In a scenario where Trump doesn't win a second term, RBG croaks in early December, Trump appoints a new Supreme, he/she was confirmed before Christmas (assuming the Senate Republicans stayed in town) the democrats would be in complete meltdown and we'd new riots in the streets. But, the Democrats would seek to expand the Supreme Court to retake the majority..

quote:

Originally posted by 2PAK:
In a scenario where Trump doesn't win a second term, RBG croaks in early December, Trump appoints a new Supreme, he/she was confirmed before Christmas (assuming the Senate Republicans stayed in town) the democrats would be in complete meltdown and we'd new riots in the streets. But, the Democrats would seek to expand the Supreme Court to retake the majority..

Why should we worry about a scenario that we have to imagine?

There's a saying I've heard many times that for every woman in the world there's a man somewhere who's sick of her s*&t.

If we get to imagine (and hope), my scenario is RBG holds out for the election, Trump wins, the Reaper gets tired of her s*&t, and Trump has all the time he wants to pick a real conservative this time to counter Roberts and other middle of the roaders.

^^^^^ I am confident that President Trump has already picked his replacement for any opening in the Supreme Court, just to be ready.

flashguy

This bitch is liable to stay on life support for a few years after a good faceplant to haunt us more yet.

quote:

Originally posted by PowerSurge:

quote:

Originally posted by sigalert:

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
I would rather she goes away after Trump wins reelection. At this point, I would rather punt than give a hail mary to the other side and give them one more opportunity to raise a shit storm.

They don’t need an opportunity. They will always raise a shitstorm. Before or after the election is irrelevant.

This. I don’t deal in fear. The sooner that vile bitch dies the better.

I deal in pragmatism, not in fear.

If Ginsburg dies now, Democrats will want the “next president” to make the nomination on the same justification that was used by Mitch in not filling the vacancy that occurred during Obama’s last year.

If the Republicans push for a nomination before elections, Democrats will work to delay it until after the election.

Either way, the Democrats will have this to insist the US cannot have 4 more years of Trump where he could shift the Supreme Court even more. People don’t like extremes one way or the other and that might be a tipping point.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by PowerSurge:

quote:

Originally posted by sigalert:

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
I would rather she goes away after Trump wins reelection. At this point, I would rather punt than give a hail mary to the other side and give them one more opportunity to raise a shit storm.

They don’t need an opportunity. They will always raise a shitstorm. Before or after the election is irrelevant.

This. I don’t deal in fear. The sooner that vile bitch dies the better.

I deal in pragmatism, not in fear.

If Ginsburg dies now, Democrats will want the “next president” to make the nomination on the same justification that was used by Mitch in not filling the vacancy that occurred during Obama’s last year.

If the Republicans push for a nomination before elections, Democrats will work to delay it until after the election.

Either way, the Democrats will have this to insist the US cannot have 4 more years of Trump where he could shift the Supreme Court even more. People don’t like extremes one way or the other and that might be a tipping point.

Unless I’m mistaken, Republicans have more seats on the Judicial Committee. And thanks to Harry Reid, have the green light to nominate Supreme Court justices with a simple majority, which they also have. The Democrats can’t delay anything. Unless a Republican Senator loses their nerve.

When it gets out of committee don't count on Romney or Murkowski

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:
When it gets out of committee don't count on Romney or Murkowski

No, definitely not. And I would just assume they'd be against any Trump nominee this year. But that still gives us a majority. Who else would give us worry? This is what is so frustrating about Republicans. Because if it were the other way around, the Democrats would have every single senator onboard without question.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:
When it gets out of committee don't count on Romney or Murkowski

No, definitely not. And I would just assume they'd be against any Trump nominee this year. But that still gives us a majority. Who else would give us worry? This is what is so frustrating about Republicans. Because if it were the other way around, the Democrats would have every single senator onboard without question.

One word....Collins.

Justice Ginsberg has liver cancer.

Been undergoing treatment for a while.

Whatever it takes

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
Justice Ginsberg has liver cancer.

Been undergoing treatment for a while.

L'Chaim!

Liver cancer means no chemo treatment available. Believe the only remedy is invasive surgery to remove part of the liver unless the tumor has infested to large of a portion of the liver then they may just have to let it go.

I wonder if they have her and her medical staff compartmentalized enough to conceal her death for any length of time.

quote:

Originally posted by sigalert:

Unless I’m mistaken, Republicans have more seats on the Judicial Committee. And thanks to Harry Reid, have the green light to nominate Supreme Court justices with a simple majority, which they also have. The Democrats can’t delay anything. Unless a Republican Senator loses their nerve.

I would rather have both a Trump reelection and Ginsburg replaced by a Trump nominee than Ginsburg's replacement be at the forefront leading up to the election.

I do not want the Undecideds to be galvanized into maintaining the status quo of the Supreme Court by not reelecting Trump should the nomination be replaced. And I don't want the issue be used to not reelect Trump should they manage to go through the nomination before the election.

https://www.breitbart.com/news...ned-but-wont-retire/

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Friday she is receiving chemotherapy for a recurrence of cancer, but has no plans to retire from the Supreme Court.

The 87-year-old Ginsburg, who spent time in the hospital this week for a possible infection, said her treatment so far has succeeded in reducing lesions on her liver and that she will continue chemotherapy sessions every two weeks.

“I have often said I would remain a member of the Court as long as I can do the job full steam. I remain fully able to do that,” Ginsburg said in a statement issued by the court.

She said her recent hospitalizations, including one in May, were unrelated to the cancer.

A medical scan in February revealed growths on her liver, she said, and she began chemotherapy in May.

“My most recent scan on July 7 indicated significant reduction of the liver lesions and no new disease,” she said. “I am tolerating chemotherapy well and am encouraged by the success of my current treatment.”

I’m confused apparently. My sister in law was diagnosed about two months ago with liver cancer. Basically a cancerous tumor on the liver. First thing she was told is there is no chemotherapy available for treating liver cancer. She had invasive surgery shortly after her diagnosis and had a little more than half her liver removed.

But Ginsberg is getting chemo treatment for the same thing? Maybe one of the docs here can clarify.

Anyone know the expected time she has left, with RBG being 87 yo? As she has had other cancers in the past, I suspect this is a metastatic cancer.
Hoping she dies ASAP, preferably before the election.

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:
I’m confused apparently. My sister in law was diagnosed about two months ago with liver cancer. Basically a cancerous tumor on the liver. First thing she was told is there is no chemotherapy available for treating liver cancer. She had invasive surgery shortly after her diagnosis and had a little more than half her liver removed.

But Ginsberg is getting chemo treatment for the same thing? Maybe one of the docs here can clarify.

Depends totally on the type of cancer. Some are resectable even when in the liver. Some are not.

Globally speaking, and perhaps ironically, 6 months from the time of identification in the liver is typically a watershed time in survival expectation, which would mean November. But, of course, that is only the most general of statements.

quote:

Originally posted by kz1000:


L'Chaim!

Saw what was done there