Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for April 18th, 2017

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a gambler. πŸ™‚ Encouraged to retire in the latter half of the Obama administration, Ginsburg wanted an extra year or three on the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) bench; and why should she deny herself that when Hillary Rodham Clinton was practically the next anointed President. So of course, she placed that bet; hang on and let Hillary name her replacement. It was a perfect cake eating and having scenario. πŸ™‚

But a funny thing happened on the way to retirement. Hillary aint President. Now what? Hope for impeachment (a leftist pipe dream)? Last time I looked the POTUS succession line was about five or six GOP deep. Maybe try to hang on for another four years? That might work; but what if that next election doesn’t pan out either… eight is entirely different; eight is a long, long time.

Me? I find the predicament quite humorous. πŸ™‚ When your enemies are gnashing teeth and rending garments it makes for good theater. And I’ve always been a big fan of karma (when she’s not biting me on the ass).

I bring this up only because I recently read a proposal from conservative news CEO Chris Ruddy (Newsmax.com). Ruddy has suggested Trump extend an olive branch to the left; a deal if you may. He thinks that President Donald Trump should offer that deal to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Retire now… and he will nominate… Judge Merrick Garland (President Barack Obama’s last nominee) to replace her.

I can’t say I’m in favor of the plan, but I can’t say I’m against it either. I’ve keep inching from one side to the over, more often than not against it.

Pro:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (the least qualified member of the SCOTUS) will no longer be on the SCOTUS.

Con:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be replaced by a slightly less not qualified judge.

Side Note: Anyone who believes in a living Constitution is not qualified to be a judge (or to hold any appointed or elected office).

Pro:
You’re replacing an ultra-leftist jurist with a moderate.

Con:
A moderate is just someone who pauses in the center… before turning left.

Pro:
It’s always the moral thing to do to seek common ground, to seek compromise, to extend the olive branch to your opposition.

Con:
The left has and never will reciprocate. The olive branch will get you NOTHING in return (besides Ginsburg gone). And if you think you’re going to get something; you sure as ^%$# better get your end first, have it in writing, or have a means to ensure the terms are met.

When it comes down to it, it’s a gamble. Issues at hand mean literally life or death for tens of thousands… religious liberty or further persecution… free speech… gun rights… issues core to the fabric of a healthy (or sick) republic. You’re giving up the possibility of a major shift (in the right direction) in the SCOTUS for a little insurance that we will only trot to hell vs sprint. I just can’t make that deal… If we’re taking the country to hell, let’s do it at a dead (leftist) run… OR… turn around. I’m really not interested in anything in the middle (the trotting option).

Sure, there’s that nagging feeling of “should we make a deal”. Are we repeating the mistake of a proud old woman? And consider that our odds aren’t nearly as good as hers were…

Advertisements

Read Full Post »