Confirmed reports that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has died. This means the first order of business for the president (either party) will be to appoint her replacement. Since she was arguably the most liberal and activist of judges... the thought of Trump replacing her with a conservative constitutionalist strict originalist sends fear and panic up any liberal’s spine.

You thought the Democrat left was desperate and capable of anything before... we ain’t seen nothing yet. Hold on ladies and gentlemen, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

Leftist media is already going bonkers. They're definitely desperate now and will shift into overdrive to defeat Trump. Expect anything.

The future of the Supreme Court. This election is going to get even nuttier.

[quote[Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the pioneering lawyer who became a liberal hero and pop culture icon during her lengthy career on the U.S. Supreme Court, died today at the age of 87.

Ginsburg was already a towering figure in legal circles when President Bill Clinton appointed her to the Supreme Court in 1993. In 1972 Ginsburg co-founded the Women's Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), where she played a central role in the campaign to overturn a series of legal precedents that formally enshrined the inequality of women. Slowly but surely, Ginsburg and her allies moved the law in their preferred direction. She then capped off that remarkable career by becoming an accomplished federal judge.

Ginsburg capped off her judicial career by becoming a bona fide celebrity. Popularly known among her legions of fans as "Notorious RBG" (a play on the name of the late rapper Notorious BIG), Ginsburg has enjoyed a sort of rock star status in recent years, with her praises sung in books, articles, documentaries, movies, TV interviews, Saturday Night Live skits, and countless internet memes.

Given her massive popularity, especially among the younger progressive set, it is easy to forget that Ginsburg was not always a darling of the left. For example, Ginsburg once caused real discomfort in feminist legal circles by repeatedly criticizing Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling which recognized a woman's constitutional right to have an abortion. The Court "ventured too far" in Roe when it "called into question the criminal abortion statutes of every state," Ginsburg wrote in 1985. This "heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify," she argued, "and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict."

What is more, Ginsburg insisted, Roe itself stood on dubious legal foundations. Roe's author, Justice Harry Blackmun, had grounded the right to abortion in "personal privacy, somehow sheltered by due process," as Ginsburg put it. It would have been much better, she declared, if the right had been rooted in "a constitutionally based sex-equality perspective."

She took aim at Roe yet again in a 1993 lecture at New York University School of Law. The Texas statute at issue (which banned all abortions except where the life of the mother was at stake) "intolerably shackled a woman's autonomy," she observed. But "suppose the Court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the Court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force. Would there have been the 20-year controversy we have witnessed?"

In other words, Ginsburg not only threw shade at Roe's reasoning, but she argued that the far-reaching decision actually gave the anti-abortion movement a boost. Not exactly music to the ears of most pro-choice activists.

Ginsburg had her share of libertarian legal critics too. In 2012, when the Supreme Court was weighing the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, libertarian scholars and activists were at the forefront of the legal wrangling, arguing that Congress lacked the lawful authority under the Commerce Clause to compel every American to buy health insurance. Ginsburg would denounce that argument as "stunningly retrogressive."

In 2005, when the city of New London, Connecticut, sought to broaden its tax base by bulldozing a working-class neighborhood and handing the land over to private developers, Ginsburg showed little interest in the homeowners' constitutional objections. "The critical fact on the city side," she told Institute for Justice lawyer Scott Bullock, lead attorney for the homeowners, during oral arguments in Kelo v. City of New London, "is that this was a depressed community and [the government] wanted to build it up, get more jobs." Ginsburg later joined Justice John Paul Stevens' majority opinion, which asserted that when it came to the use of eminent domain, the government should enjoy "broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power."

With Ginsburg dead, all eyes now turn to the U.S. Senate. In 2016, with a presidential election on the horizon, Senate Republicans refused to even hold hearings on President Barack Obama's SCOTUS nominee, Merrick Garland, thereby setting the stage for President Donald Trump to appoint Neil Gorsuch in 2017.

What will those same Senate Republicans do now that another SCOTUS vacancy has arisen with a presidential election looming? According to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.), whomever Trump picks to replace Ginsburg "will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate."

Expect the Trump administration to name a nominee quickly. Who might get the nod? One name that is sure to be on the shortlist is Amy Coney Barrett.

A former Notre Dame law professor, Barrett was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in October 2017 after a heated confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In particular, Barrett, a committed Catholic who has written frequently about matters of faith and law, was sharply queried by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.) about whether her religious views would prevent her from serving as an impartial jurist. "The dogma lives loudly within you, and that's of concern when you come to big issues that people have fought for years in this country," Feinstein said.

Feinstein's remarks quickly transformed Barrett into something of a folk hero among social conservatives, who saw the Democratic senator as attacking one of their own. Those same social conservatives would undoubtedly go to the mattresses for a Barrett SCOTUS nomination. Put differently, by nominating Barrett, Trump would be throwing a heap of red meat to his supporters on the religious right. The resulting Senate confirmation hearings would go full-tilt culture war.

One thing is certain: The death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg means that American politics are about to get a whole lot crazier.[/quote]

Onward and upward,
airforce

This will electrify both the left and the right. Expect the color revolution to go hot.

Ted Cruz explains why the SCOTUS vacancy should be filled before the election.



Onward and upward,
airforce

This already a crazy election. MSM is going to get a punch in the mouth of Durham indicts the Spyware and Coup players next week.

Remember also that no autopsy was done on Scalia. He was found with a pillow over his head. Imagine if the cause was not natural?

Mitch McConnell Says Senate Will Vote on Trump Replacement for Bader Ginsburg
It is unclear whether Republicans will have the votes to confirm a new justice

By National File Saturday, September 19, 2020

Senate Leader Mitch McConnell says the Senate will vote on President Trump’s pick to replace Ruth Bader-Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.

In a statement, McConnell praised Bader Ginsburg for her work on the Supreme Court, noting she “overcame on personal challenge and professional barrier after another.” However, McConnell confirmed that the Senate would be voting on a pick from President Trump to replace her before the election.

“In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term,” the statement reads:

Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year. By contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise. President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United State’s Senate.

However, it seems there may not be enough votes within the Senate, even with a Republican majority, for McConnell and others to confirm a new Supreme Court justice before the election in November. A number of Republican senators have previously come out and said that they would vote against President Trump’s nominee, whoever that may be.

Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said this afternoon, before the announcement of Ginsburg’s death, that she would not vote on a new SCOTUS justice “until after Americans decide who their president will be.” Maine’s Susan Collins had also previously stated that she would not seat a new justice in October.

A vote would also go against the direct last wishes of Bader Ginsburg herself. “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed,” she said in a statement written for her death.




Blue Checks Vow Violence If McConnell Tries to Replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg: ‘Burn the Entire F**king Thing Down’

Kristina Wong18 Sep 20200


Blue check leftists on Twitter vowed violence in America if Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) attempts to replace Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Friday night at age 87.

Leftist writer Reza Aslan tweeted: “If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire fucking thing down.”

He later tweeted: “Over our dead bodies. Literally.”

Writer Beau Willimon tweeted: “We’re shutting this country down if Trump and McConnell try to ram through an appointment before the election.”

Writer Laura Bassett threatened riots: “If McConnell jams someone through, which he will, there will be riots.”

She followed up with: “*more, bigger riots.”

*more, bigger riots

— Laura Bassett (@LEBassett) September 19, 2020

A professor at the University of Waterloo tweeted: “Burn Congress down before letting Trump try to appoint anyone to SCOTUS.” He then protected his account on Twitter.

Burn Congress down before letting Trump try to appoint anyone to SCOTUS.

— Emmett Macfarlane (@EmmMacfarlane) September 19, 2020

Author Marcus Carey tweeted: “Politics about to get really turnt up.”

McConnell issued a statement that said: “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.

Podcaster Katie Herzog said she hoped McConnell suffered a stroke and became “brain dead” before that happened.

Media pundit Scot Ross tweeted to Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), who warned McConnell against filling Ginsburg’s seat: “Fucking A, Ed. If you can’t shut it down, burn it down.”

If I were a betting man, I put a couple bucks on former Solicitor General Paul Clement being Trump's nominee for SCOTUS. I'd rather see someone like Judge Don Willett or Sen. Mike Lee get the nod, but Clement would be my guess. Of course, I'm not great at reading Trump's mind, and my ESP has never been all that great.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Furious Democrats Surround Mitch McConnell’s Home, Post Address Online Following RBG’s Death
Left already vows to wage total war against Republican attempts to fill SCOTUS seat

By Infowars.com Saturday, September 19, 2020

Following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, angry leftists posted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s address and began surrounding his home to intimidate the Republican lawmaker not to vote for a SCOTUS replacement before Inauguration Day.

Just hours after Ginsburg’s death was announced, leftists quickly doxxed McConnell, who has the power to bring a vote on the Senate floor for President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, and mobilized their fanatics to protest outside his Kentucky home.

Dozens of demonstrators were seen gathered outside of McConnell’s home with signs like “Ruth sent us.”

McConnell announced on Friday that the Senate would hold a vote for President Trump’s SCOTUS nominee, which Trump has indicated he will quickly name.

“Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise,” McConnell said.

“President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate,” McConnell added.

This isn’t the first time the left targeted McConnell’s home.

Last year, leftists surrounded his house at night chanting for him to be “stabbed in the motherf*cking heart” for his pro-Second Amendment views, resulting in Twitter suspending his account for posting videos of the incident.


Hillary Clinton: Dems Must Employ Every Possible ‘Obstacle’ to Stop McConnell from Replacing Ginsburg

Pam Key 18 Sep 2020


Former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton called on Senate Democrats to use every possible “procedural obstacle” to stop Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) from replacing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show.”

Clinton said, “The Democrats who are in the Senate will have to use every single possible maneuver that is available to them to make it clear that they are not going to permit Mitch McConnell to enact the greatest travesty, a monument to hypocrisy that would arise from him attempting to fill this position. So, in many ways, it is a terrible loss for us all. It is a reminder that she stood on the side of moving us towards a perfect union and underscoring equality and not just for women but for every American and I don’t want to see that legacy ripped up by political hypocrisy coming from Mitch McConnell.”

She continued, “Mitch McConnell cares about nothing else but power, of course, he’s going to do everything he can to fill that seat. I think there are three possible approaches that should be considered. I think there will be at least one or may be more Republican senators who either from principles or conscious or political calculation find the hypocrisy to be more than they can bear. It is reported, and I don’t know if it is actually accurate yet, but it has been reported that at least one senator has said just that, fair is fair. I think to me if we have any hope of overcoming the divisiveness and atmosphere that currently infect our politics and, unfortunately, has riddle our institutions like the Senate with this kind of, you know, power over everything else, mentality. I hope that there will be several Republican senators who say we are going to wait to see what happens with the election. It will be up to whoever is president on January 20th. The second thing is there are senators running for officer right now who are in, who are Republicans and who are closed or contested seats, and their Democratic opponents, as well as the people and the press in their state, needs to make this a major issue. Are they going to totally demonstrate themselves as being without a shred of principle because they went along with McConnell in refusing to move forward, President Obama’s nomination? Are they going to apply a totally double standard? Make it a political issue.”

Clinton added, “You know, every possible procedural obstacle has to be thrown in the way of this power drive by McConnell. There are things that can be done that need to be done literally 24/7. I am sure Chuck Schumer and his leadership team is already looking and talking at it. Having said all that, you know, I understand how impervious to reason or principle McConnell is. Let’s go down fighting and not give an inch in the face of the kind of hypocrisy that met President Obama when he tried to fulfill his constitutional obligation to appoint Mayor Garland to the court.”

Eric Holder Says Dems Must Pack Supreme Court If Trump Confirms ‘Illegitimate’ Justice

By Infowars.com Sunday, September 20, 2020

Former Attorney General Eric Holder said that Democrats must expand the Supreme Court should President Trump successfully confirm a third Justice.

“You would have a conservative majority on the court, an illegitimate conservative majority on the court, ruling on these matters that will affect the nation, you know, for generations to come,” Holder complained to MSNBC’s Al Sharpton.

“If in fact they are successful in placing a justice on the court, I think what Democrats have to do, assuming that Biden is president and there is a Senate majority for the Democrats, we need to think about court reform. And at a minimum, as part of that reform package, I think additional justices need to placed on the Supreme Court.”

Notably, Holder’s proposal is something Democrats have been planning for years.

“This has been the plan all along, even before Ginsburg’s death. Democrats can’t wait to end the filibuster and rip up the Constitution so they can force their left-wing agenda on the American people. Anyone who reveres the country and the Constitution cannot let these people gain power,” Townhall reported.

In a bit of irony, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had opposed the notion of expanding the Supreme Court, calling it “partisan” and “a bad idea.”




Pelosi Hints That Dems May Impeach Trump AGAIN To Stop SCOTUS Nomination

'We have arrows in our quiver,' says House Speaker


By Jamie White | INFOWARS.COM Sunday, September 20, 2020

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hinted that Democrats may try to impeach President Trump again to stop him from nominating a third Supreme Court Justice.

In a Sunday interview on ABC’s “This Week,” host George Stephanopoulos asked Pelosi what Democrats plan to do about Trump’s nominating another justice, which he can still do even if Biden wins.

“So what can you do then?” Stephanopoulos asked. “Some have mentioned the possibility if they try to push through a nominee in a lame-duck session that you and the House can move to impeach President Trump or Attorney General Barr as a way of stalling and preventing the Senate from acting on this nomination.”

The House Speaker responded that impeachment is certainly an option.

“Well, we have our options. We have arrows in our quiver that I’m not about to discuss right now, but the fact is we have a big challenge in our country,” Pelosi said. “This president has threatened to not even accept the results of the election with statements that he and his henchmen have made.”

“So right now, our main goal and I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg would want that to be to protect the integrity of the election, that we protect the American people from the coronavirus.”

Stephanopoulos again tried to confirm if Pelosi was not ruling out extreme political measures like impeachment.

“To be clear, you’re not taking any arrows out of your quiver and not ruling anything out,” he reiterated.

Pelosi again hinted that nothing is ruled out in order to “protect and defend the Constitution” — even though it’s within Trump’s constitutional purview to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.

“Yeah, we have a responsibility,” Pelosi said. “We’ve taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. We have a responsibility to meet the needs of the American people. That is when we weigh the equities of protecting our democracy requires us to use every arrow in our quiver.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also signaled Pelosi’s position, telling other Democrats in a conference call Saturday that “nothing is off the table” to stop Trump from confirming a third Justice.

The democrats are going to pack the courts whether Trump nominates a new justice or not. They will have to, if they want to give statehood to D.C. The present Court would find that unconstitutional but, with two new justices, they would win by a 6-5 vote.

Is Pelosi really trying to keep the Senate in Republican hands? I swear, it sure seems that way sometimes.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Romney Agrees to Back Trump On SCOTUS Pick
McConnell may now have votes to replace RBG

By Zero Hedge Tuesday, September 22, 2020

Utah Senator Mitt Romney (R) announced on Tuesday that he would support a floor vote on President Trump’s Supreme Court pick – giving Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) a 53-seat majority and the votes needed to move forward in replacing the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, according to Politico.

“I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the president’s nominee. If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications,” Romney said in a statement.

Romney said he was merely following the law in making his decision rather than taking a position based on the recent blockade of President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, during the 2016 election. Romney said the “historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party’s nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own.”

He added that his decision is “not the result of a subjective test of ‘fairness’ which, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It is based on the immutable fairness of following the law, which in this case is the Constitution and precedent.” – Politico

Another potential swing vote who recently committed to Trump’s Supreme Court nominee is Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO), while Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME) say they won’t support a nominee this close to the election.

This latest bit about Mittens really shocked me. It is early though... just because he is willing to consider a “qualified candidate” still gives him the spineless pandering route of joking the Dems on a NO vote...

Sen. Lisa Murkowski now says she won't rule out a vote to confirm.



Onward and upward,
airforce

They ever going to bury her old wrinkled ass? Or they going to embalm and keep her around like Evita Peron?