What did Ruth Bader Ginsburg ACTUALLY mean in her 'dying wish?'

Well regardless of what she thought would happen in the election, the insanity is actually more to do with the dems' response to her. It just seems insane that dems would say - if they controlled the Senate under Trump from next year - that the seat should remain vacant for four years purely because of her ridiculous LAUGHABLE dying wish! I know the dems are insane, but they can't be THAT insane surely!

 

How often does it happen that a new President is elected and the Senate is controlled by the other party?

 

That's exactly right. Do you think that they're insane enough to call for the seat to remain vacant for four years? After which point, the next President could be a Republican too! At which point, the dems would say that Ginsburg's dying wish was actually that she not be replaced until a DEMOCRAT is President!

 

So what do you think should happen? Should the seat be filled ASAP, as per the Constitution?

And why is that exactly?

 

So many words, but what do you actually mean? Asking folks to be responsible is "hand-wringing and finger-wagging" That wasn't a "morale tirade. It was the set of facts that decisions can be made from. Reality isn't the coat hanger in an alley anymore. There are reasonable precautions that are available to anyone today. Why hide from that? So, no, the "very same conditions" won't resurface, nor are there reasons they would. And, let us be honest here. The fear is being delivered by you, is it not? These "thousands of unwanted children" seem to already exist in our society, do they not? And it seems gratuitous even then that you'd identify them as the fear you would instill in this conversation.

Be honest. There are literally thousands of children in state custody throughout the nation because of lots of reasons. Parental neglect, parental abuse, crime, deaths. We already have this problem. Your cure is that costless convenience based abortion simply doesn't add to it? Really? What your position doesn't address is the reality. Put dogma aside for a moment, and simply look at the human cost of your choices here. Anyone in this country can become. Anyone. And that is the very thing that seems to be ignored by folks who tell us that convenience abortion must be allowed because littler of homeless puppies argument. It not only appears, but it is contradictory to moral ledge that you seem to want to perch from.

 

I am. My choice is not "Trump vs not Trump". It's "Trump Dictatorship vs Democratic Republic". Biden wasn't in my top 10 choices, but I'm hoping he'll do an ok job.

I'm happy to hear you're voting for Biden.

 

The Constitution doesn't say that the seat should be filled ASAP.

The Constitution was subverted by McConnell in 2016. And Trump has already announced that the purpose of the appointment will be to perpetuate him as President. So the only way to preserve the intent of the Constitution would be to wait for the next President.

See above.

 

I misinterpreted the question.. I am voting for Trump. I am not voting for Biden.

I like most of what Trump has done. I haven't seen that Biden has done anything and coupled with his forgetting where he is a large part of the time, I have a hard time understanding why anyone would vote for Biden.

 

The Constitution was not subverted. The Constitution does not say when the vacancy must be filled.

Daschle started changing the senate rules and it went downhill from there.

 

Well... that, I already knew. So then I have no clue what all this was about. Other than wasting our time

 

The Constitution says the President submits a nominee, and he did. The Constitution says the Senate (not Mitch McConnell) should either confirm or reject that nominee, and they didn't do either. End of story.

 

Just pointing out why I am voting the way I am voting. I have heard nothing about how you are coming to the conclusion that Biden is the better choice.

It is not the end of the story. The Constitution does not specify a time frame.

 

So either you're saying that Merrick Garland is going to finally get his hearing and up and down vote, or you're still wasting our time.

Don't bother... I know it's the latter.

 

Actually there is no evidence that she expressed that as her dying wish. Certainly one cannot take the word of her Trump-hating leftist relatives. So unless there is an actual recording . . . she never really said it.

That aside, let's pretend that she did say it. I would go with her expressing a fifty-fifty chance that brain damaged Joe Biden would be able to soundly defeat Trump in the presidential contest debates and then go on to become president.

 

Actually, Section 2, Article 2 does not say the senate has to do anything. It only says that is how a supreme court judge is confirmed.
" and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

 

To this day I'd rather pound my hand with a brick than listen to a Trump speech and yet because he has been an excellent president I shall hold my nose and vote for him -- again -- on election day.

 

Big time!

 

Thank you...

 

Exactly, I've been with people in their last days, they are not like you see in the movies, where they are cogent, articulate and pithy right up until their last breath. Actual cancer patients in the last weeks are in and out of it, and mostly confused when they are awake. Partisan politics is not what they discuss.

 

Me too, unfortunately And it ain't pretty either!!

 

Ditto . . . I've been through that twice. It's not pretty and it's not like what we see in the movies.

 

That, in no way, says they have to do anything. It only describes a process.

 

It sure seems to me you are beating me in word count, but that is beside the point.

You erroneously point to people being lazy for not using contraception. Does it really need to be explained to a grown adult that the majority of contraceptives are not 100% effective? Not to mention the myriad of medical conditions that might neccisate an abortion?

Maybe you're too busy grinding away on that moral sanding wheel to give a coherent argument, but until I hear how they plan to take care of the ramifications of reverting back to the nonsensical extreme of eliminating abortions as a medical procedure (keeping in mind that this same anti-abortion crowd is also againt the morning after pill too) as a means to protect "unborn children" without taking into account what to do with the unwanted children we already have, your argument sounds like pure religious babble.

 

LOL.. Really. You're talking to one of the least religious people on the forum. But sure.... LOL

 

So

Gimme a ' like '