Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, just like she wrote in many stinging opinions, in dissent.
She sat on a seat during a president who was not of her political preference. She was in dissent with the executive branch and president. That was her opinion, okay.
But she had time and opportunity to leave under Obama’s regime, who could have replaced her with a suitable radical jurist. No she was in dissent on leaving then.
Now news comes out about a statement made to her granddaughter saying:”my fervent wish is to not be replaced until a new president is installed.” Once again, in dissent..
Dying wish trumps all?
Who is she to get that say? She had her say and voice when she did not retire despite her health. In dissent all the way. Now she appears to be crying out in dissent.
Yet in 2016, she wanted the nomination and confirmation process to go forward to replace Antonin Scalia, who was her ideological opponent as well as her good friend. Why can’t we use her own words then, as she is now, in dissent?
Didn’t she know of Scalia’s fervent desires about such things? Surely she knew he would not want to be replaced by Obama. She would have known that. But she said replace him under that president, even as he was termed-out and leaving office in months.
No, she was gung ho about ramming a nominee through to replace Scalia, despite the Senate being in Republican hands. Under the bus you go, good friend.(nothing personal)
That should have told us something there. Or is all that only refried beans now? She was in dissent then as she is in dissent now. Friends like that who needs enemies?
See also on the topic:
“There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being the president in his last year,” Ginsburg told the New York Times in 2016 when she urged the Senate to do “their job” and consider President Obama’s court nominee Merrick Garland.
Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020