Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dead at 87

[gowlerk 2,190]

4 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I hope they do confirm whomever is nominated and I hope they do it fast. The reality is that it's going to happen.

They will wait and do it in the lame duck session. That way they can use the prospect of the prize to motivate their base.

[ryoder 1,590]

Vox: What Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death means for the Supreme Court’s Obamacare case

https://www.vox.com/21446256/ruth-bader-ginsburg-death-supreme-court-obamacare-case

[turtlespeed 220]

21 hours ago, headoverheels said:

I'm sure that McConnell will push to wait for the new President to nominate a justice next year.

 

Why would he?

This is what Hilary had to say:

LOL

How soon we forget, eh?

Hypocrisy is exactly what the left has now.

Quote

It's all about power. You either have the votes or you don't. There are no morals involved whatsoever.

 

And then THIS little nugget.

Quote

The brazen hypocrisy is astounding. Has there ever been a more odious smear of shit in a position of power than Mitch McConnell?

Evidently, yes, and it was Hillary.

Edited September 19, 2020 by turtlespeed

[jakee 1,489]

40 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Why would he?

Since he's a gaping moral chasm who cares about nothing but power then no reason at all.

Quote

Hypocrisy is exactly what the left has now.

No great surprise that one of the most partisan posters on this forum thinks that. Anyone capable of even a modicum of independent thought would conclude that the Republicans are once again the soulless party of dirty tricks, concerned only with imposing their agenda on the American people rather than allowing them to be fairly represented.

[GeorgiaDon 362]

53 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Evidently, yes, and it was Hillary.

Because there is no difference between 9 months and 1 1/2 months before the election, in your mind?  Innumeracy does seem to be a general property of Trump and his minions.

[mistercwood 287]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

How soon we forget, eh?

Hypocrisy is exactly what the left has now.

9 months, vs 6 weeks (actually I think only 2 weeks of sitting congress?). It would be the fastest confirmation process in history. The two scenarios aren't remotely comparable, especially considering the GOP stance was that it was absolutely critical to not fill the seat until after the election.

Regardless of what arguments people made at the time, the Republican's were the ones who ultimately set the precedent. They get to own the hypocrisy too.

[turtlespeed 220]

6 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

9 months, vs 6 weeks (actually I think only 2 weeks of sitting congress?). It would be the fastest confirmation process in history. The two scenarios aren't remotely comparable, especially considering the GOP stance was that it was absolutely critical to not fill the seat until after the election.

Regardless of what arguments people made at the time, the Republican's were the ones who ultimately set the precedent. They get to own the hypocrisy too.

So now its down to a time frame.

At what date or day  does it cease being a dishonor to the Constitution? 

Let me guess November 4th?  Is that when the Senate is free to fulfil it's responsibility again?

 

 

[mistercwood 287]

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

So now its down to a time frame.

At what date or day  does it cease being a dishonor to the Constitution? 

There's no hard date. People are just pointing out that the timeframes are:

1. Wildly disproportionate. If I slept with my wife the day Scalia died, we could have a fully formed bouncing baby by election day. If we did it yesterday, we couldn't even know we were pregnant by election day. It's a dumb analogy but I stand by it.
2. Wildly hypocritical. Republicans made hard arguments in one direction for Scalia's position, and won. Now that we have an even tighter timeframe than last time they have flipped completely and abandoned any precept of observing the will of the people. It is probably the most brazen power grab to date and that's saying something.

Honestly you should be just as mad as the rest of us. I guarantee you that the next few Democratic admins are just going to completely abandon any attempt at bipartisanship. Mitch et al have stonewalled at every opportunity for over a decade, what's the fucking point anymore?

[dudeman17 339]

This whole mess might be partly RBG's own doing. I heard a report that Obama asked her to retire while he was in office so that he could name her replacement, but she declined.

[turtlespeed 220]

14 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

There's no hard date. People are just pointing out that the timeframes are:

1. Wildly disproportionate. If I slept with my wife the day Scalia died, we could have a fully formed bouncing baby by election day. If we did it yesterday, we couldn't even know we were pregnant by election day. It's a dumb analogy but I stand by it.
2. Wildly hypocritical. Republicans made hard arguments in one direction for Scalia's position, and won. Now that we have an even tighter timeframe than last time they have flipped completely and abandoned any precept of observing the will of the people. It is probably the most brazen power grab to date and that's saying something.

Honestly you should be just as mad as the rest of us. I guarantee you that the next few Democratic admins are just going to completely abandon any attempt at bipartisanship. Mitch et al have stonewalled at every opportunity for over a decade, what's the fucking point anymore?

It's not really going to affect me.

I'm finding a lot of humor, not anger, in this.

My prediction is that the flip-flopping will become MUCH stronger, and the excuses for said Flip-Flopping will be ironic.

It will happen on both sides.

The Left will find statements and backups on why the seat should stay empty and throw it in the faces of the R's and the right will do the same.

Notice that I didn't say she was wrong, or right.  

I really don't think she is right.  I think the seat needs to be filled by someone that is fully vetted.

BUT - the Democrats opened that door wide open, when they let Harry Reid change the threshold from a 60 vote to a simple majority in response to the Republicans' stonewalling Merrick Garland's appointment.

THEN the democrats were pretty upset that backfired on the democrats with the Kavanaugh deal.

Should be interesting.

Like a train wreck that goes on and on - you just can't stop watching.

 

 

[JerryBaumchen 1,362]

1 hour ago, dudeman17 said:

This whole mess might be partly RBG's own doing. I heard a report that Obama asked her to retire while he was in office so that he could name her replacement, but she declined.

Hi 17,

Interesting.  I am just now sitting here watching the evening news & had that same thought.  I'm glad Obama asked, if he did.

She should have called it quits 7-8 yrs ago; we would then have a balanced court.

Jerry Baumchen

[GeorgiaDon 362]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

It's not really going to affect me.

I'm finding a lot of humor, not anger, in this.

My prediction is that the flip-flopping will become MUCH stronger, and the excuses for said Flip-Flopping will be ironic.

It will happen on both sides.

The Left will find statements and backups on why the seat should stay empty and throw it in the faces of the R's and the right will do the same.

Notice that I didn't say she was wrong, or right.  

I really don't think she is right.  I think the seat needs to be filled by someone that is fully vetted.

BUT - the Democrats opened that door wide open, when they let Harry Reid change the threshold from a 60 vote to a simple majority in response to the Republicans' stonewalling Merrick Garland's appointment.

THEN the democrats were pretty upset that backfired on the democrats with the Kavanaugh deal.

Should be interesting.

Like a train wreck that goes on and on - you just can't stop watching.

 

 

Who is this "she" of which you speak?

You are also hopelessly screwed up on the history of this mess.  Harry Reid changed the threshold for approving appeals court judges from 60 to 51 after the Republicans instituted a policy of blocking every single nominee put forward by Obama.  Supreme Court appointments remained at 60 though.  Then McConnell refused to allow a vote, or even a meeting with Garland.  He then changed the threshold to 51 for Gorsuch as there was no way Democrats would vote for him considering how his seat was stolen.  

All of this cluster fuck flows from Mitch McConnell and his contempt for democracy and his willingness to destroy any possibility of representative democracy in the USA.  Personally I wish I believed in Hell as I wish he would take his place there, along side Newt Gingerich.

Edited September 20, 2020 by GeorgiaDon

[turtlespeed 220]

14 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

Who is this "she" of which you speak?

I was referring to the image that I posted earlier of HRC. Post 28.

In a nutshell, sh claimed it would be dishonoring the constitution if you don't vote in a new SCJ before the election.  Of course - Obama was president then. I'm pretty sure the opinion has now flipped over a flop.

You are probably right about the rest - I went off memory and didn't fact check myself.

Edited September 20, 2020 by turtlespeed

[JoeWeber 2,720]

22 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi 17,

Interesting.  I am just now sitting here watching the evening news & had that same thought.  I'm glad Obama asked, if he did.

She should have called it quits 7-8 yrs ago; we would then have a balanced court.

Jerry Baumchen

Several friends and I discussed her resigning in Obama's second term. Whether Obama asked or not she should have been less selfish and done so. 

[GeorgiaDon 362]

15 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi 17,

Interesting.  I am just now sitting here watching the evening news & had that same thought.  I'm glad Obama asked, if he did.

She should have called it quits 7-8 yrs ago; we would then have a balanced court.

Jerry Baumchen

7-8 years ago she was at the height of her ability to do the job.  Why should someone who is one of the sharpest minds in the law quit when they still have years in them?  Some people don't especially relish sitting in a bingo parlor wasting time until the grim reaper comes for them.  I have read that she planned to retire when there was a woman in the oval office, which she (and most people) thought would be 2017.  I've also read that McConnell and others have been pressuring Thomas to retire for the same reason, and he has (so far) refused for the same reason: he loves the job and thinks no-one else would be better.

Probably the best idea I've seen is to limit terms to 20 years, and stagger them so each president automatically gets 2 positions per term to fill.  That way it won't be possible to stack the court so ideologies get locked in for generations and become totally disconnected from American society.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

5 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

7-8 years ago she was at the height of her ability to do the job.  Why should someone who is one of the sharpest minds in the law quit when they still have years in them? 

Because 7-8 years ago she'd already battled colon and pancreatic cancer, both big killers. Part of me thinks she wanted to give Hillary the seat to replace.

Edited September 20, 2020 by JoeWeber

[ryoder 1,590]

5 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

Probably the best idea I've seen is to limit terms to 20 years, and stagger them so each president automatically gets 2 positions per term to fill.  That way it won't be possible to stack the court so ideologies get locked in for generations and become totally disconnected from American society.

^This!

I've read the proposal before.

[GeorgiaDon 362]

4 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Several friends and I discussed her resigning in Obama's second term. Whether Obama asked or not she should have been less selfish and done so. 

If she had resigned in Obama's second term Trump would have had 2 appointments to fill as soon as he took office.  Do you really think the Republicans would have approved any Obama nominee, especially in the last 2 years of his term?  They sat on dozens of vacant judge positions for years, and backlogged cases for years, so that Trump would be able to stack the judicial system.  Trump's appointees will disproportionally influence the courts for.another 40+ years.

[ryoder 1,590]

I had no idea that NPR's Nina Totenberg was close friends with RBG:

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/19/896733375/a-five-decade-long-friendship-that-began-with-a-phone-call

[JoeWeber 2,720]

2 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

If she had resigned in Obama's second term Trump would have had 2 appointments to fill as soon as he took office.  Do you really think the Republicans would have approved any Obama nominee, especially in the last 2 years of his term?  They sat on dozens of vacant judge positions for years, and backlogged cases for years, so that Trump would be able to stack the judicial system.  Trump's appointees will disproportionally influence the courts for.another 40+ years.

I choose to not believe McConnell would have tried to deny Obama the appointment with 2 years to go. But as all who follow me here will attest, I'm just a hopeless romantic.

[turtlespeed 220]

16 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

7-8 years ago she was at the height of her ability to do the job.  Why should someone who is one of the sharpest minds in the law quit when they still have years in them?  Some people don't especially relish sitting in a bingo parlor wasting time until the grim reaper comes for them.  I have read that she planned to retire when there was a woman in the oval office, which she (and most people) thought would be 2017.  I've also read that McConnell and others have been pressuring Thomas to retire for the same reason, and he has (so far) refused for the same reason: he loves the job and thinks no-one else would be better.

Probably the best idea I've seen is to limit terms to 20 years, and stagger them so each president automatically gets 2 positions per term to fill.  That way it won't be possible to stack the court so ideologies get locked in for generations and become totally disconnected from American society.

Unless you get something like 2 - 2 term presidents of the same party.

[JerryBaumchen 1,362]

25 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

#1)  7-8 years ago she was at the height of her ability to do the job.  

#2)  Probably the best idea I've seen is to limit terms to 20 years, and stagger them so each president automatically gets 2 positions per term to fill.  That way it won't be possible to stack the court so ideologies get locked in for generations and become totally disconnected from American society.

Hi Don,

#1)  She was 80; IMO ** nowhere at 'the height of her ability to do the job.'

#2)  Great idea; now to get it implemented.

Jerry Baumchen

** I turned 80 yesterday & am nowhere near the peak of any of my abilities - as I look back at the life I have led.

 

[JoeWeber 2,720]

7 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Don,

#1)  She was 80; IMO ** nowhere at 'the height of her ability to do the job.'

#2)  Great idea; now to get it implemented.

Jerry Baumchen

** I turned 80 yesterday & am nowhere near the peak of any of my abilities - as I look back at the life I have led.

 

Time to hang it up Jerry. How much you want for your 255 likes?

[billeisele 130]

How about the concern of not filling the seat. Then there is a tie in the SC and everything is a bigger mess. Regardless of what happens it seems that the mess will get bigger and that's not good for anyone.

It will also be interesting to see how Harris behaves in her role of examining the nominee. It will most likely be a woman. Harris will be walking a tightrope.

[headoverheels 333]

26 minutes ago, billeisele said:

How about the concern of not filling the seat. Then there is a tie in the SC and everything is a bigger mess. Regardless of what happens it seems that the mess will get bigger and that's not good for anyone.

It will also be interesting to see how Harris behaves in her role of examining the nominee. It will most likely be a woman. Harris will be walking a tightrope.

8 justices is really not a problem.  Most cases will not be a tie, and those that are a tie will merely go back to a lower court with instruction, or go with that court's original decision.