Why? What's so wrong about doing your job until you are replaced? I know she's bad news for the Constitution, but I don't find anything wrong with the WAY she's retiring.
Not putting a date certain on the retirement provides uncertainty and opportunity for prolonged politicing the retirement that would not otherwise be there.
I wrote more about it a few months ago, but don't have a quick handle on the posts.
Not putting a date certain on the retirement provides uncertainty and opportunity for prolonged politicing the retirement that would not otherwise be there.
I wrote more about it a few months ago, but don't have a quick handle on the posts.
I found it ... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1513922/posts ... check posts 27, 36, 44, 47, 59, and 98.
... what her "hanging on" does do is reinforce the false premise that there is some duty to preserve status quo ante of the balance or makeup of the SCOTUS. That each nominee should mirror the philosophy of his or her predecessor.