|Note: This is not a Ruth Bader Ginsburg joke. It is a "wise Latina" joke.|
Even though we can no longer hear or see the spinning blades, yet more crap has hit the fan in 2020. In this case, the passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at age 87. You don't have to have agreed with her politics to concede that she was a formidable and groundbreaking woman who accomplished a lot, and who fought a terrible illness with great strength and bravery.
Now there is an empty seat on the Supreme Court, and yet another battle royale over whether President Trump has the right to try to push through a replacement in what could possibly be the final days of his administration. As both political parties have passionately argued both sides of the issue in the past (unsurprisingly, they were in favor of whatever would most benefit them politically at the moment), we can effectively ignore whatever they're yammering about now.
Instead, let's look into the more interesting subject of just who Donald Trump will nominate for the position. He has already announced that he thinks the nominee should be a woman, which probably comes as a disappointment to Ted Cruz, whom Trump had declared to be on the short list. Then again, since Trump has never formally withdrawn his accusation that Ted Cruz's father helped assassinate JFK, it seems likely that a confirmation hearing could have gotten a wee bit contentious.
Personally, we'd like to see Trump nominate Hillary Clinton for the post because, in confirmation hearings, it would be hilarious to hear her endlessly invoking the Fifth Amendment or claiming memory lapses owing to head injuries. And BONUS - a fresh FBI investigation of her entire past!
So as President Trump reflects on who he wants to add to the Supreme Court, let's open the vault door to reflect on some relevant cartoons from the past...
By nominating a woman, the President avoids all kinds of Kavanaugh-esque #MeToo delays. 'Course, it is still possible for the "faith objection" to come up, since in Dem eyes, having a strong church commitment is a big black mark in a SCOTUS confirmation... Unless you are actually black, of course.
Say, Dr. Fromage, that Hildebeast nomination idea could be a master stroke that could destroy the 'tardie party. Just imagine B-bitch melting down to a pile of fecal goo while being lanced and skewered by the Inquisition. Put it on live TV and the Jumbo-Trons in all the stadiums in the land. Ratings gold !
Well, RBG *DID* say that Donald Trump would be re-elected over her dead body... ;-)
I favor Joe Biden.
It gets him out of the race
Dems will have to accuse him of sexual misconduct because he's DT's choice.
He'll be deemed unfit for use in 2021 and can be replaced by the real candidate (afer DT wins the election)
Brilliant cartoons. My money was on the Predident leaving well enough alone until after his reelection.
All trying ram through a nominee will do is to supercharge Biden's other base and there is not the lockstep discipline on the Republican side (Collins, Murkowski, et al) to get the job done.
Your Trump to ex-pbho cartoon is one of my all-time favorites. I still smile broadly when I see it.
Thank you, Stilton.
Found this online:
Here’s a little game to play to help pass the time. The so-called “McDonnell Doctrine” has two parts. It says that the Senate should not ratify a President’s nomination for the Supreme Court if:
1) it is an election year, and
2) the Senate majority and President are of different parties.
Have a drink every time the selective memories of the Dems and the Never-Trumpers cite the first condition and ignore the second. Your liver may never be the same again.
And while the nation mourns the passing of a most accomplished jurist, one who was determined to leave her mark, I find my sympathies lie primarily with the remaining SCOTUS members as they have been left ............
(wait for it)
I was hoping for Judge Jeanine Pirro to be on the nomination list.
Stilt, Your comment, "whether President Trump has the right", does not take into account that Donald Trump is Commander in CHIEF, not Commander in "if liberals allow him to operate in the capacity of" Chief. Of COURSE he has the "right", and Donald has shown he is NOT one who cowers in the face of opposition.
I do NOT agree with some who have posted he should nominate shrillary or Biteme for the purpose of exposing their inherent evil or complete incompetence, because the committee to confirm may be insane enough to bypass all the facts of historicity, the disqualifying acts performed and actually install Satan's sister or Stimpie's twin brother in this prestigious office. Kagan and Sotomayor should be ample evidence that Affirmative Action has NO place in selecting Justices.
Oh sweet, sweet Schadenfreude !!
Because you know that the plan was to keep Vader on a respirator long enough for President Hillary Clinton could appoint her replacement !!!
How'd that work out RGB ???
So Hillary calls President Trump on Saturday morning and says “With the RBG now being dead, I’d like to take her place.”
Trump thinks about this and replies “Well sure, I’ll just have to speak with the funeral home and see if they can pull it off.”
President Trump should submit his ENTIRE list of possible nominees to the Senate with instructions to pick six. Ginsburg gets replaced, Supreme Court gets packed, and Conservatives laugh all the way through Election Day.
At least bring the nomination. After that, see if McConnell can herd his cats into formation and confirm. Interesting times.
As others have commented, the DJT-BHO phone call is one of my all-time favorites.
"As both political parties have passionately argued both sides of the issue in the past (unsurprisingly, they were in favor of whatever would most benefit them politically at the moment), we can effectively ignore whatever they're yammering about now."
Perfectly put, and basically what I've been saying to the hyperbolic voices I've come across since last week. Try to convince me that the Democrats would have "played fair" had they been in the position the GOP was in 4 years ago. You know, the party that keeps playing games with the filibusterer. Biden himself called for an immediate nomination the last time we were on this ride. Does that disqualify him?
As Trump put it best, "Elections have consequences".
Anyway, expect a process that will make the Kavanaugh nomination look like your town's appointment for dog catcher.
Lefty Lucy: Goes along with what I said last week about the best education generation ever.
Speaking of our best educated, the movement to let high-school heads full of mush vote proceeds.
@Pat Cummings said, By nominating a woman, the President avoids all kinds of Kavanaugh-esque #MeToo delays.
Does it? The RBG vacancy is hardly a surprise as for all practical purposes the Democrats have been pulling a Weekend at Bernies with her for at least the last 12 months. I have little doubt that they've got an even more sinister unprovable slanderous accusation that could be applied to practically any female candidate. After all, they've spent the last decade making just being a "cis-gendered" normal person a crime.
@John the Econ: True. I had lots of time overnight to ponder what other inanities could be scrambled into play to sideline a woman in the Senate Judiciary committee "hearings." Still think, with Diane Feinstein being the ranking member, that the stigma of a nominee practicing her faith is the most likely accusation to be hurled. Amy Coney Barrett, top of the list, is a practicing Catholic, and has already faced off over her faith vs. Feinstein.
I was thinking The Prez should nominate a black woman, which would A) stick it in Biden's face, and B) make the confirmation process smoother and quicker because the Dimocraps place more value on gender and skin color than they do brains and ability. Then I remembered how they absolutely crucified Clarence Thomas; coulda cared lees that he was black.
Pelosi is already talking impeachment, just to stop another Trump SCOTUS nominee. Sorry Nan, your first shot at this was timed so the voters could forget before the election. Not so right now. I think the response from her minions would be tepid at best this close to an election.
Yes, the nomination of a non-white woman would somewhat tie the left in a knot. We'd then get more unhinged theater as to how that candidate is really not who they obviously are. The left has no problem doing this as their rules simply don't apply to themselves. (Remember the outrageously offensive sexist and racist and treatment Condoleeza Rice received as Secretary of State?) Yes, the Clarence Thomas treatment would not be pretty, but the reality is that any non-far-left candidate is going to have to face that sort of abuse. It's now baked into the process. Any conservative POC at this level has long since become used to it.
As for the latest now-tiresome impeachment threat, let them. As Trump himself said, “So they’re impeaching me for doing what constitutionally I have to do,” he said. “If they do that, we win all elections.”
@Fish Out of Water, I think it is a fool's errand to wait until after the election because (fill in the blank) will happen. Republicans spent years surrendering in the face of what Democrats will do and/or being called racists. Trump changed that game for the better. He should not begin acting out of fear of Democrats at this point. We know how they will act. They're doing it right now.
I believe President Trump should adopt the same stance as James Glasgow Farragut when on August 5, 1864, Farragut won a great victory in the Battle of Mobile Bay. The bay was heavily mined (tethered naval mines were then known as "torpedoes")Farragut ordered his fleet to charge the bay. "Damn the torpedoes.", said Farragut, "Four bells, Captain Drayton, go ahead. Jouett, full speed."
President Trump should also in effect shout, "Damn the (democrats)torpedoes. Full speed ahead!" Anything less at this point would be capitulation to the left.
It's really not a good time for diplomacy. Trump needs to nominate, the Senate needs to vote the nominee in, and they should all shoot the Democrats the finger as they leave the Senate Chamber.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg was a wretched woman--I think of the millions of unborn children who died hideous deaths because of her abortion advocacy from the bench throughout her career. She was a devil.
I see AOC is already whining that President Trump is not going to accede to RBG's (supposedly) dying wish to not be replaced until there's a new President. Apparently, AOC thinks a dying wish carries some kind of Constitutional authority.
I really hope the President nominates Amy Coney Barrett, just to give the finger to all the Demo_Rats. If there's anyone who would be a bigger "go f#@k yourself" to the Demo_Rats, I'd like to have that person nominated.
@Pat Cummings- Woman or not, the Dems will try to slime whoever is nominated. Especially a woman of faith.
@Regnad Kcin- I really want to see Hillary being grilled in a way that she never has been before.
@M. Mitchell Marmel- So she wasn't just a jurist, she was also psychic!
@Brie Camembert- Biden would make for an interesting pick. And Depends are easier to hide under judicial robes...
@Fish Out of Water- I'm not sure how much more the Left can be revved up no matter what Trump does. But as you say, there may be enough RINO types to keep a nomination from going through.
@NaCly Dog- Glad you like that cartoon (I do too)! The look on Barry's mug in the last panel just tickles me.
@Bobo the Hobo- Interesting! But I'll skip that drinking game - it sounds dangerous!
@Geoff King- She'll get in during Trump's 2nd or 3rd term.
@Bruce Bleu- To be clear, I never questioned whether Trump has the right to make his nomination - of course he does! I just said that the Left wants to debate that right...because they're bastards and idiots.
@Matthew W- I'm sure you're right; the strategists thought Ruth could hang on and then step down during a Hillary administration. Oopsy!
@FlyBoy- That's a beautiful story.
@Murphy(AZ)- That would make for an interesting strategy!
@TrickyRicky- Rush Limbaugh was making the point today that there's no actual requirement for there to even be hearings. Nominate and vote will do it - but as you say, it's an open question whether McConnell could get the Republicans in line.
@John the Econ- Any strategy that relies on the Dems "playing fair" now or in the future is fatally flawed. I suggest that this is the perfect occasion for Trump and the Republicans to use a bolder approach to the Dems and the horse they rode in on.
And I'm sure the Dems already have their "slime points" prepared for any predictable nominee.
@Pat Cummings- Amy Coney Barrett is a mother of seven, two of whom are adopted and black. I can see the Dems accusing her of racism because she thought she was "too good" to conceive naturally with a black man.
@Colby Muenster- If the Dems want to start new impeachment proceedings then let them: no one will care and it will waste the Democrats' time running up to the election.
@John the Econ- You're right that there is NO quality a nominee can have that will prove problematic for the Left to criticize. The fact that they're soulless liars makes it easy.
@Shelly- I completely agree. The game is rigged, the Dems cheat, and this is the time for Trump to bulldoze through all obstacles.
@American Cowboy- You're absolutely right!
@Jess- I like the sound of that.
@martha- I'm certainly not going to defend Ginsburg's record, especially on the matter of abortion.
@JustaJeepGuy- I saw AOC making her shrill declarations ("This should make everyone a radical now!") on the evening news. She is the living embodiment of fingernails scraped across a chalkboard.
Put me squarely in the "nominate and vote" camp. No hearings.
Post a Comment