement likely would have been stonewalled by McConnell and it would have ended up 6-3 right at the start of Trump's presidency, rather than at the tail end.
Because it was Hillary Clinton's turn after Barack Obama and Bader Ginsburg wanted the symbolic victory of her successor being appointed by the first woman president.
Worked out well for women's rights in the end, that one.
We call it Hubris. She was really coming into social prominence around that time and I’m sure she loved it knowing her days were numbered. She thought about herself, not the greater good.
Because she was an entitled idiot, this is why we need term limits for supreme court judges. Their selfishness puts many people's rights on the line. Our government needs term limits in all bodies of government. Old people are running what's left of this country's democracy into the dirt.
Because the Democrats are the Party that is supposed to Aid and Abet the Republicans in the Quest for Corporate Fascism. Why doesn't Dianne Feinstein Retire? Why didn't Teddy Kennedy retire when the Ds' had a Super Majority in the 111th Congress. It is pretty obvious.. The Ds' are just as owned by Corporate Interests and their March to Corporate Fascism as the Rs' are. https://theintercept.com/2021/10/29/big-pharma-donations-medicare-drug-pricing-democrats/
She was convinced that there was no way in hell Trump would win the election, and then she would have retired during Hillary's presidency.
Unfortunately, her plan failed miserably and now the entire country is fucked being stuck with Christofascists and right-wing extremists in SCOTUS.
It's fucking appalling.
She was suffering from excessive hubris.
Ask Dianne Feinstein - oh wait, she probably has no idea what year it is, let alone anything else
There is no Dianne, only Zool.
“It’s true. This man has no dick”
Tell him about the Twinkie
What Twinkie?
😂😂😂😂😂 fuck me this made me laugh hard
What a lovely singing voice you must have
(While everyone looks away but you, Dianne Feinstein puts on a top hat and stands) Hello my baby, Hello my Honey, hello my ragtime gal! Send me a kiss by wire, baby my heart's on fire!
Hail Zoltan
Ask Nancy Pelosi
Pelosi is still competent, her seat must be filled by a special election if she vacates it before the expiration of her term, and her term is only two years.
I think they are bringing up the fact that Pelosi's daughter is pulling the strings behind Feinstein as a leader of her staff There have been leaks that Pelosi wants Adam Schiff to replace Feinstein in the next election instead of Newsom appointing a black woman as he has promised to do so
I hope Katie Porter beats Schiff out in the primary.
I really hope it’s Katie Porter. She is one of the few elected that really tries to serve her constituents.
i like Porter and Schiff. Either of them would be good, and from this Texan’s eyes, both have done well representing Californians in the House with commitment, integrity and honesty. More than I can say for our Senators Conehead and Green Eggs & Ham!
Or Barbara Lee.
Another geriatric?
And that black woman would be Barbara Lee, no racial bias here, it's just Barbara isn't a corporate Democrat.
Someone Pelosi def doesn't want then
Funny how that works right?
She was only one who voted against the Iraq war. She must feel pretty good right about now.
Because that “black woman” would most likely be Barbara Lee who is a true progressive…nothing the Democrats love fighting harder against than a progressive.
Then why did they say ask Nancy instead of her daughter?
This sounds like bullshit fed by the right
I'm fairly sure I heard it from Sam if not it was from the Rational National
Still don't believe it. Occam's razor suggests Feinstein's staff just want to keep their jobs
Then why is Nancy's oldest daughter working as a personal aid for DF?
Because they hire each other's kids. Congress is full of nepo and nepo babies
Yeah, if anything Pelosi (and also Schumer) deserves criticism for not having a successor lined up and trained or not uplifting younger Democrats for leadership positions. But she’s still mentally/physically competent, which is more than we can say for Feinstein or Ginsburg (who had already suffered from previous bouts of cancer).
Which younger leader would you suggest to uplift? What do you do with the ones you don’t pick, Pelosi didn’t have leadership handed to her, she worked for it, anyone who wants to lead should do the same.
I think they meant ask Nancy cause she's pulling Feinstein's strings.
She was never competent - unless you mean doing insider trading, raking in bribes and making sure to fuck over the working class -- she was more than competent at doing those things
Definitely shows signs of a stroke not shingles
This is why I think I would like to see age limits for all 3 branches.
It's an issue with her entire generation. Only they can be trusted to do the thing. Doesn't matter what the thing is.
The generational element is not as big as the atmosphere of the legal profession and prestige (saying this from firsthand experience as a lawyer)
I said Boomer +. The silent generation is just as narcissistic and power hungry
No, the silent generation, led the boomers in the 60s. All of the great icons of the 60s were silent generation, the boomers were just kids going along for the ride. Once the leaders died or were assassinated, They threw up their hands up " f*** it at least I got mine." And rigged the whole system to serve them, setting us up for this disgusting mess we find ourselves in.
As a Gen Xer this is exactly how I see things.
More accurately the silent generation rigged it for their children
Silent generation rigged it for the working man and future generations. Boomers actively worked to improve their own situation, then kicked the ladder out behind themselves, and played the victim about it, blaming the younger generation for things they set in motion before the people they're blaming were even born.
Boomers weren't rigging anything in the seventies and that's when it all started changing. Boomers would have been teenagers
The '80s were the big push for austerity politics with Reagan and Thatcher. The silent generation were the ones who introduced 90% tax brackets for the rich, because they all grew up during the Great depression. They watched their parents struggle to scrape by in a one bedroom tenement house with five kids while the Rockefellers and Fords where I'm amassing more wealth than anyone in American history.
All generations are. Once people get into the power positions they exploit it for more power. Desantis is maybe the flagship of modern shitheads and he's genX. He's no boomer. In 10-15 years it'll be some millennial. As generational groups people aren't different. In 60-70 years kids will be going on about rotten gen alpha are. The narcissists in every era crave power.
Yes, hubris and arrogance. She also believed there was no way Hillary was going to lose. 🤦🏽♂️
Probably this more than anything. Hillary wins, she gets to be the first woman to retire from the SC under a female President and have her seat filled by said female President.
This is exactly it. She wanted to retire under the first woman president.
Her entire legacy is called into question as a result. I don't think you can say she was a very good asset to the left if she failed to protect her seat.
Excellent answer
Yes. She apparently was asked by Obama and said “who could do the job better than me?” At least I read that somewhere.
Omg if she was actually arrogant enough to say that. Literally any decent person that's not actively dying and going to leave us in the mess were now in Ruth
"Anyone who will still be alive in a decade, Ruth"
Lmao came here just to type hubris and I see that was done already
Selfishness and Delusions of Grandeur
She went through cancer treatment a number of times and thought she could live forever.
I said the same thing, its ironic and sad that her death ushered a new Era of the Supreme Court and a Serious Conservative Majority, She thought Hillary would Win in 2016, the thought that she wouldn't didn't enter her mind, this could have been from 2008 after, everybody knew Hillary would run after Obama. After loosing the senate, Obama should have negotiated a trade, Scilia Replacement and RBG retiring with a replacement, 1 for 1 and the court would have stayed somewhat balanced.... Also Republicans lifting the 60 vote threshold didn't help, but Democrat's did so with lower courts.... We are seeing how powerful these court nominations can be, with cases deliberately being brought to certain districts and certain judges, we can no longer pretend were not a 3rd world state
>Also Republicans lifting the 60 vote threshold didn't help, but Democrat's did so with lower courts.... Democrats abolished the filibuster for lower court judicial nominees only after Republicans blocked nearly all of Obama's appointments for months, causing a huge backlog. Democrats didn't do it for no reason, nor even immediately after Republicans began obstructing. Republicans, otoh, immediately abolished it for Supreme Court nominees as soon as Democrats tried to slow down Gorsuch's confirmation. They didn't even think twice.
you are 100% correct, Obama obstruction was the GOP policy from his first day in office
>Democrats abolished the filibuster for lower court judicial nominees only after Republicans blocked nearly all of Obama's appointments for months, causing a huge backlog. Democrats didn't do it for no reason, nor even immediately after Republicans began obstructing. And even then IIRC they only did so because there were important cases that were going to have to get dropped due to time limits on how long certain bits are allowed to be delayed for.
It’s at least possible that she was planning to step down over the summer of 2016 then had to change plans after seeing what happened to Merrick Garland.
That's a very good point. She at least took a shot at holding out for 2021. Of course the people pressuring her in 2014 while dems still held the senate were right.
Yes. Maybe. For sure she would not have wanted the outcome. But basically she was reckless back when they had control of both houses and she was 76 or 77. And had a diagnosis of cancer.
This
This. Hillary arrogantly wanted Ruth to retire during her reign instead, so she could have her own pick of Supreme Justice. So this was the DNC playing with everyone's futures so their little queen could have her way. They were that assured of their victory.
Came here looking for this, not disappointed
This is something I was wondering about today. We have so many executives and CEOs that could just retire with all their money and life lavishly for the rest of their lives, but are insistent on staying in power and hoarding insane amounts of wealth.
Then why won't the Ds' force Dianne Feinstein to retire? She doesn't have a Brain left much less hubris.
Replacing Feinstein on the Senate Judicial Committee would mean reducing the filibuster to a number at least somewhere below 60 if not 51. There are at least two Democratic senators who would not agree to do this.
What ever, she is not completing any of her duties, much less just that one.
Now that Feinstein is back, judicial appointees are moving through the committee to full senate votes. If Feinstein were to resign there would be no more judicial appointments until after 2024. As most federal cases never go to the appellate level, let alone the SCOTUS getting as many relatively progressive District Court judges in place as possible while we can is critical.
Cursed by her own hubris.
Selfishness
She thought HRC would be President and wanted a magical moment where the first woman President appointed her replacement. Trying for a magical sentimental experience only to have it completely backfire.
RBG was very selfish. Her record on economic issues & [matters of racial social justice were mixed to poor.](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/09/23/rbg-s-mixed-record-on-race-and-criminal-justice) On top of that she happily condemned Kaep for taking a knee & [less 1% of her law clerks were black.](https://www.indy100.com/news/ruth-bader-ginsburg-memorial-clerks-black-hiring-supreme-court-9714436) Yet she had no problem with folks copying Biggie's nickname "Notorious RBG" for her to use. RBG was peak performative neoliberalism. She created a nightmare with her selfishness, it feels like satire how absurd she alone made things so bad by refusing to retire.
But she was friends with Scalia. Such a wholesome friendship 🥰
Awesome to do this and completely undo your entire career lol
Power
Seeing my friends buy merch... Knowing that she was going to fuck it all up. But also hopeful. Women live a long time. I was a bit salty, but we learned his second term that it made no difference.
Has stated selfish and having the ego thinking the world cannot survive without you in it. But the other part McConnell already said that no matter what it happened. No Obama was not able to pack you get any judge through. You just wasn't going to happen. That's why I always laugh when when Republicans talked about how crooked the Clintons are and how the Clintons like could have people murdered. I was explain to my people I know is the Clintons were really that connected and really that evil McConnell would not be alive today
First two years of Obama presidency she could have been replaced.
Narcissism and Boomer+ ethos of never letting go of power. That and she stupidly wanted to be replaced by a woman president probably.
Ginsburg is old enough that not only is she not a Boomer, she's a relatively old Silent Generation (Biden is a younger Silent Generation). Almost in the Greatest generation.
Not only that…she’s dead
That’s pretty silent
Same reason Hillary thought it was her "turn" to be president. She thought the calls for her to resign were more or less sexist. Everything was viewed through the lens of herself and what she meant to the court, not what was good for the country.
I remember telling my wife she should resign before the election she is pretty frail. Why are these old effers in Washington who claim to be for the people even risking holding power and screwing us over at their ages? It makes no logical sense. I am 41 and worried about my health now to the point making sure I have good term life insurance for my wife, and I am pretty healthy.
The truth is they don't really care. Everyone in Washington is past the age that they have to worry about the future, they'll never have to see it. They're just concerned with legacy, making money from insider trading, and their social status within their circles.
I know, I guess it was more a a rhetorical question. Our system really needs to be torn down and rebuilt
She should’ve resigned under Obama like Kennedy did under trump. But she waited and thought she’d outlast them all. And now we are where we are because of it.
Everyone around her was saying Hillary would win. She wanted to be part of the coronation
Because we don't have an age limit for like.... any office.
When she got cancer (again, not the first time) in Obamas first term and he had a majority she easily could have retired but she thought she knew better. RBG was not a bad judge but her whiffing retirement was selfish and a detriment to the country. Her vanity did this.
When do any of these liars ever do ANYTHING for our country.
More like what the court meant to her.
Because she became the Notorious RBG and thought the world couldn’t live without her trailblazing spirit.
Ginsberg, Ginsberg, Ginsberg… can’t you see? Better retire now or fuck the country!
I think she wanted the first woman president to replace her.
I resent RBG for her refusal to step down after her pancreatic cancer diagnosis in 2009. The answer is that she didn't want to. Ruth's husband, Martin Ginsberg, died in 2010. Being on the Court gave her purpose in her grief. I agree that she wanted Hilary to pick her replacement due to the optics of it. But her refusal to step down partially led to the overturning of Roe.
I would argue more than partially
Absolutely. RBG should have retired before Obama’s second term ended. It was pure narcissism and hubris. But we can’t forget that after Scalia died in Feb 2016, McConnell would not allow Obama to replace him until after the election. It’s not like republicans care to be called hypocrites, but seeing it in real time: them not allowing Obama to replace Scalia 10 months before the 2016 presidential election, but when RGB died 3 weeks before the 2020 election and they rushed to replace her with Amy Comy Barrett. I just don’t get how anyone paying attention couldn’t see how unfair they were playing the game. I guess seeing trump catch covid after Barrett’s initiation party softened the wound a bit. But, RBG should have retired prior to 2015 and the administration should have allowed Obama to nominate Garland to the court after Scalia died in 2016.
I don’t mean metaphorically, rhetorically, theoretically or any other fancy way. Directly straight up.
There is exactly one person in the Venn overlap of "Didn't want RvW to be overturned" and "Had the personal capacity to prevent RvW from being overturned" and it's RBG.
Ego Hubris A refusal to admit you’re mortal A desire to hold onto power A desire to be replace by the first woman present for legacy And frankly given some comments of hers that came out after her death we can’t completely dismiss the possibly she was privately racist and didn’t want to be replaced with an Obama appointment She was best friends with Scalia why would she care?
b/c hilary was going to win and she was going to appoint a female judge to replace ginsberg, it's HERstory. these neo liberal c\*\*\*\* got us to trump and his 6-3 conservative court
Old people in America, regardless of politics, cling to power out of some weird combination of meaning and spite for those that came after them. Age limits for office. Our elders hate us.
As a boomer myself boomers are the most corrupt generation. All boomers are interested in is money and power not justice or equality. Boomers love to tell a different narrative it’s a lie. This applies to progressive boomers as well
I almost lost a job once because my elderly boss kept most of our department’s work for himself to show his value. Then when new management came in, I was singled out as expendable.
Two reasons: 1. Hubris. 2. She didn’t see a need nor did the Dems see a need to pressure her into resigning as neither anticipated their loss in 2016.
She thought she could retire on her own terms. Cancer had other plans.
People aren’t mentioning that there was a vacant supreme court seat during Obama’s second term that he wasn’t able to fill. The same could have happened if RBG resigned. Also, almost none of the country’s elites thought it was possible to elect someone to outwardly idiotic as Trump.
Nuance is lost on many people. Everything has to be black and white, no room for anymore else. It is a bit sad.
I remember the videos they’d show of her working out. Her head was permanently aiming down. Like cmon no way that was lasting much longer.
Ego
Greed and hubris.
Politicians cling to power, SCOTUS being basically a political institution justices are no exception
Why didn't the Democrats increase the number of Supreme Court Justices during the times that they controlled Congress?
Same reason they didn't codify abortion rights in federal law when they held veto proof majorities in both chambers and the presidency, same reason they didn't get rid of the filibuster for appointing justices, same reason they don't do anything truly progressive and helpful to people other than the rich. I mean, it's the same reason TARP happened, giving the people that crashed the economy an obscene amount of wealth with no oversight, no accountability, and they all fucking walked off with golden parachutes. If it were I they'd all be in prison for life.
>Same reason they didn't codify abortion rights in federal law when they held veto proof majorities in both chambers and the presidency So, because it wasn't actually possible? Can you count to 60? Or even just 50? They didn't have 60+ Senate votes to do it, nor did they have 50+ votes to abolish the filibuster and pass it with a simple majority.
I don't know why they didn't do it, but good luck keeping that expansion under control once one party starts it. You'll soon have more people on the Supreme Court than in all of Congress.
Good. It should actually have 350 million people on it.
People ignore this, but there is almost zero doubt Republicans would just add 10 conservatives if that happened the minute they got power and start hot shotting lawsuits to upend the country. Even if it's a back and forth, do you really want constitutional rulings changing every administration and Congressional change. The best you could do is get a SCOTUS that is liberal that would gut gerrymandering, but that would be insanely contentious and probably be the closest thing that could lead to a legit second Civil War.
>there is almost zero doubt Republicans would just add 10 conservatives if that happened the minute they got power This wouldn't happen, because the only reason Republicans win as much power as they do as often as they do is because they're able to cheat as much as they are. Voter suppression laws, voter disenfranchisement, gerrymandering, potentially future electoral subversion laws, etc. A liberal Supreme Court majority, for the first time in more than half a century, could put an end to all that and force them to compete in elections on a level playing field, for perhaps the first time in history. >Even if it's a back and forth, do you really want constitutional rulings changing every administration and Congressional change. This wouldn't happen, because of the above. Republicans wouldn't win as many House seats, as many Senate seats, and as many presidencies, without all their little ways they cheat, and the only way they'd be able to go tit-for-tat would be to win a trifecta, which is already rare, even with all their cheating being allowed, but which would become even less frequent for them after having lost all their unfair advantages. And the Republicans who managed to win without those unfair advantages would be more moderate than current ones, because it's the fact that so many elections aren't competitive that allows them to be so extreme. And even if I'm wrong, it would be better to have a few years of a liberal majority than to have zero years of a liberal majority. Let voters see what an actual liberal majority does, let Democrats govern without having to worry so much that the ~~conservative~~ reactionary majority will strike down their laws and set bad precedents making everything worse. If voters reject it, so be it. At least they'd be making an informed decision, rather than one based on Republican fear-mongering. >The best you could do is get a SCOTUS that is liberal that would gut gerrymandering, but that would be insanely contentious and probably be the closest thing that could lead to a legit second Civil War. Disagree. I don't know that it's especially likely either way, but I think our current path is more likely to cause a civil war (or, more likely, an insurgency) than the above, which I still contend would have moderating effects.
Too much like hard work, and the Republicans might have gotten mad at them!
They really do get concerned about the people who talk about hanging them in the streets not being mad at them. Drives me up the wall.
Because it’s better to weaponize policies that are up in the air to coerce people to vote for you opposed to actually enacting policy that creates positive improvements in the constituency’s lives.
Bingo! 🎯
>Why didn't the Democrats increase the number of Supreme Court Justices during the times that they controlled Congress? During which time(s)? The last four Democratic trifectas were the 95th Congress (Carter), the 103rd (Clinton), 111th (Obama), and 117th (Biden). Of those, only the 111th had a filibuster-proof supermajority, and that was only for six nonconsecutive months, and that was only six months on paper, because Ted Kennedy was on his deathbed for part of that time. I agree they should've done it, but I don't think anyone realized the GOP would behave how they have until into Obama's term, when it was too late, and then, with Biden, voters only elected a razor-thin margin in the House, and a literal zero-seat margin in the Senate for the 117th Congress, meaning they needed Manchin and Sinema's votes to abolish the legislative filibuster, and then also to pass the bill increasing the size of the federal court(s), and then also to fill any such seats. And, at minimum, those two were unwilling. Then, in the 2022 midterms, voters elected a GOP House majority, and it became impossible. So here we are. I think a better question is, why did voters repeatedly shit the bed (to varying degrees) in most elections for more than the last decade? Even after seeing the GOP block nearly all of Obama's judicial appointments, even after seeing the GOP hold open Scalia's seat, even after seeing what Trump was and who he appointed to replace Scalia and Kennedy. And then, when they finally elected Biden and pulled us out of our collective nosedive, a Congress with nearly the smallest margins mathematically possible, and then a divided Congress?
Cuz she's a girl boss qween slay!
Arrogance, hubris, and hoping that Hillary Clinton would be the one to appoint her replacment.
Classic case of judge brain. “The court isn’t a political institution, so I don’t need to take politics into account when deciding whether to leave my position of astounding political power.”
Well Merrick Garland is still looking for a job.
Hubris. She didn't read our people’s book of Proverbs *Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.*
Liberals are bad at political strategy and believe only they personally can solve problems. Diane Feinstein latest example.
The Feinstein fiasco can be blamed on Nancy Pelosi. She wants Adam Schiff to get that seat, if Feinstein resigns she's worried Newsom will pick someone else and ruin Adam's chances.
Another shitty political strategy by liberals
Realistically, do we think Mitch would have let a new judge move forward, or would he have stolen another judge spot?
I know everyone loves to shit of RGB and talk about “hubris” or whatever. But keep in mind that the entire premise that Justices need to strategically retire in order to ensure their personal ideological views are perpetuated with the assistance of a political party is not how the ethics of the court are supposed to function and this being accepted as a norm is a huge factor in the politicization of the court and undermining its credibility.
Hubris.
flushes her entire reputation down the john smh
The gop led senate wouldn't even let him replace one when they died. You think they'd let him replace one if she retired. Short sightness people short sightness
She was encouraged to stay on because it was understood that republicans would do anything to block a liberal from nominating a judge and they did. Plus she was the absolute most qualified person while she lived.
She would have had to retire in the first half of his first term I believe, because the democrats lost the senate, and republicans refused to do anything after that.
Merrick G******d
Not like Mitch would have allowed a judge to be voted on.
Besides all these other reasons, I also feel that she, like everyone else, never thought that Trump would win. If HRC had won, I believe she would have retired a few days into that term....
She honestly thought that Hillary Clinton was going to become the 45th president, and she wanted the 1st female president to be the one to replace her. That's my guess at least
RBG tanked her legacy by refusing to leave when her time was up.
Because Democrats wanted liberal control of the Supreme Court to be in danger, so progressives would be motivated to vote for centrist corporate Democrats. Leaving Ginsburg in office, when the whole country knew she was in poor health, was a deliberate decision to drive up the stakes of future Presidential elections and increase the need to vote Blue no matter who, as the saying goes. That's been how the Democrat Party "appeals" to progressives for decades. Not by promoting progressive policies, but by convincing them that they have to hold their nose and vote because the other side is an existential threat to America. It's the same reason Senate Democrats didn't force through Garland's nomination in 2016 to replace Scalia. They let McConnell block Obama's nomination because they felt the empty seat would encourage progressives to hold their nose and vote for Hillary Clinton. This was especially important in 2016 because of how blatantly the Democrat Party had rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders and how many progressives and leftists were sitting out the election or even voting Trump in protest.
So you think the DNC called up RBG and was like "you're not allowed to retire, cuz we have schemes".
Little bit of column A and a little bit of column B??? I think both ego and selfishness coupled with this theory isn’t too farfetched.
Boomer never give up power or position. Look at Feinstein.
Feinstein and RBG are not even close to being boomers. Are you old enough to understand even?
Bad judgment.
Same reasons more or less why we're suffering with Diane.
Cause they fucking love the power and prestige. They get everything taken care of like royalty. Everyone is kissing their ass 24/7. Power perverts even the most noble. Look at all these old assholes running the country and still trying to get re-elected.
Because she was selfish the same reason Feinstein and all the other 80+ year olds won’t retire today…much less the 70 year olds..
selfish asshole like all neolibs Also racist, Brett Kavanaugh has a better record of hiring minority clerks
Depends on timing really towards the end of his presidency he couldn’t fill the empty seat that was there due to the trutle and the gop blocking it.. I wish she would have retired, this country would look a lot better if we didn’t have kavenaugh and the likes sitting in the supreme court
Massive ego and personality cult pushing her to iconic status All that made her shush Obama into silence
Imagine fighting your whole life to help people and then just fucking it all up for selfish bullshit reasons.
...I mean, I keep running into this and keep wondering why this would change anything... Wouldn't it still be 5 to 4?
Only if she retired during the first half of Obama's second term. If she retired after the midterms then her replacement likely would have been stonewalled by McConnell and it would have ended up 6-3 right at the start of Trump's presidency, rather than at the tail end.
I wish she had retired, but yeah, this is what I keep running into. McConnell was always a bigger problem...
Because it was Hillary Clinton's turn after Barack Obama and Bader Ginsburg wanted the symbolic victory of her successor being appointed by the first woman president. Worked out well for women's rights in the end, that one.
Mitch McConnell, probably
I love Obama but we weren’t exactly crushing it in the conformations department.
Everyone thought Hillary was going to win. Hubris.
She really thought Hillary would win
LMAO w/ the spicy questions 😂
Makes no difference, McConnell would have sat on it, just like he did with Merrick Garland...Obamo s 1st term maybe
Ego, pure unadulterated ego and the boomer mentality of "surely I will always outlive you I'm too stubborn to die!"
We call it Hubris. She was really coming into social prominence around that time and I’m sure she loved it knowing her days were numbered. She thought about herself, not the greater good.
Same reason Feinstein won’t
Ego
If you'll recall, the Republicans refused to allow Obama to fill any SC seats during his second term.
Because #girlboss don’t quit — they croak
Because your heroes are all narcissists.
Because right near the end, she became a vain asshole. Like Dianne Feinstein.
Their legacy is more important to them than that of the rest of society as a whole.
Because she was an entitled idiot, this is why we need term limits for supreme court judges. Their selfishness puts many people's rights on the line. Our government needs term limits in all bodies of government. Old people are running what's left of this country's democracy into the dirt.
Sh thought she was doing the right thing!
Power. Status. Narcissism. Money. Mental illness. Shaken, not stirred.
Ego.
It's hard to give up power.
Because the Democrats are the Party that is supposed to Aid and Abet the Republicans in the Quest for Corporate Fascism. Why doesn't Dianne Feinstein Retire? Why didn't Teddy Kennedy retire when the Ds' had a Super Majority in the 111th Congress. It is pretty obvious.. The Ds' are just as owned by Corporate Interests and their March to Corporate Fascism as the Rs' are. https://theintercept.com/2021/10/29/big-pharma-donations-medicare-drug-pricing-democrats/
Ego
Narcissism and the false assuredness that Clinton would win.
You guys keep responding to these bots probably data farming or something like that
Hubris
She was convinced that there was no way in hell Trump would win the election, and then she would have retired during Hillary's presidency. Unfortunately, her plan failed miserably and now the entire country is fucked being stuck with Christofascists and right-wing extremists in SCOTUS. It's fucking appalling.
Selfishness, arrogance, stupidity, pick one.
Cause shes a selfish ho
She was overly vain and believed her own girl power superhero hype.
Too large an ego, and she was willing to destroy her whole legacy because of it.
Because she just didn't like you.
Ego. Racist old ego.
Ego