Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dead At 87

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

7 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

"Where there shouldn't be any"

 

- Bork

- Thomas

- Myers

- Alito

- Kavanaugh

 

I also looked back on Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearings where Democrats chided her for being religious, applying an unconstitutional litmus test to her nomination, then making her and others prejudge any abortion case that comes before them in the appellate court, even though they had already made up their mind they were going to vote against her to begin with. Even though she made it through the confirmation process, she got the psychological beating she'll remember when making future decisions. 

 

Unsurprisingly a statement made on behalf of RBG by a family member says her dying wish was that she wanted the President and Senate to wait until a "new president was installed".. if true, she blatantly politicized the courts here and acted as if the seat belonged to her and was for her to decide who supersedes her, when in fact it's the President's obligation to quickly nominate a replacement and the Senate exercise its advice and consent. 

 

Could argue the coulda shoulda woulda all day long, the fact is, it was never non partisan.

Taken literally, and if Trump wins, then she didnt want to fill the seat until after January 2025. Ain't gonna happen. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

34 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

"Where there shouldn't be any"

 

- Bork

- Thomas

- Myers

- Alito

- Kavanaugh

 

I also looked back on Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearings where Democrats chided her for being religious, applying an unconstitutional litmus test to her nomination, then making her and others prejudge any abortion case that comes before them in the appellate court, even though they had already made up their mind they were going to vote against her to begin with. Even though she made it through the confirmation process, she got the psychological beating she'll remember when making future decisions. 

 

Unsurprisingly a statement made on behalf of RBG by a family member says her dying wish was that she wanted the President and Senate to wait until a "new president was installed".. if true, she blatantly politicized the courts here and acted as if the seat belonged to her and was for her to decide who supersedes her, when in fact it's the President's obligation to quickly nominate a replacement and the Senate exercise its advice and consent. 

 

Could argue the coulda shoulda woulda all day long, the fact is, it was never non partisan.

 

  You listed 5 people who actually had SC nomination hearings. Let's not move the goalposts. Why don't you list some examples of people who didn't get a hearing because congress declined to have any hearings for a year. There was Garland. Got any more?

 

  

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

14 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  You listed 5 people who actually had SC nomination hearings. Let's not move the goalposts. Why don't you list some examples of people who didn't get a hearing because congress declined to have any hearings for a year. There was Garland. Got any more?

 

  

I am fine with the fact that the Republicans had the vote to pocket the Garland vote. That is the system. I am fine that Mitch wants to try to force a vote on Trump's nominee, his nominations have not been that far from center compared to Thomas.

 

What gets my goat is the holier than thou attitude that pretends that this is anything other than a naked power grab by McConnell because the Republicans have the Senate. Just be straight with us. 

 

75% chance Trump will not be President, 50/50 they won't hold the Senate. Demographics are shifting and if the forces on the right want to hold onto Citizens United, they have to stack the courts. 

 

 

Not all Republicans will go along with this plan. Some are facing voters.

 

[Crazy Cat 41,845]

1 minute ago, CanAm1980 said:

75% chance Trump will not be President

🤣. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

42 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  You listed 5 people who actually had SC nomination hearings. Let's not move the goalposts. Why don't you list some examples of people who didn't get a hearing because congress declined to have any hearings for a year. There was Garland. Got any more?

 

  

How many Garland situations happen where the President in his final year (an election year in his last term) nominates a justice that gets considered by a Senate with an opposing party? The entire situation has little precedent so of course both parties are spinning it as they please. 

 

Those 5 people are relevant because they attacked your fiction derived argument about "partisan politics where there shouldn't be any". You might want to show what goalposts have been moved with an adequate comparison. 

Edited September 19, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

8 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

I am fine with the fact that the Republicans had the vote to pocket the Garland vote. That is the system. I am fine that Mitch wants to try to force a vote on Trump's nominee, his nominations have not been that far from center compared to Thomas.

 

What gets my goat is the holier than thou attitude that pretends that this is anything other than a naked power grab by McConnell because the Republicans have the Senate. Just be straight with us. 

 

75% chance Trump will not be President, 50/50 they won't hold the Senate. Demographics are shifting and if the forces on the right want to hold onto Citizens United, they have to stack the courts. 

 

 

Not all Republicans will go along with this plan. Some are facing voters.

 

FYI these are recycled arguments from 2016:

 

- polls (odds deriving from them) 

- changes in "demographics" means we win 

 

Just a reminder that this issue would've been less of one if Democrat's didn't kick-off the filibuster removing because Republicans did what their opponents did in using filibusters. McConnell warned them they'd regret removing it for Presidential nominees.. now McConnell has helped completely change and reshape the entire federal court top to bottom. 

 

And now the Democrats are threatening removing legislative filibuster and packing the courts. Why shouldn't McConnell preempt them and do this first? I for one am on board with it given the threats are by leadership who basically consider at least one a certainty already. Might as well take advantage now. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

6 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

How many Garland situations happen where the President in his final year (an election year) nominates a justice that gets considered by a Senate with an opposing party? The entire situation has little precedent so of course both parties are spinning it as they please. 

 

Those 5 people are relevant because they attacked your fiction derived argument about "partisan politics where there shouldn't be any". You might want to show what goalposts have been moved with an adequate comparison. 

 

   There is nothing about the final year of a presidency that should stop supreme court hearings. Why would we actually want that to be the case 25% of the time? That was a contrived scenario to begin with, and McConnell took it to a new level. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

8 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   There is nothing about the final year of a presidency that should stop supreme court hearings. Why would we actually want that to be the case 25% of the time? That was a contrived scenario to begin with, and McConnell took it to a new level. 

It's politics.. rather than obsessively putting this one single thing (framed in a selective way) under a microscope how about take a step back and look at party posturing throughout US history? You might come to the realization that parties use mental and procedural maneuvers quite often to get what they want. Naturally.. every time, people find new wonderful criteria to act as if this is a novelty. It's precisely how you keep the same trashy establishment methodology fresh and new despite nothing changing. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

75% chance Trump will not be President

            

 

I hate to break the news to ya, but Trump is 100% the president.  And there is a 50% chance he shall remain so for four more years.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

If the dems were smart instead of greedy, RGB could have stepped down anytime between 2008-2011 and allowed to seat to go to another lefty.

[Just Paul 4,595]

18 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

I hate to break the news to ya, but Trump is 100% the president.

And he should nominate and it is up to the senate to do it's work.

 

I wish Biden would publish his list of potential nominees as a comparison.   And I would also like to see Kanye's list! 

 

We are this close to the election and I would like to see any intelligent emminations coming from the basement. 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

2 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

I am fine with the fact that the Republicans had the vote to pocket the Garland vote. That is the system. I am fine that Mitch wants to try to force a vote on Trump's nominee, his nominations have not been that far from center compared to Thomas.

 

What gets my goat is the holier than thou attitude that pretends that this is anything other than a naked power grab by McConnell because the Republicans have the Senate. Just be straight with us. 

 

75% chance Trump will not be President, 50/50 they won't hold the Senate. Demographics are shifting and if the forces on the right want to hold onto Citizens United, they have to stack the courts. 

 

 

Not all Republicans will go along with this plan. Some are facing voters.

 

90% chance she who walks behind the corn is president now

[Steeleballz 7,550]

22 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

If the dems were smart instead of greedy, RGB could have stepped down anytime between 2008-2011 and allowed to seat to go to another lefty.

 

   Probably something

3 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

I am fine with the fact that the Republicans had the vote to pocket the Garland vote. That is the system. I am fine that Mitch wants to try to force a vote on Trump's nominee, his nominations have not been that far from center compared to Thomas.

 

What gets my goat is the holier than thou attitude that pretends that this is anything other than a naked power grab by McConnell because the Republicans have the Senate. Just be straight with us. 

 

75% chance Trump will not be President, 50/50 they won't hold the Senate. Demographics are shifting and if the forces on the right want to hold onto Citizens United, they have to stack the courts. 

 

 

Not all Republicans will go along with this plan. Some are facing voters.

 

 

    I think the system is - you vote on the nominated candidate, and decide if the candidate is appropriate. Garland deserved a hearing. IMO, and McConnell didn't want to risk that he might actually get enough Republican votes, so they came up with that BS.

 

    I have no problem with a nomination and vote right now because that is what you are supposed to do. I just don't need to see a rationalization. What they did with garland was wrong. There is no way to ever make that right, but they don't need to screw around for the rest of time because of it. 

 

   Given the timing and that there will only be one shot before the election, hopefully it will at least be incentive to put forth a deserving candidate that has some appeal to moderates. 

 

  

Edited September 20, 2020 by Steeleballz

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

35 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

If the dems were smart instead of greedy, RGB could have stepped down anytime between 2008-2011 and allowed to seat to go to another lefty.

And to be clear... I don't think the repubs would have had the foresight to make such a move, either.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

And to be clear... I don't think the repubs would have had the foresight to make such a move, either.

 

   Might have influenced Kennedy. A lot of them don't want to retire and since they are appointed for life, it's really up to the individual when they do. If you were getting to where you were thinking about it, and your party had the presidency and senate, it would probably be a factor. Doesn't always work out that way though.