Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dead at 87

[JoeWeber 2,294]

2 hours 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.  

You're right. Such an inconvenient democracy we once had.

[turtlespeed 212]

11 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

You're right. Such an inconvenient democracy we once had.

Once had?

The representatives elected are fulfilling their representation.

I'm sorry it isn't to your liking this time.

[brenthutch 383]

Trump was explicit about who he would nominate should there be an opening on the SC.  It was one of the reasons many people voted for him.  He is just keeping campaign promise.  Do you really think if HRC had won and the Ds controlled the Senate that they would have done anything different?

[SkyDekker 1,120]

47 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Once had?

The representatives elected are fulfilling their representation.

I'm sorry it isn't to your liking this time.

Those were the same candidates who had an opposite stated position when the public voted for them? When the vote took place, the position of these politicians was that they should not confirm a SC candidate in the run up to an election. How do you gather that those same politicians, now changing their minds are fulfilling what they were elected to do?

 

When comparing popular vote with composition of the SC, you quickly start to see that what has happened and what is happening is not supported by the population, but rather a designed outcome.

[brenthutch 383]

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Those were the same candidates who had an opposite stated position when the public voted for them? When the vote took place, the position of these politicians was that they should not confirm a SC candidate in the run up to an election. How do you gather that those same politicians, now changing their minds are fulfilling what they were elected to do?

So....are you saying, a Graham, Cruz or McConnell voter feels betrayed because the Senators aren’t passing on the opportunity to replace RBG with a Constitutional origialist and instead give Biden a chance?  Do you really believe that?

[SkyDekker 1,120]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

So....are you saying, a Graham, Cruz or McConnell voter feels betrayed because the Senators aren’t passing on the opportunity to replace RBG with a Constitutional origialist and instead give Biden a chance?  Do you really believe that?

No. I have already stated that I believe Republicans and their followers to stand for nothing, other than the pursuit of power.

[brenthutch 383]

7 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

No. I have already stated that I believe Republicans and their followers to stand for nothing, other than the pursuit of power.

It’s called realpolitik, you need to wear your big boy pants if you want to play. Nancy Pelosi knows, take a look at how Obamacare was passed after Scott Brown took Ted Kennedy’s seat in the Senate.

[SkyDekker 1,120]

14 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

It’s called realpolitik, you need to wear your big boy pants if you want to play. Nancy Pelosi knows, take a look at how Obamacare was passed after Scott Brown took Ted Kennedy’s seat in the Senate.

Yes, wanting to get your society healthcare and join the rest of the developed world is indeed the same......

[brenthutch 383]

13 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Yes, wanting to get your society healthcare and join the rest of the developed world is indeed the same......

It was a lousy bill, healthcare costs have gone up, not down (like they promised) and we still have nearly 50 million Americans uninsured.

[SkyDekker 1,120]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

It was a lousy bill, healthcare costs have gone up, not down (like they promised) and we still have nearly 50 million Americans uninsured.

Agreed. But that is because there was an absolute unwillingness to cooperate to get your society healthcare.

You would think that if your political system can push through or withhold SC justices on purely political basis, they can work together to provide decent health care for your society. 

[GeorgiaDon 340]

22 hours ago, kallend said:

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.

I agree.  This is why I think it is time to think about some new amendments to the constitution, to clarify some existing amendments and to define some rights and to make it clear that the government has the authority to act in certain domains.  For example, I think it would be hard to directly state a right to abortion but it should be possible to come up with language to enshrine the right to privacy and so prevent the government from taking away your ability to make your own decisions about medical procedures.  Similarly an amendment could solidify the government's ability to take actions to protect the environment we all depend on and limit the ability of entities to pollute.

Yes I know it is hard to get amendments passed.  However if they are not limited by time limit clauses, and they are actually a good idea, they will pass eventually when enough people in enough states demand that they pass.  The ERA would be law now if it didn't have a strict time limit for passage.

Also, I think every bill should have at the beginning a clear statement of the writer's view of the constitutional justification for the bill.  It would help if bills were clearly written so lawyers couldn't tie them up in court for years or decades arguing about the meaning of a word or phrase.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

19 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

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

I bet he does now.

Regret what?

When McConnell was the Senate minority leader, he used the filibuster to block every one of Obama's nominees to court positions.  With no nominees going through, the courts started to have real problems keeping up with their dockets because of too few judges.  Reid eliminated the filibuster for lower level judges but kept it for supreme court appointments.  What alternative did he have?  Not fill one empty judge seat as long as Obama was in office?  Later when McConnell became majority leader he blocked every Obama nominee, which is why there were so many empty judgeships for Trump to fill.

brenthutch calls it "realpolitik", and so it is.  Win at all costs, even if you destroy the Senate in the process, poison the well so collaboration to solve problems becomes impossible, and force American citizens to wait years longer than they should have for their day in court.

At one time people could call the Senate "the world's greatest deliberative body" without throwing up in their mouth.  No longer.

 

[turtlespeed 212]

4 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Those were the same candidates who had an opposite stated position when the public voted for them? When the vote took place, the position of these politicians was that they should not confirm a SC candidate in the run up to an election. How do you gather that those same politicians, now changing their minds are fulfilling what they were elected to do?

 

When comparing popular vote with composition of the SC, you quickly start to see that what has happened and what is happening is not supported by the population, but rather a designed outcome.

Well, because they voted against the same ones that are now reversing their position.

I agree with the second half.

I wish it was non partisan.  But as soon as we started down that road - there was no turning back.

Edited September 23, 2020 by turtlespeed

[GeorgiaDon 340]

19 hours ago, brenthutch said:

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

I hear this Robert Bork thing all the time, and I just do not get it.  Bork was an awful candidate.  You would not recognize Bork's America.  Besides his ideas that the presidency should have absolute power and not answer to Congress about anything (as Barr believes today), he saw the primary role of the government as maintaining social order and suppressing dissent.  He strongly favored government censorship of movies, music, books and magazines, etc.   He taught that the 14th amendment was intended to apply only to freed slaves, and opposed application of the equal protection clause to anyone else (such as women).  He opposed all of the civil rights decisions of the Warren court.

There is a reason why the Senate is supposed to advise the President and then vote to approve (or not) the nominee.  If the only role of the Senate is to rubber stamp the appointment, why bother holding hearings?

[brenthutch 383]

50 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

I hear this Robert Bork thing all the time, and I just do not get it.  Bork was an awful candidate.  You would not recognize Bork's America. 

Sounds like you have been drinking TedKennedy’s kool-aid

Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, declaring:

Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, and schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.^[6]

Bork responded, "There was not a line in that speech that was accurate."^[7] In 1988, an analysis published in the Western Political Quarterly of amicus curiae briefs filed by U.S. Solicitors General during the Warren and Burger Courts found that during Bork's tenure in the position during the Nixon and Ford Administrations (1973–1977), Bork took liberal positions in the aggregate as often as Thurgood Marshall did during the Johnson Administration (1965–1967) and more often than Wade H. McCree did during the Carter Administration (1977–1981), i

[GeorgiaDon 340]

By the time he was being considered for the Supreme Court his positions had hardened a lot.  Although he objected to the hyperbolic language of Kennedy's speech, Kennedy's comments were based on a fair reading of Bork's then-recent writings.  Here is another perspective on Bork:

"In terms of the First Amendment, Bork argued in favor of a narrow reading of free expression that would extend protection only to pure political speech for individuals. Because he did not think the same protection extended to nonpolitical speech, he was more willing to accept censorship of what he considered to be pornography in television, film, and music.

In his best-selling Slouching towards Gomorrah (1996), Bork indicted modern liberalism, arguing that the sexual revolution and the rise of feminism led to a dangerous social and moral decline in the United States."

(source)

If you read Slouching towards Gomorrah you will find that he was (by 1996) fully in favor of using censorship to enforce a very puritanical version of society.

 

 

[SkyDekker 1,120]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Well, because they voted against the same ones that are now reversing their position.

Yes, they voted against that, but now supposedly agree and provide a mandate.....

[turtlespeed 212]

17 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Yes, they voted against that, but now supposedly agree and provide a mandate.....

Yes, just like most every one on the left flipping their stance.

[SkyDekker 1,120]

13 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Yes, just like most every one on the left flipping their stance.

So your argument is that because politicians flip they have a clear mandate because the population must have flipped as well?

Edited September 23, 2020 by SkyDekker

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, GeorgiaDon said:

If you read Slouching towards Gomorrah you will find that he was (by 1996) fully in favor of using censorship to enforce a very puritanical version of society.

 

 

As a libertarian I would, of course, be against that but that is why we have nine justices.  

[SkyDekker 1,120]

40 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

As a libertarian I would, of course, be against that but that is why we have nine justices.  

Now what if 5 other already agree. And those 6 combined were placed while the administrations where in place with a minority of the popular vote.

[brenthutch 383]

17 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Now what if 5 other already agree. And those 6 combined were placed while the administrations where in place with a minority of the popular vote.

If the other five already agree, it is a moot point.  Speaking of moot points....popular vote?...LOL

[brenthutch 383]

On 9/23/2020 at 8:10 PM, SkyDekker said:

those 6 combined were placed while the administrations where in place with a minority of the popular vote.

RBG was nominated by a President who did not receive a majority.  HRC did not get a majority either.

Edited September 25, 2020 by brenthutch

[wmw999 2,116]

However both of them received more votes than any other candidate in that year. 
I realize you think the wishes of some are more important than the wishes of the plurality. Conservative white men in charge. Life is something. 
Wendy P. 

[SkyDekker 1,120]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

RBG was nominated by a President who did not receive a majority.  HRC did not get a majority either.

Fair enough, wrong wording on my end. But I think you know what I was alluding to.