Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dead At 87

[Dashinka 24,736]

3 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Read's nomination was withdrawn by president.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.

You do know something will come up in the confirmation process at the 11th hour.  In reality though, there is no obligation to actually run this through the Judiciary Committee, Mitch cold move this directly to a floor vote. 

 

I see that Micou was nominated late in the term, but Bradford was nominated in August 1852 before the election.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

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.  

And the dems didn't want a Latino to be eligible for the Supreme Court, so they just kept him out of the race for what, 28 months before he just gave up?

[yuna628 9,700]

29 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

And the dems didn't want a Latino to be eligible for the Supreme Court, so they just kept him out of the race for what, 28 months before he just gave up?

IIRC the Latino thing was out of a leaked memo, and wasn't something that was focused upon eventually anyway. His failed nomination wasn't for SCOTUS though. And it didn't much matter because he wasn't exactly qualified for the position in judicial experience or academia and I couldn't quite figure out why he was nominated in the first place.. but it was a strange hill for both parties to die on. He likely would have wrangled just fine in the position he was nominated for and maybe gained some experience, but even then there still would have been many qualified SCOTUS picks before him. You may remember that way back when, Kagan, was a good friend of Estrada, and was also kept off the circuit court by Republicans.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

Well looks like it is going to be a Latino Cuban/American  female, that was just confirmed 85-15 last year.  Going to be hard for the MDL to attack that one. That will not play well in Fla

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Well looks like it is going to be a Latino Cuban/American  female, that was just confirmed 85-15 last year.  Going to be hard for the MDL to attack that one. That will not play well in Fla

Why does it have to be a woman, as opposed to the most qualified candidate?

[yuna628 9,700]

35 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Why does it have to be a woman, as opposed to the most qualified candidate?

Because like everything in politics you gotta 'market and sell' the most 'palatable' and pander. In this case they've determined a woman fits the bill that must be a certain type.

[Crazy Cat 42,099]

1 hour ago, Voice of Reason said:

Why does it have to be a woman, as opposed to the most qualified candidate?

A woman won't likely face the shameful "Kavanaugh" treatment by the Democrats in Senate.....

Edited September 21, 2020 by Lucky Cat

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

That's right... they're thinking of the Kavanaugh hearings and know the difficulty of trotting out 50 "[insert nominee here] raped me, my sister, my cat and my dog" allegations against a woman. 

 

It's rather naive because she's still going to get hammered by any other contrived methodology that they believe appeals to the swing district voters represented by pushover moderate Republicans. It won't matter how sleazy or misogynistic it seems, all that matters is the end goal.. smearing those people, trying to appeal to voter irrationality, and inserting enough cognitive dissonance in the nominee from the process that it may alter their future judgments. 

[nykolos 711]

We wouldn't be in this position today if it weren't for Ginsburg herself, She was diagnosed with colon cancer in 1999, she broke her ribs due to a fall in 2010... From 2011 to 2013  Obama was President and Democrats controlled the Senate, she was urged by her colleagues to retire at that time, but she made the decision NOT to,  She gambled and she lost,  If she chose to retire in 2013,  Obama would have appointed another Liberal female, she would have easily been confirmed by the Senate and would on the court today.

 

And we wouldn't be here debating this mess.  

 

 

[nykolos 711]

35 minutes ago, Lucky Cat said:

A woman won't likely face the "Kavanaugh" treatment by the Democrats in Senate.....

Agree, I don't think they would risk going after her personally considering the metoo movement.. They will most likely paint her as right wing extremest who wan'ts to abolish abortion, leading to fetuses hung out to dry on hangers, And this is what will happen if she's confirmed.

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, Boiler said:

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?

 

 

 

  There is no time limit, but you are not going to nominate a candidate, go through the confirmation process and fail, and then have a second candidate all before November 3rd. Were 6 weeks out. That would be a quick confirmation at the best of times. There will be one shot before the election

 

   In the historical examples, the senate has not accepted nominations from an incumbent president who has just lost the election, and in some of those cases, they have refused to continue with a candidate who was nominated prior to the election (after the incumbent lost). Not sure what this particular congress would do though if that was the case. 

Edited September 21, 2020 by Steeleballz

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

32 minutes ago, nykolos said:

We wouldn't be in this position today if it weren't for Ginsburg herself, She was diagnosed with colon cancer in 1999, she broke her ribs due to a fall in 2010... From 2011 to 2013  Obama was President and Democrats controlled the Senate, she was urged by her colleagues to retire at that time, but she made the decision NOT to,  She gambled and she lost,  If she chose to retire in 2013,  Obama would have appointed another Liberal female, she would have easily been confirmed by the Senate and would on the court today.

 

And we wouldn't be here debating this mess.  

 

 

good point. A selfless judge would go out when a person of their ideology is president

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

25 minutes ago, nykolos said:

Agree, I don't think they would risk going after her personally considering the metoo movement.. They will most likely paint her as right wing extremest who wan'ts to abolish abortion, leading to fetuses hung out to dry on hangers, And this is what will happen if she's confirmed.

 

Yes but attacking an Hispanic woman is going to be a lose lose . Brilliant chess move by Trump. Alienating the Cubans in fla would be a bad thing 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

12 minutes ago, nykolos said:

Agree, I don't think they would risk going after her personally considering the metoo movement.. They will most likely paint her as right wing extremest who wan'ts to abolish abortion, leading to fetuses hung out to dry on hangers, And this is what will happen if she's confirmed.

 

That's why I urge people to watch ACB's appellate confirmation hearings, and watching people attack her religion. I suspect though that some conservatives might be a little apprehensive on ACB because she did tell the Democrats that she'd not overturn Roe.. but that may be as an appellate judge and not justice. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

#2Soon