Chris OConnor wrote:Geo wrote:It also begs the question (to me), why all this lying, when it doesn't accomplish anything (and actually risks so much for Nina Totenburg and NPR)? What is the motive? I'll second DWill's question. Does anyone believe Ginsburg's words would have any bearing on the nomination process for the next Supreme Court justice? I just don't see it.
I think they are lying because it just
might accomplish something. They are grasping at straws hoping this (potentially) fabricated story will cause enough of an uproar to keep Trump from moving forward with a nomination too quickly. I think liberals are scared right now and they should be. This is one effort to tip the teeter totter just a wee bit in favor of the White House waiting till after the election.
A future uproar was assured in 2016, Chris, when McConnell refused to bring forward Merrick Garland's nomination. The RBG wish doesn't add a thing to the reaction, as far as I can see, because nothing more is needed. That the family, presumably goaded by Democrat bigwigs, would think a fabricated plea of hers would be an effective deterrent to an expedited approval, I think is implausible.
I'm not contending, just by the way, that Democrats wouldn't be doing the same thing as the Republicans if the decision was theirs to make.
I don't think Occam's Razor fits in this scenario. Occam's Razor basically says don't replace a simple explanation for a more complicated explanation. And to me the simplest explanation here is that the family is making this up. RGB would have put this in writing on in a video if it really was a fervent wish. She was a brilliant woman. The default position here is that she didn't say this. We need proof from the affirmative claimant.
She would have known that, although it was her wish for the vote to be delayed, any statement she issued publicly should have no bearing on the matter and would also be improper. We don't know anything definite about her intention, but that's how I lean.
Not that it matters.
RGB's wishes aren't law. Even if a video comes forward with her uttering these words the Republican party is under no legal or ethical responsibility to honor her wishes. We have a two-party system and what matters is the law and to a lesser degree precedent. I'm more interested in knowing about the law and precedent.
I agree completely here. The seat isn't hers in any real sense. I'm repeating myself, but I think the very irrelevance of her statement points to the likelihood that it was real, and not a weaponized lie. How stupid it would have been for the family or Democrats to think they could stop the train with this tactic.
And again just by the way, let's have term limits for Supreme Court justices! Say 18 years with a schedule of rotating them off and appointing new ones.