Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
What are you talking about? Looked to the future?
Garland was nominated 8 months before the election. It doesn't occur to you that Ginsburg could have considered retiring within that last stretch and decided against it after what went down, hoping Hillary won?
That would have been plenty of time, in most cases, and there would be little reason to do it before the last handful of months, until Mitch made one.
|
When people say that RBG should have retired when Obama could have nominated her replacement, I sincerely doubt that they are thinking she should have done it in 2016 when the Republicans held the Senate. They likely mean that she should have done it in 2014 or earlier, when the Democrats still controlled the Senate. That means that Merrick Garland is completely irrelevant when it comes to whatever went through RBG's mind regarding her retirement. Do you honestly believe that she was still mulling over retirement in March 2016?