The statement checks out. Nina Totenberg confirmed it. I don't see why Ms. Spero's statement, made as far as we know just to a few people and not for public consumption, bothers Trump and his people enough to declare it to be fake. I was wondering whether I should acknowledge Trump's decent behavior towards the late justice. He praised her as an amazing woman; he is putting off his nomination until after services for her. But I decided acknowledging would only highlight the unusualness of his decency. Then I found out about his creation of the "Schiff made it up"conspiracy, and I'm so glad I didn't give him any credit.ant wrote: Again, I don't buy hearsay, particularly when it comes to politics. But I know Democrats are desperate for any feel good moment that will lift their spirits come election time.
https://www.nytimes.com/spotlight/ruth- ... ant=1_Show
I can't find anything about her having hospice at home, but maybe she did. It doesn't matter. She's perfectly likely to be thinking of those things that are most important to her, at such a time when she could have realized she would soon die. Ginsburg has at least once made a political statement (about Trump), so it's probably not out of character. Her statement does go against her 2016 declaration. That, it seems to me, would be a more reasonable objection by Trump & co. But they really can't say that with the rank hypocrisy of McConnell & co. staring them in the face.ant wrote:Anyway, look at this:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/flashb ... ar-vacancyBut in 2016, when a lame-duck President Obama tabbed Merrick Garland to replace the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, Democratic leaders had no problem with the move. And neither did Ginsburg.
"There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being the president in his last year," Ginsburg said in a 2016 New York Times interview in which she called for Garland to receive a confirmation vote in the Senate.
I doubt Ginsberg would, while in hospice, take the time to discuss politics. More specifically, take a political position.
The character of the witness making the claim is unknow.
No, it doesn't, and it's a shame that McConnell made up the prohibition in 2016 in hopes of stealing a justice seat. Do you expect the Democrats to stand on principle and go along with nominating, vetting, and voting before the election in 44 days, when the Republicans asserted 9 months before an election was too soon to even start a process?But, yeah, it doesn't matter and should hold no water. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the nomination prior to an election.
I don't think so.Case closed.