Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j2522q5 wrote

[deleted]

31

AsbestosIn0bstetrics t1_j252v85 wrote

Not to mention, she lacked the good sense to retire at a time when she could've been replaced with someone who isn't a total right wing wackjob.

32

Ainwein t1_j2547gu wrote

Yeah - as much as I appreciate her jurisprudence she put vanity/pride/whatever over the country and multiple generations are going to feel the sting of her decision.

16

NPRjunkieDC OP t1_j26594w wrote

She had no reason to think Hillary would lose .

−16

big_thanks t1_j2a3o06 wrote

Why not? She didn't know Trump would be the nominee. Her best opportunity to retire was years before the 2016 election cycle even started.

The whole point is she shouldn't have left it to any chance. She fucked around and now we'll be paying the price for generations to come.

2

NPRjunkieDC OP t1_j2ab6hk wrote

It's not her fault that Garland didn't even get a hearing when Obama put him forth as a candidate . Close to a year with one SC justice less

0

big_thanks t1_j2acfli wrote

You're conflating two very different things.

Ginsburg was rumored to have been asked to retire as early as 2013 (when the Dems still controlled the Senate, i.e. so they could replace her with any candidate they wanted before the 2014 election); Garland wasn't nominated until 2016.

2