Quote:
Originally Posted by Ark2
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?
|
Considering she was apparently going to retire once Hillary was in office so Hillary could pick her replacement... months later... yes?