Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dead At 87

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Yup...

 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

She later issued a statement:

“On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them. Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.”

In an interview with the New York Times, Ginsburg called Garland “about as well qualified as any nominee to this court” and, when asked whether senators should act on the nomination, said, “That’s their job.”

Obama nominated Garland on March 16, but Republican Senate leaders have refused even to hold a hearing. His pending nomination is the longest in history.

[KnoxThai 44]

Great calm and rational discussion here. I enjoyed reading the many thoughts written here. Let me interject if I may.

 

In 2016 the senate had two choices: accept Obama's nominee and replace a strong conservative justice with a liberal justice or role the dice and hope beyond hope that Trump won the election and they could put in another conservative justice. A risky move that paid off.

 

It made no sense to have hearings for Garland in 2016. It would have been nothing more than the democrats grand standing (see Kavanaugh hearings for reference) on TV for days on end. It was better to shut that down and just stick to the script: no hearing until after the election.

 

I have seen reports that the democrats intend to fight every election result they do not like in court after the November election. Those battles will likely end up in the Supreme Court so the republicans are wise to put in a conservative now to help their chances when the time comes. Bad call on the democrats to play their hand so early. Good call by the republicans to prepare for the worst.

 

RBG should have stepped down when she first became sick and let Obama put in another liberal justice to keep that seat. She had served long enough and she could have spent her remaining years writing books, cruising the talk circuit and just being with her family. Much less stress might have actually prolonged her life. The democrats held the senate until 2014 and the writing was on the wall that they were going to lose it. I still don't believe Harry Reid "fell and got hurt" after they lost the senate. Politics is a brutal business.

 

Trump is not prone to patience or worrying about what politicians think about his decisions. Trump will nominate someone as soon as possible and the democrats can yell and scream about it but the same scenario was basically in place in 2016: voters knew that a justice was going to be selected by the winner of the election and the voters chose Trump. A 6-3 conservative majority in the Supreme Court is worth all the battle scars the republicans might endure in November. We're talking a conservative court for generations to come. If Trump wins in November Thomas should step down and let Trump put in a young conservative justice and the conservatives will have a strong hold for many years to come.

 

And hearings for the next justice keep Harris off the campaign trail while Biden continues to spend more time in his basement. I still can't understand why the democratic party chose Biden when they had such a large and diverse pool of highly qualified candidates to choose from this time around. It's pretty obvious that they intend to push Biden aside and put in Harris quickly if Biden were to win in November. That's a risky move (as more people begin to understand their plan) considering how poorly Harris did in the primaries. She does not have mass appeal and the independents decide presidential elections and she is certainly not a favorite of theirs. Biden can try and spin himself as centrist to some degree but Harris cannot. Harris is all about California politics and that does not play well with the majority of voters outside of that state.

 

Get your popcorn and pull up a seat. We are going to see some serious drama in the months to come.

 

Be well.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 hour ago, CanAm1980 said:

She later issued a statement:

“On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them. Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.”

In an interview with the New York Times, Ginsburg called Garland “about as well qualified as any nominee to this court” and, when asked whether senators should act on the nomination, said, “That’s their job.”

Obama nominated Garland on March 16, but Republican Senate leaders have refused even to hold a hearing. His pending nomination is the longest in history.

In the uncited passage, make sure next time you include the paragraph before, which makes even more clear (beyond the "press inquiries" part) that the apology was concerning moronic comments to questions from the AP,  CNN, etc. she made about Trump and not the courts.

 

 

Edited September 21, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

Just now, Burnt Reynolds said:

In the uncited passage, make sure next time you include the paragraph before, which makes even more clear (beyond the "press inquiries" part) that the apology was concerning comments to questions from the AP,  CNN, etc. she made about Trump and not the courts.

 

 

Feel free to include what you like.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 hour ago, KnoxThai said:

Great calm and rational discussion here. I enjoyed reading the many thoughts written here. Let me interject if I may.

 

In 2016 the senate had two choices: accept Obama's nominee and replace a strong conservative justice with a liberal justice or role the dice and hope beyond hope that Trump won the election and they could put in another conservative justice. A risky move that paid off.

 

It made no sense to have hearings for Garland in 2016. It would have been nothing more than the democrats grand standing (see Kavanaugh hearings for reference) on TV for days on end. It was better to shut that down and just stick to the script: no hearing until after the election.

 

I have seen reports that the democrats intend to fight every election result they do not like in court after the November election. Those battles will likely end up in the Supreme Court so the republicans are wise to put in a conservative now to help their chances when the time comes. Bad call on the democrats to play their hand so early. Good call by the republicans to prepare for the worst.

 

RBG should have stepped down when she first became sick and let Obama put in another liberal justice to keep that seat. She had served long enough and she could have spent her remaining years writing books, cruising the talk circuit and just being with her family. Much less stress might have actually prolonged her life. The democrats held the senate until 2014 and the writing was on the wall that they were going to lose it. I still don't believe Harry Reid "fell and got hurt" after they lost the senate. Politics is a brutal business.

 

Trump is not prone to patience or worrying about what politicians think about his decisions. Trump will nominate someone as soon as possible and the democrats can yell and scream about it but the same scenario was basically in place in 2016: voters knew that a justice was going to be selected by the winner of the election and the voters chose Trump. A 6-3 conservative majority in the Supreme Court is worth all the battle scars the republicans might endure in November. We're talking a conservative court for generations to come. If Trump wins in November Thomas should step down and let Trump put in a young conservative justice and the conservatives will have a strong hold for many years to come.

 

And hearings for the next justice keep Harris off the campaign trail while Biden continues to spend more time in his basement. I still can't understand why the democratic party chose Biden when they had such a large and diverse pool of highly qualified candidates to choose from this time around. It's pretty obvious that they intend to push Biden aside and put in Harris quickly if Biden were to win in November. That's a risky move (as more people begin to understand their plan) considering how poorly Harris did in the primaries. She does not have mass appeal and the independents decide presidential elections and she is certainly not a favorite of theirs. Biden can try and spin himself as centrist to some degree but Harris cannot. Harris is all about California politics and that does not play well with the majority of voters outside of that state.

 

Get your popcorn and pull up a seat. We are going to see some serious drama in the months to come.

 

Be well.

Good post overall.. I would just comment on the 6-3 part.. would be 5-4, considering the recent changes from Roberts (immigration, religion, etc.) where he's clearly abandoning "conservative" views he held, reversing his own prior decisions in several instances.

 

3 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

Feel free to include what you like.

The truth is a key thing to include.

Edited September 21, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

 

The truth is a key thing to include.

Not for supporters of a certain agenda, eh?

[KnoxThai 44]

3 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Good post overall.. I would just comment on the 6-3 part.. would be 5-4, considering the recent changes from Roberts (immigration, religion, etc.) where he's clearly abandoning "conservative" views he held, reversing his own prior decisions in several instances.

 

 

Point conceded. 5-4

[Dashinka 24,494]

10 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

Feel free to include what you like.

So context doesn't matter?  I seem to have seen otherwise somewhere...

[Dashinka 24,494]

10 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Good post overall.. I would just comment on the 6-3 part.. would be 5-4, considering the recent changes from Roberts (immigration, religion, etc.) where he's clearly abandoning "conservative" views he held, reversing his own prior decisions in several instances.

 

The truth is a key thing to include.

To me this is the biggest issue.  When a Democrat President nominates a SCOTUS Justice, they stay in their political lanes almost 100%.  The same cannot be said about a GOP President, they have a much better track record of nominating MORers.

[yuna628 9,676]

2 hours ago, Dashinka said:

To me this is the biggest issue.  When a Democrat President nominates a SCOTUS Justice, they stay in their political lanes almost 100%.  The same cannot be said about a GOP President, they have a much better track record of nominating MORers.

For the most part the conservative justices we have also stay in their 'lanes' the majority of the time. Roberts might be considered MOR or waffling these days, but there isn't a single decision he's made that doesn't have a solid conservative basis behind it.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

On 9/20/2020 at 9:18 AM, Dashinka said:

John Read

Edward Bradford

William Micou 

I know it wasn't directly for the SC, but let's not forget the democratic filibuster against Miguel Estrada back in 2001, just because he was Latino.  

[Steeleballz 7,550]

On 9/20/2020 at 7:18 AM, Dashinka said:

John Read

Edward Bradford

William Micou 

 

   Read's nomination was withdrawn by president. Bradford and Micou were appointed late in the session (after Filmore had already lost the presidency to Pierce) and congress deferred the nomination to the incoming president in both cases.  Filmore did have his chance to nominate a justice prior to that (George Badger) but Badger was not confirmed.

 

   None of these candidates were close to the length of time Scalia's seat was unfilled. Mckinley died at the end of July. This is more similar to the current situation. Same reason I think Trump only gets one shot at it before the election. If he appoints someone and something comes up in the confirmation process, it will likely be next session before they hear another nominee.

Edited September 21, 2020 by Steeleballz

[Boiler 45,492]

As I understand the process the responsibility for the nomination is the President and the Senate says yes or no, as far as I can tell there is no time limits involved.

 

Perhaps he should nominate Uncle Joe?

 

 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]