The move would extend her 36-year House career and continue to freeze her would-be California successors in a long-standing holding pattern.

  • 3rihskerb@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    They have learned nothing from what happened with RBG. Or they don’t care (probably more likely)

      • 3rihskerb@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m just sayin RBG dying on trumps watch caused a ton of problems. They can retire gracefully on their terms and bring in fresh blood that isn’t bat shit crazy. It’s a similar situation we are in with fienstien and now the republicans are even in with McConnell.

      • nik0@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It has a lot to do with SCOTUS. She decides to hold her position for as long as she lives and when she dies there won’t be any other candidate. This leads to a president or some clever figure to decide to send “their guy” to replace them and as such leads to the rights of many being removed. I mean that’s how MTG got in really and here we are with Roe V. Wade being demolished and every red state under the sun taking away women’s rights. All thanks to our brave hero RGB.

        • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Newsom would appoint her replacement though?

          And still, the house has zero influence on SCOTUS appointments? So even if she somehow got replaced by a Republican (ig we’re assuming Newsom has a stroke and goes insane in this situation?), it would have no impact on SCOTUS appointments or any other judicial appointments, since those are done in the Senate.

            • BigNote@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The point is that unlike with SCOTUS vacancies, there’s zero chance that Newsome appoints someone with radically different politics from Pelosi, so the analogy kind of sucks regardless of what you think of him.

              • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s part of my point: another Pelosi would be AWFUL. Not anywhere near as bad as a GOP fascist, of course, but still absolutely AWFUL.

                • BigNote@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So you admit that the original comparison was crap

                  Good. My point remains.

                  • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I wasn’t the one making a comparison. The only thing I was saying was that there’s no reason to trust Newsom to appoint someone who’s not as immensely corrupt as himself.

                    THAT point (which, again, was the only one I was making) still stands, so you can stow your smugness where the sun doesn’t shine.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Newsom ended single-family zoning in Cali so he is a god among inferiors.

              As for Billionaire-owned, from your article:

              They are not Newsom’s largest donors: The families in total have given about $2 million of the $61 million that donors have contributed to his campaigns and independent committees backing those bids

          • nik0@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            The president should also have zero influence on the supreme court. Yet there was this whole thing with Obama and such that led to Trump having the perfect window of opportunity to send MTG to stand.

            • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think you have that the wrong way around. According to the constitution, the President appoints a Supreme Court Justice with the Senate giving advice and consent. It’s the Senate that’s supposed to have the lesser role, but Mitch McConnell chose not to follow the spirit of the constitution on that.

              At any rate, the House of Reps have never been a part of the process, so it has nothing to do with Pelosi, and never has.