• bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    6 months ago

    When was she supposed to retire? Republicans didn’t even hold a vote for Merrick Garland under Obama’s presidency, so if your answer was during that term, then there’d be no chance she would have been replaced, and she’d be blamed for retiring too early.

    Blaming Ginsburg for Republican fuckery is misguided and can only be justified with the benefit of hindsight, which she didn’t have at the time.

    • Zorque@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 months ago

      She was supposed to have the foresight to assume that the six months or so when they had a majority (when they passed ACA) was the last time Democrats would have the slightest hope of appointing a new supreme court justice.

      What a fool she was! Not knowing the future!

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        The house does not vote on judges. Only the Senate. Obama had a friendly Senate until Jan 2015. They could even have done it during the lame duck session. But in reality the Senate was widely forecasted to change control so she could have retired in the spring without controversy.

        • Zorque@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          But they didn’t have the supermajority necessary to overcome a filibuster anymore. Even the cloture rule enacted in 2013 excluded supreme court nominations.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            And that would have been gone in a hot second if they blocked RBG’s replacement. They removed exactly what they needed to confirm judges.