When should RBG have stepped down?

[TDale313]

I know the idea that she was selfish in staying as long as she did has been a talking point for many… but when could she have stepped down safely and known she would have gotten a non-RW replacement? She may have been hanging on in the hopes that if Hillary won the fever might break and she could get a replacement confirmed. But they were blocking Obama noms for a significant period of time. Stepping down before 2016 was no guarantee, after 2016 Trump was in office so she essentially couldn’t step down. Before 2012? Maybe… but was she in a position where she felt it was necessary or prudent? I’m not sure the timeline or her health issues, but I feel it’s perhaps a bit unfair to blame her for not stepping down at a “safe” point… not sure there have been many recently.

[House of Roberts]

1. Before the Rs took back the Senate under Obama.

Any time since then, there wouldn't have been a hearing for a D nominated Justice anyway.

Even if Hillary had won, the court would still be 4-3 conservative since Kennedy wouldn't have stepped down.

[W_HAMILTON]

8. She couldn't have known that Republicans would pull the stunt they did.

Blame those that didn't vote for Hillary in 2016, after seeing what Republicans had done and after they had been sufficiently warned that the next president would determine the outcome of the Court and that Roe v. Wade would be on the chopping block if Trump were elected. And some of those fools dare to call themselves "progressives..."

And, no, Roe v. Wade would not have been overturned had Hillary been elected.

[emulatorloo]

14. Well said

And as far as I can tell, its the people on twitter and Reddit who refused to vote for Hillary that are the ones trying to vilify/demonize RBG

[House of Roberts]

25. As far as YOU can tell,

they could just as easily have been Russian troll-bots, dividing our side to help Trump.

[emulatorloo]

28. Fair enough. And I believe you are correct. OTOH Some of them are blue checks

[Lancero]

66. Lot of people here too pushing the same thing even now, many of them long term members.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216841366

Bunch of long term members, and otherwise highly active people. Maybe some of them are paid in roubles, but frankly? Looks more like most of them just can't help but blame women for everything.

[W_HAMILTON]

45. They are.

Because most of them spend all their time attacking Democrats on the internet because it gets them the likes and retweets (from Russian and Republican trolls) that they so crave.

[House of Roberts]

23. From the OP: "...when could she have stepped down safely..."

I could have predicted McConnell would have sabotaged any nominee from a Dem President.

If Hillary had somehow squeaked by Trump in 2016, forget about any blue wave in 2018. We'd probably have Trump as President NOW.

We'd have lived 2010 all over again, and gotten squat from a Republican Congress to fight Covid, and no Federal unemployment extensions/supplements either. It would all have been blamed on Hillary, and we would have been destroyed in 2020. Sorry, not buying your revisionist history assertions. Mine are just as valid and more likely to have took place, if we're going to argue counterfactuals.

[emulatorloo]

31. I think OP is actually posting against revisionist history. Here's a quote.

OP writes:

‘ I’m not sure the timeline or her health issues, but I feel it’s perhaps a bit unfair to blame her for not stepping down at a “safe” point… not sure there have been many recently.’

[W_HAMILTON]

46. Did you?

If so, show us from your posting history.

[PortTack]

47. Disagree..she was smart, savvy and knew the repukes as well or better than anyone

The safe thing would have been to go out under Obama, b4 2010 midterms.

[W_HAMILTON]

50. And by virtue of her being smart and saavy...

...she did not predict what happened or else she may have.

The safe thing would have been for people that claim to be progressive would have been to vote in 2016 for only fucking progressive candidate for president that could have prevented this: Hillary Clinton.

[PortTack]

55. Agree...but still the dye was already cast. Even if it wasn't this bad, we needed a chance to maintain

A more liberal court.

[W_HAMILTON]

56. We had a chance. A very easy, obvious chance.

And just enough people (claiming to be ON OUR SIDE, no less) failed us in November 2016 when they didn't vote for Hillary.

They were warned.

[PortTack]

57. Yes I can't count the number of times I posted 2 words..remember SCOTUS

That chance was lost.

[Polybius]

60. Unless she lost re-election in 2020

Then Kennedy steps down and President Romney or whoever picks three Justices of his own (the first two being Scalia and RGB's replacements).

[W_HAMILTON]

62. Which would involve dumbasses doing the same thing in 2020...

...that they did in 2016 that cost us the seats to begin with.

Voting for Democrats would have prevented this -- PERIOD.

[Demsrule86]

78. The idea that electing Hillary would have changed nothing is just not true.

It is an excuse for many who likely didn't vote for her...I guess they need one to help them sleep at night.

[Polybius]

80. I love her more than Biden, and wanted her to run in 2020

I'm just saying that it was entirely possible for Mitch to hold up the SC seat for 4 years.

[tinrobot]

2. Democrats held the Senate until 2015

Sometime before then would have been optimal. But how can you predict those things? You can't.

She did her best and went above and beyond. I just wish her health had held out for another few months.

[wryter2000]

43. And the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees was still in effect

Until McConnel became majority leader. She said at the time that Obama would have no chance getting someone as liberal as her through, and she was right.

Give it a rest!

[Beautiful Disaster]

65. So her goal was to what...?

Your point doesn't add up. If she knew Obama would struggle to get someone as liberal as she was with a DEMOCRATIC senate - how could you rationalize that she would believe Obama or Clinton or anyone else could get as liberal of a justice with a REPUBLICAN senate?

It's illogical.

Odds dictated that the Democrats were going to lose the Senate in 2014. For someone as smart as RBG, she certainly knew the odds were stacked against the Democrats to grow their majority in 2014. In fact, only once did a president grow his majority in a midterm year going back to 1978: Bush in 2002. That's it.

The Democrats lost three seats under Carter in 1978.

The Republicans lost one seat under Reagan in 1982.

The Republicans lost eight seats, and the Senate, under Reagan in 1986.

The Republicans lost one seat under Bush in 1990.

The Democrats lost eight seats, and the majority, under Clinton in 1994.

The Democrats and Republicans retained the same amount of seats under Clinton in 1998.

The Republicans lost six seats, and the majority, under Bush in 2006.

The Democrats lost six seats, and the majority, under Obama in 2010.

The odds dictated in 2013, after Obama began his second term, that this would be the highwater mark - at least for the second term. Every other midterm showed us exactly what he was facing: a reality where he was likely to lose the senate in 2014. If RBG couldn't see that, she clearly didn't have the mental capacity to continue on the court and I don't believe that's the case.

RBG only had to look at history to see that in 2015 through 2017, despite her advanced age and health scares, that the senate the Democrats had at that point would have been far more hostile to a liberal justice than the senate she had in 2013 and 2014.

Moreover, 2016 was not a slam dunk election and she had to have known there was an even better chance that the GOP took over in 2016 than the Democrats had of keeping the senate in 2014 based on historic trends, all but guaranteeing she would be replaced by a Republican president.

She gambled. We lost. That is a fact.

[wryter2000]

67. She wasn't sick in 2012

She had no reason to retire. Yes, she was old, but she was in excellent shape. For all we know, McConnell would have pulled the same s**t he pulled later and not filled her seat.

For crying out loud, RBG is not the enemy. No wonder Democrats struggle. Circular firing squad.

[Demsrule86]

82. Yes she was. She suffered this illness for a long time. And she was old and courts matter.

[Crunchy Frog]

90. She first underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer in 2009.

She dealt with colon cancer even earlier. She absolutely had major health considerations in 2012.

I doubt McConnell would have been able to do much at that time, as the Dems had a pretty solid Senate majority. Obama managed to appoint two other SC jusices in his first term.

[Beautiful Disaster]

103. In 2014, she was 81 years old.

She had suffered two bouts of cancer, including one in 2009. That alone should have given any person with a lifetime appointment to the most important bench in the country pause.

RBG IS NOT THE ENEMY but the hubris of some on the court HAS fucked us over. Be thankful Breyer, who is younger than RBG was when she died, decided to step down (and he's been far more healthy than she was) or we'd be looking at an even worse situation.

The point is that we need to be smart, especially when it comes to the Supreme Court. RBG should have stepped down in 2014. The fact she didn't certainly guaranteed that she wouldn't be able to going forward and that the only way her tenure was ending was by death.

Imagine if Kennedy hadn't stepped down under Trump. He's still healthy. But he wanted Trump to choose his replacement. Now not only is the court MORE conservative, it has a justice who will be on it far longer than Kennedy could have ever held out for.

[Demsrule86]

81. Before he lost the Senate, Obama nominated and the Senate approved Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

He also appointed Elana Kagen...so you are just plain wrong. And had RBG retired before we lost the Senate, she would have been replaced. He ended the filibuster for federal judges and let it be known that the same would be done for SCOTUS should the GOP play games with his nominees. It was not until we lost the Senate in 15 that we couldn't get a nominee through.

[sir pball]

96. Not as liberal as her, no, but I'm sure there could have been a pro-Roe winner nt

[Demsrule86]

3. During Obama's first two years. She was already ill...she was a good person but all her work

is now shit. They ruled it was OK to kill death row prisoners without considering evidence of innocence, they overthrew Roe, they ruled to allow prayer at schools, they forced states to fund parochial schools...the list goes on and on...I loved her but she let us down.

[AlexSFCA]

5. had she stepped down by 2015, roe would not have been overturned

Roberts did not vote to overturn.
And if we lose senate and presidency, then I can see thomas retiring so that gop can push through a comparable younger replacement. If we win, there is a chance thomas may die so we can replace him.

[TDale313]

7. Repubs were already blocking Obama's nominees.

What makes you think they wouldn’t have blocked her replacement?

[karynnj]

36. They might have wanted to, but having TWO seats vacant could have been different

For one, the public might have been more concerned. Two, it would very definitely have made it even more obvious that the Supreme Court was on the ballot. As it was, PBS and others had interviews with conservative women who were offended by Trump, but who said they would vote for him because of their views on abortion. They saw the possibility of one of their justices, Scalia, being replaced by HRC as a loss.

If it were not just that seat, but RBG, would it have driven out more on the left? It is impossible to know and there have often been more one issue right wing abortion voters, but it is possible. Knowing the winner would get at least 2 justices, it could have made people really see Roe v Wade as vulnerable.

[Demsrule86]

73. They couldn't block a nominee until the GOP won the Senate...she should have stepped down in

2010...before the midterm.

[FBaggins]

10. Yes it would... just not as fully

Roberts did not vote to overturn.

But if Roberts' opinion had been the ruling of the court... very few here would have agreed that Roe had not been overturned.

It would not have been as comprehensively dismantled, but there would be little left of it. The notion that the state could not interfere prior to the viability line would be gone.

[Duncan Grant]

6. Is this sort of forensic analysis helpful?

No offense intended but here we are. What’s it time for now?

I guess that’s my personal focus; what now, what next?

[emulatorloo]

12. Probably because twitterlandia and Reddit are on a tear about how "evil" RBG is and how it is

“Her Fault” that Roe v Wade was overturned.

Basically which allows the twits and reddits to let Trump and the Psycho SCOTUS off the hook by blaming a liberal woman instead

Agree w yr focus. But the bullshit I described above annoys me.

[Duncan Grant]

21. Thank you.

I think I understand now.

[emulatorloo]

22. ...

[Doremus]

32. It's just as valid as the sizeable "it all comes down to 2016" crowd here. nt

[Duncan Grant]

42. Never mention that woman from "The Hunger" here. Ever. (nt)

[betsuni]

61. You mean the political activist who was a surrogate for Nader, Edwards and Sanders who has

a great deal of MSM media exposure and warned people that Hillary was more dangerous than Trump. The propaganda aimed at young people new to politics that there was no difference between the parties, that Democrats like Obama and Hillary were the real corrupt warmongers, and like Michael Moore said, more of a roadblock to progress than Trump. On MSM. Anyone who did that helped Russia/Republicans.

[Duncan Grant]

63. Niagara Falls! Slowly I turned, inch by inch, step by step...

I walked up to him, I smashed him, I hit him, I bonked him, I bopped him, I socked him and I mashed his face and I knocked him down.

[betsuni]

64. This is Democratic Underground, a forum for supporters of Democrats, not Republicans or 3rd parties.

[Duncan Grant]

79. Niagara Falls! (nt)

[MadameButterfly]

9. THis is why we need to reform the court

If every president got to appoint two justices per term, regardless of who retires, and terms were limited to 20 years, everyone would get the term they were due without having to sacrifice their dream job (for which they are a rock star) over a future they can't predict. The size of the court would fluctuate, but that number is not in the constitution.

The story goes that Sandra Day O'Connor was upset when Gore challenged Bush in Florida because she wanted to retire. If Gore was elected she'd have to hang on 4 more years. Helluva reason to overturn an election and set us on a road to destroying the planet and democracy.

Now the biggest criteria for Republican nominees (besides their stand on RoevWade) is their age. Young, unqualified justices will outlive most Americans and maybe our children too, and in this case set voting laws that keep only their kind in power. Too close to royalty IMO.

[iemanja]

17. The people determine the court through elections

It's time for inconstant Democrats and those on the left to quit fucking around with elections. This is what happens when they complain about how they can't "hold their nose" to vote for a Democrat.

We lost Roe in 2016, and we lost it before then when the Republicans have for decades filled state and circuit courts with RWers. Only now people pay attention to it, when they should have done decades ago. We fucked this one up royally.

[inthewind21]

69. Agreed

[Demsrule86]

84. We can't reform the SCOTUS. It is a separate but equal branch of our Government, we don't

have to listen to their rulings though for the same reason...they have no standing armies. We can add or subtract members, of course. But were are limited in what we can do.

[JoanofArgh]

11. During Obama's first term definitely. I clearly remember all the discussion about this and

am guessing she got some pressure from the Obama admin as well

[iemanja]

13. It wouldn't have mattered

the decision was 6-3. There is little more repulsive than blaming RGB for this, after she spent a lifetime fighting for what was right. It wasn't her job to game the system. It was our job to get Hillary elected.

[867-5309.]

15. I don't think you can argue she didn't have a clear window of time n/t

[PuraVidaDreamin]

16. It is what it is

And it isn't what it ain't

Doesn't matter what it was

We must move forward and can't look back.

[FSogol]

18. When should we stop blaming Democrats for things the GOP does?

[Duncan Grant]

27. Jeff Tiedrich, is that you?

[Act_of_Reparation]

51. That's a little reductive.

The GOP is responsible for the shit the GOP does, but as the opposing party we have a responsibility to, well, oppose them. So we do have a role in this, however limited it may be.

I'm sure there are people squawking about this being all Justice Ginsberg's fault. It's not. And they're wrong. That being said, Justice Ginsberg was a human being, and she made a strategic mistake, and that's worth talking about if only to avoid doing it in the future.

[wryter2000]

88. Thank you

No wonder we struggle. We’re our own enemy after the Republicans.

I haven’t used the ignore function much, but that could change.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

19. If RBG retired before the 2014 midterms, the 60 vote filibuster was in effect

The Democrats had made a big deal in the nuclear vote for cabinet and lower judges of keeping the 60 vote requirement in for SCOTUS judges. That would had played in to RBG's decision to stay on.

Again, Hillary warned us

Link to tweet

[tritsofme]

26. If Republicans filibustered a SCOTUS pick in 2014, I have no doubt Reid would have gone nuclear

again to make sure the nominee was confirmed.

After 2013, it was only a matter of time.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

34. The existence of the 60 vote requirement would have meant that Obama would have selected a moderate

Obama selected Merrick Garland because Garland was a moderate. If RBG had retired earlier, then Obama would still have picked a moderate like Garland. RBG was hoping for a stronger replacement which she thought that could get if Hillary won

I do not fault RBG's decision

[tritsofme]

38. Well, we ended up with Amy Coney Barrett.

It was a poor decision, with consequences that will last decades.

Hillary likely would have had to deal with a McConnell run Senate, it’s not clear she could have gotten anyone confirmed, let alone someone better than Garland.

[inthewind21]

76. Why the ever loving

fuck was it solely RBG's job to save this country from it's self? Which is EXACTLY what those blaming her are making it. Know how to control/safeguard the Supreme Court, the keepers of the Constitution? You FUCKING VOTE! You don't whine and pout and crusade against those who would safeguard it because gas prices are too high or you want your debt discharged, or you want this or that or you "just can't relate" to candidate X. YOU FUCKING VOTE! You look at the two candidates you don't like and you ask yourself, which one could cause the most damage, then you go do a civics refresher course, you realize it's not a perfect system but it's what you have to work with and the stakes are too high to play petty games. And then, YOU FUCKING VOTE! Whining and crying and blaming everyone BUT the voter after the fact does ZERO good. It took decades to get the Roe decision. It took decades for the Republicans to bring it down. Roll up your sleeves and get ready, it will take decades to right this ship.

[tritsofme]

83. Kennedy and Breyer made a different strategic choice.

Had Ginsberg taken that path and retired before 2015, the Court would be in a different place today. I’m not sure why this is controversial?

[inthewind21]

86. Speaking of Kennedy

Funny thing, he was replaced by Kavanaugh giving the SC a 5-4 majority. But hey' it's ALL RBG's fault!

[tritsofme]

92. I'm not really sure what this means. Kennedy and Breyer chose to retire

and have their replacement chosen by the party that appointed them, they will both have been replaced by their own clerks.

Ginsberg made a different, much more unfortunate, decision.

[ornotna]

20. Woulda, coulda, shoulda

Not playing this game, it's counter-productive.

[Hekate]

24. When should Mitch McConnell have stepped down? When should the entire Democratic Senate ...

… have risen up in wrath and destroyed the filibuster? When should the Democrats have seized every opportunity to stop being gentlemen and realize we are in a fight for the republic?

Everybody: stop blaming RBG. Just stop.

[TDale313]

33. I'm very specifically not in the OP...

But I agree- I think it’s wrong to blame her for where we’re at for a whole host of reasons. I’m just seeing a lot of “if only she’d stepped down earlier” and I don’t think that tracks.

[Hekate]

39. It is starting to seep into the talking heads & interviews with young political women on TV...

One said this morning, “This is going to be RBG’s legacy.” Like hell it will.

And that is what I’m reacting to.

[TDale313]

40. Yeah, we're on the same page.

This talking point was what I was reacting to too.

[tritsofme]

29. She clearly should have retired before 2015, plenty of people said this at the time.

It’s not disrespectful to acknowledge reality.

[keep_left]

48. Yep. A good time might have been when the colon cancer returned. Or when it became metastatic.

Those would both have been times where it would have been prudent to hang up one's gavel. Especially because RBG was by all accounts one of the giants of feminism. RBG knew, or ought to have known, that the far-right (which is now most of the right) does not act or legislate in good faith, and arguably has not since the days of Newt Gingrich, 30 years ago. She certainly knew the kind of candidates they had in mind to replace her.

I think everyone at DU has great respect for RBG. I certainly do, and mean no disrespect to her legacy (first Jewish woman on the Court, etc.). But a timely exit might have made it possible for Obama to fight for a replacement candidate that wasn't a "Neanderthal", to use the terminology Ted Kennedy used.

[Sympthsical]

52. It was a real weird time

There was a lot of pressure to get a replacement in when President Obama was able. At some point, everything just got weird with hagiography. There was a five year period where I was trying to pinpoint why people were participating in a group hallucination about things.

I think I packed it in when that book about her work out routine came out. People were saying, without any trace of irony, "I couldn't do that! She's in crazy good shape!" It was like . . . a woman in her 80s . . . cancer multiple times . . . lifting 2.5 weights . . . and people were making posts on social media and actual journalists pumping her up to be practically an Olympian.

It was so weird.

I'm not sure if that was mass denial or just a shitload of hope. Because I know, the instant 2016 happened, I was white-knuckling it about her health relentlessly.

I loved RBG - we all did - but even she knew Roe would not last if conservatives ever had a solid majority. She warned and warned and warned about it. I just don't understand why she didn't take her own advice and do what was in her control to save it as long as possible. 2016 was always a gamble. A party winning a third term is fairly unusual in modern history. Since WWII, only HW Bush managed it. Let that one marinate. That was the gamble.

I don't think there's any point in litigating it. It was McConnell and will always be McConnell for me. He not only fucked us with the Garland nomination, he then nakedly did the precise opposite with RBG's death a month before the election.

One man alone swung two of those seats through sheer naked senatorial shittery. There were so many choices that led up to where we are, but for me, he's the big factor. He's where the ire goes.

Everything else just feels like intraparty axes being ground out, and it's tiresome. Same people saying the same things, and data, facts, and reality won't budge it. I long ago stopped trying.

The question facing us is, what do we do now? Yelling at people over perceived past slights isn't a persuasive exercise. Step One: Win November. Corollary to Step One: Stop screaming at everyone over shit that happened in the past, because you need all hands on deck now.

If that doesn't happen, then we're not serious, and more blows will be incoming.

[tritsofme]

54. Exactly, I feel much more sorrow than anger towards RBG for how it worked out

And of course McConnell is the true villain.

But I don’t understand the denialism, in pretending that she didn’t make a mistake. It doesn’t make her any less, it just makes her human.

[Demsrule86]

74. I know that RBG is not the villain here...the GOP is the villain but I am still pissed at her

for not stepping down before the GOP won the Senate.

[sarisataka]

30. It doesn't matter

She didn't.

Bemoaning the past doesn't change the present.

[tenderfoot]

35. Now do Brewer.

[TDale313]

37. Are you reading the post?

Cause I’m pretty clearly saying I don’t think we should be blaming her for where we’re at.

[wryter2000]

41. I know you mean well

But please, let this "controversy" die. Democrats aren't to blame for what has happened. RBG isn't to blame. Republicans and faux "Christians" are to blame.

[BannonsLiver]

44. When Obama asked her to lunch and suggested it.

That was not long after he won re election in 2012. But sure, let’s keep up the bullshit story she had no choice but to hang on until she was dead.

[onenote]

70. Who is saying she had no choice but to hang on?

It seems to be that is, as you say, "bullshit."

Of course she could have retired. But it was her choice whether and, if so, when to retire. Hindsight is 20-20 and not particularly productive at this particular moment in time.

[Demsrule86]

75. It has forever changed her legacy. That is the truth...much of which she did and stood for

will be undone by this court.

[BannonsLiver]

85. Whatever.

Keep singing that tune. Doesn’t make her terrible, selfish decision to hang on until she was dead look any better. Not everyone is going to give her a pass for that.

[Behind the Aegis]

49. OK

Link to tweet

5 to 4 is still a loss of Roe V. Wade.

[TDale313]

53. Yes. As I said in the op,

I am not convinced there’s been a safe point in the recent past where she could have been sure Repubs wouldn’t block her replacement’s nomination.

I should probably have just not brought this up, but icymi, my point in the original was just that it seemed kinda unfair to lay where we’re at not at her feet.

[ecstatic]

58. I think all justices should step down by 78, preferably much sooner.

I'm not referring to any other job, just the Supreme Court. Just my opinion.

[Polybius]

59. Many Justices never step down

William Rehnquist didn't either. Then there's the flip side, retiring way too soon like David Souter. I still don't get that one. There's been three Presidential elections since he retired.

[Midwestern Democrat]

101. Souter hated Washington and his attitude toward the court really soured after Bush v. Gore

He wanted to quit right then but realized that would have been giving Bush exactly what he wanted - he was out the door the minute a Democrat was elected president.

[Iggo]

68. Doesn't matter anymore...

…except as a tactic for causing infighting.

Let it. The fuck. Go.

[Crunchy Frog]

93. It seems to have been a contributing factor in Breyer's choice to retire when he did.

So it does look like at least some lessons were taken from this disaster.

[H2O Man]

71. Be here, now.

[Buckeyeblue]

72. Why did Al Gore not fight harder to get the Florida votes counted?

All he had to do was throw out the idea that W would be an illegitimate president if all the votes were not counted.

Roberts and Alito would be old federal judges whose name very few people would know.

[Demsrule86]

77. Oh please...I have but one thing to say...FUCK NADER.

AND MICHAEL MOORE.

[Buckeyeblue]

98. I just posted this because it's more than RBG not retiring that got us to this place

[Demsrule86]

99. No doubt about that...but every seat counts and she should have retired.

Obama seated two judges on SCOTUS...so had she resigned before we lost the Senate, we would be in a better position. I think Roe would not have been completely lost but Robers would have had the incentive to make a more balanced ruling. I am disappointed in RBG. Why she thought the GOP would honor any request is beyond me.

[Emile]

87. She wanted the first woman president to select

her replacement. I wished she would have retired a five years earlier.

[Crunchy Frog]

89. I thought, at the time, that she should have stepped down before the 2012 election.

Between her health issues and the fact that there were no guarantees that Obama would be reelected, it seemed by far the most prudent move.

She certainly should have stepped down before the 2014 midterms.

Sorry if anyone's offended, but that's how I've viewed it all along.

[Dysfunctional]

91. None of this matters. What happen now and in the future matters.

[Demovictory9]

94. doesn't matter..that's the past

[Crunchy Frog]

95. Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

[pstokely]

97. 2014

but maybe she didn't expect Moscow Mitch to block anything

[Skittles]

100. let's face it

she was never going to step down - no matter what

[BunkieBandit]

102. Jim Mora said it best. "Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Justice Ginsberg didn't know, much less anyone else