Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dead at 87

[nigel99 143]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

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.

Of course Mitch hasn’t flipped at all. I’m surprised you aren’t embarrassed by your hypocrisy 

[billeisele 122]

5 hours ago, jakee said:

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.

Hypocrisy? 

 

[billvon 2,379]

29 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Hypocrisy? 

Nope.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

1 hour ago, headoverheels said:

It will also be interesting to see how Harris behaves

Got me, but you are right. She better behave!

[headoverheels 291]

3 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Got me, but you are right. She better behave!

That wasn't me you were quoting

[jakee 1,254]

6 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

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

Then the makeup of the court would for a short time swing to one side, to reflect the fact that the election results swung to one side. 

 

It's not just about time, though the time argument alone does make you and McConnell hypocrites of the highest order. It's about fundamental fairness, balance and representation. McConnell said "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president" and that was when the nomination would decide which way a 5-4 split went. Now, weeks away from an election he thinks his candidate will lose, he wants to let a 1 term President create a 6-3 split in the court.

 

Again, it is quite clear in this process that McConnell cares about nothing but allowing his party to impose their will on the American people, and only a pure right wing partisan like you could ever pretend that reflects badly on the democrats.

[jakee 1,254]

6 hours 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.

Were you concerned about that when Scalia's seat went vacant for 14 months? Senate republicans weren't. Why would they be worried about a vacancy of less than half that time?

[SkyDekker 1,119]

6 hours 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.

Because a Trump nominee being the deciding vote on a Trump presidency wouldn’t bring about any issues....

my guess on timeline is confirmation hearings before the election and vote after hearing. Many GOP senators will be caught between short term and long term considerations. 

[billeisele 122]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

Were you concerned about that when Scalia's seat went vacant for 14 months? Senate republicans weren't. Why would they be worried about a vacancy of less than half that time?

Yes It was a concern and holding up the process was wrong. Obama had it right.

 

 

[turtlespeed 212]

3 hours ago, jakee said:

Then the makeup of the court would for a short time swing to one side, to reflect the fact that the election results swung to one side. 

 

It's not just about time, though the time argument alone does make you and McConnell hypocrites of the highest order. It's about fundamental fairness, balance and representation. McConnell said "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president" and that was when the nomination would decide which way a 5-4 split went. Now, weeks away from an election he thinks his candidate will lose, he wants to let a 1 term President create a 6-3 split in the court.

 

Again, it is quite clear in this process that McConnell cares about nothing but allowing his party to impose their will on the American people, and only a pure right wing partisan like you could ever pretend that reflects badly on the democrats.

I think you need to go back and read my comments.

Hillary wanted to rush through Scalia's replacement. 

As far as what Mcconnell cares about ramming down our throats - look to your own party and tell me they are innocent, or label yourself as just as much the hypocrite as you do me.

 

[jakee 1,254]

13 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I think you need to go back and read my comments.

Hillary wanted to rush through Scalia's replacement. 

When you know you are lying to support your argument, why continue to stand by it? First, Clinton had no role in the process. Second, the vacancy left by Scalia's death was the longest in the history of the 9 member court. Only your hyper-partisan desire to criticise the democrats at every turn could possibly lead you to describe it as a rush.

Quote

As far as what Mcconnell cares about ramming down our throats - look to your own party and tell me they are innocent, or label yourself as just as much the hypocrite as you do me.

Every time the Republicans are caught with their pants down all you ever say is 'the democrats would have done it if...' But the republicans had Nixon, not the democrats. The Rs had Project Redmap, not the Ds. The Rs had Russian electoral collusion, not the Ds. The Rs have McConnell and his power play obstructionism, not the Ds. And it figures. The central plank of the Republican party platform is 'fuck you, I got mine'. What McConnell is doing is what the party stands for. 

[JoeWeber 2,294]

6 hours ago, headoverheels said:

That wasn't me you were quoting

Sorry. I failed computer science.

[wolfriverjoe 1,339]

I'll just leave this here:

 

2016: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”

2018: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”

2016: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”

2016: Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”

2016: Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”

2016: Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”

2016: Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”

2016: Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”

2016: Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”

2016: Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”

2016: Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”

________________________

** “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

-- Mitch McConnell, March 2016

[turtlespeed 212]

4 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

I'll just leave this here:

 

2016: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”

2018: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”

2016: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”

2016: Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”

2016: Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”

2016: Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”

2016: Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”

2016: Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”

2016: Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”

2016: Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”

2016: Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”

________________________

** “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

-- Mitch McConnell, March 2016

Yep - Now - Can you go find the other side?

Can you find where the Democrats wanted to push it through?

Are you only going to look at one side of the issue?

[mistercwood 287]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

Yep - Now - Can you go find the other side?

Can you find where the Democrats wanted to push it through?

Are you only going to look at one side of the issue?

Of course the Dems wanted to push it through - precedent was that a nomination would never be delayed that long, as it never had been. Republicans made up an argument about it being inappropriate in an election year (based on nothing), and won that argument. That is now precedent, so there is zero hypocrisy in Dem's calling for the same precedent to now be upheld.

[TriGirl 268]

On 9/19/2020 at 11:50 PM, brenthutch said:

I will remind you that I wrote in Mickey Mouse for president in 2016.  I believed that a cartoon rodent would make a better president than either Trump or HRC.

Too bad, because there were some legitimate write-in options actively campaigning.  Had Florida not been so important and so close, I was leaning toward writing in Evan McMullen or Martin O'Malley.  McMullen was actually running as a write-in, and nearly won Utah -- impressive results in other states, especially considering he started campaigning I think in August 2016 (IIRC).  Despite what others have posted here about write-in ballots, I think it sends a strong message to the parties when you cast your vote for a real person. 

Edited September 21, 2020 by TriGirl
punctuation

[jakee 1,254]

5 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Yep - Now - Can you go find the other side?

Why?

Quote

Can you find where the Democrats wanted to push it through?

Why?

Quote

Are you only going to look at one side of the issue?

They're the side that won the argument. It is only because you are one of the most biased and partisan posters on this forum that you are pretending the Dems outrage over this is not fully justified, or that the Dems plan of action would not result in a court that better represents the country.

[kallend 1,618]

It's an indictment of the system that the political party of judges should have any effect on the the legal decisions they make.

That's the stuff of Banana Republics. 

[phantomII 36]

I get the impression that Lady Justice isn't blindfolded at all.
She either has democratic or republican eyes to look at the facts in her scale.

[turtlespeed 212]

7 minutes ago, phantomII said:

I get the impression that Lady Justice isn't blindfolded at all.
She either has democratic or republican eyes to look at the facts in her scale.

That is how it has become, yes.

 

[GeorgiaDon 340]

7 hours ago, kallend said:

It's an indictment of the system that the political party of judges should have any effect on the the legal decisions they make.

That's the stuff of Banana Republics. 

While that is true, it oversimplifies the issue, at least until people like Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton get appointed to the court.  It is inevitable that presidents will nominate people whose vision of the constitution and the law are similar to their own.  And, there is diversity in how people understand the constitution.  Originalists and textualists read the constitution as if nothing has changed about society in hundreds of years.  Unfortunately many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights are not as specific as one might wish.  For example, the 10th amendment says: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."  What is "excessive", and what is "cruel and unusual"?  These are not defined, so justices have to debate meanings and split hairs.  A conservative judge might look to the 18th century and decide that burning at the stake is not cruel, by the standards of that century.  

I recall that Bork was especially dismissive of the 12th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  Since this amendment does not name specific powers, his attitude (I believe) was that such powers do not exist.  Roe v Wade is based on the idea that people have the right privacy, in other words a right to make decisions about their own bodies and their own life, and not have those decisions imposed by government.  If someone does not believe that such a right exists, because it is not explicitly stated as one of the powers reserved to the people, then the government is free to impose it's own view of what is best on you.  Bork would have been a disaster in many ways, not just because of his views on women's autonomy.  For example, he believed that the first amendment guarantee of "free speech" applied only to political speech, and it was the duty of the government to control all other forms of communication (especially "smut", as he saw it) to promote social order.  A judge like Bork need not simply parrot Republican policies to arrive at positions attractive to extreme conservatives.

The good side of this (to a limited extent) is that one might manage some victories in court by finding a way to package your argument in textualist terms, instead of relying on what is "obviously the most desirable outcome".  Gorsuch was persuaded to support LGBTQ employment rights (and by implication some other rights) thanks to a convincing argument about the meaning of the word "sex".  If he made rulings along strict Republican party lines that would not have happened.

The take-home lesson for Democrats these days is, I think, that they have to craft and pass well-written laws, and perhaps to pursue some constitutional amendments, to get their agenda made fire-proof.  (Of course that means they need to overcome gerrymandering, the electoral college, etc and get themselves elected).  Laws that are based too much on regulatory interpretation and rule-making are subject to regulatory re-interpretation, leading (for example) to the gutting of many environmental protection laws.  Rights that are based on legal rulings, even Supreme Court rulings, can be reversed overnight.  If those rights are enshrined in a constitutional amendment they are much more difficult to sweep away.

[kallend 1,618]

On 9/21/2020 at 1:51 PM, GeorgiaDon said:

While that is true, it oversimplifies the issue, at least until people like Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton get appointed to the court. 

etc.

While I understand what you're writing, it is still very unsatisfactory.  The Constitution says "grey" but individuals go to prison, are executed, or go free depending on whether a court decides that "grey" means "black" or "white.  And in the ultimate analysis we often find that 5 of the ostensibly best legal minds in the country say "grey" = "white" while 4 others say "grey" = "black" according to their party affiliation. And based on this some poor schmuck gets executed or walks free.

[brenthutch 383]

Now that Romney has fallen into line, the Ds have no other alternative than to have a Blasey Ford come out and claim she was felt up by whichever female candidate is nominated.  Looks like the Ds are out of luck.  To paraphrase Obama, “Elections have consequences, and in case there was any Doubt, Trump (and a Republican Senate) won.”  Now they will just do what the folks who sent them to Washington elected to do to do.  

[turtlespeed 212]

14 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Now that Romney has fallen into line, the Ds have no other alternative than to have a Blasey Ford come out and claim she was felt up by whichever female candidate is nominated.  Looks like the Ds are out of luck.  To paraphrase Obama, “Elections have consequences, and in case there was any Doubt, Trump (and a Republican Senate) won.”  Now they will just do what the folks who sent them to Washington elected to do to do.  

Wasn't it McConnell who told Reid that he would regret it?

I bet he does now.

[brenthutch 383]

Yup, they sowed the wind with Robert Bork and now they are reaping the whirlwind with  Trump’s nominees.