Quo Vadis, Democrats?

[grumbler]

That means RBG would have needed significant foresight to think that the situation would deteriorate so badly that her dying 5 years in the future would help lead to this crisis in 10 years.

You don't need foresight to acknowledge that elections are sometimes won and sometimes lost.

She gambled. And you all lost.

Again, people who make this claim are forgetting that the Senate was preventing all judicial appointments.  There was no gambling here.  There was reality.

When Kagan was confirmed RBG was almost 80, and a twice cancer-survivor.

That's true, but I don't think that you can blame her for taking the chance that she could survive into a new administration and provide at least the chance of a non-rightwing justice succeeding her, rather than retiring and giving the Republicans years to poison the well of any nominee to replace her.

I agree that, in hindsight, her decision turned out poorly.  That wasn't at all clear to me at the time, though.

[Barrister]

That means RBG would have needed significant foresight to think that the situation would deteriorate so badly that her dying 5 years in the future would help lead to this crisis in 10 years.

You don't need foresight to acknowledge that elections are sometimes won and sometimes lost.

She gambled. And you all lost.

Again, people who make this claim are forgetting that the Senate was preventing all judicial appointments.  There was no gambling here.  There was reality.

The Senate had never refused to hold a vote on a USSC candidate before.

That's how you got such odd figures as David Souter - a Republican nominee confirmed by a Democratic senate, who turned out to be a mostly-reliable left-wing vote.  Bush 41 felt he needed to get a compromise candidate - which was what Garland was.

(You still had the filibuster back then, but the dynamic was the same)

You are now going full MAGA, either that or you have a bad memory.

I'm trying to defend RBG here...

Before Garland - had the Senate ever just refused to vote on a USSC nominee?  Not that I can recall.  That was a major change in the politics of of Supreme Court nominations.  So while yes, you can think RBG maybe should have resigned earlier, I don't think anyone would have expected the Senate Republicans to simply refuse to vote on her successor.

[crazy canuck]

That means RBG would have needed significant foresight to think that the situation would deteriorate so badly that her dying 5 years in the future would help lead to this crisis in 10 years.

You don't need foresight to acknowledge that elections are sometimes won and sometimes lost.

She gambled. And you all lost.

Again, people who make this claim are forgetting that the Senate was preventing all judicial appointments.  There was no gambling here.  There was reality.

The Senate had never refused to hold a vote on a USSC candidate before.

That's how you got such odd figures as David Souter - a Republican nominee confirmed by a Democratic senate, who turned out to be a mostly-reliable left-wing vote.  Bush 41 felt he needed to get a compromise candidate - which was what Garland was.

(You still had the filibuster back then, but the dynamic was the same)

You are now going full MAGA, either that or you have a bad memory.

I'm trying to defend RBG here...

Before Garland - had the Senate ever just refused to vote on a USSC nominee?  Not that I can recall.  That was a major change in the politics of of Supreme Court nominations.  So while yes, you can think RBG maybe should have resigned earlier, I don't think anyone would have expected the Senate Republicans to simply refuse to vote on her successor.

Right, in the post I was responding to, you didn't make the caveat "before Garland".  You claimed it had never happened.  RBG didn't step down when her health started failing, because at that point the Senate definitely would have played games.

[Barrister]

Right, in the post I was responding to, you didn't make the caveat "before Garland".  You claimed it had never happened.  RBG didn't step down when her health started failing, because at that point the Senate definitely would have played games.

Great.

So maybe you can take it easy on the "you have gone full MAGA or have a bad memory" stuff.

I had thought it was obvious I was speaking about "before Garland", but glad we could clear up that confusion.

[crazy canuck]

That means RBG would have needed significant foresight to think that the situation would deteriorate so badly that her dying 5 years in the future would help lead to this crisis in 10 years.

You don't need foresight to acknowledge that elections are sometimes won and sometimes lost.

She gambled. And you all lost.

Again, people who make this claim are forgetting that the Senate was preventing all judicial appointments.  There was no gambling here.  There was reality.

When Kagan was confirmed RBG was almost 80, and a twice cancer-survivor.

That's true, but I don't think that you can blame her for taking the chance that she could survive into a new administration and provide at least the chance of a non-rightwing justice succeeding her, rather than retiring and giving the Republicans years to poison the well of any nominee to replace her.

I agree that, in hindsight, her decision turned out poorly.  That wasn't at all clear to me at the time, though.

Also, I know a number of judges who are cancer survivors.  That doesn't mean they are in an immediate danger medically. It has, thankfully, become fairly routine to survive cancer.

[crazy canuck]

Right, in the post I was responding to, you didn't make the caveat "before Garland".  You claimed it had never happened.  RBG didn't step down when her health started failing, because at that point the Senate definitely would have played games.

Great.

So maybe you can take it easy on the "you have gone full MAGA or have a bad memory" stuff.

I had thought it was obvious I was speaking about "before Garland", but glad we could clear up that confusion.

Your dalliance with fascism in your posts today does not put me at ease.

[Oexmelin]

Susan Collins may be another senator liable to pressure, since she's somehow built her brand on appearing thoughtful (but then folding).

[Admiral Yi]

Susan Collins may be another senator liable to pressure, since she's somehow built her brand on appearing thoughtful (but then folding).

You're contradicting yourself.

[Oexmelin]

 I am a hopeless optimist.