Ruth Bader Ginsburg Has Died at 87
- Thread starter hbkmyr
- Start date
Did anyone really think the Republicans would sit out the chance to tip the Court further? C'mon. They don't care about supposed hypocrisy. They care about winning every battle, period. Democrats are same way (see using simple majority to get judges cleared a few years ago). Then the charade over Garland. Then the circus over Kavanaugh. Never ends. What's next? If Dems win a united government in November, do they add 2 seats to the Court? Back and forth we go. It's a game. A circus. It's gotten totally ridiculous.
The only thing to stop it will be the public. This is a highly-visible, easy-to-understand issue. Is this finally the straw where everyday people get sick of the nonsense?
The only thing to stop it will be the public. This is a highly-visible, easy-to-understand issue. Is this finally the straw where everyday people get sick of the nonsense?
This. If the positions were reversed does anyone really think the Dems would do anything different? Keep rewarding bad behavior and you expect a different result?
Spartacus - our Senator from NJ - would be first one out there talking about it, pontificating how this is such a critical time in the history of our country that they have no choice but to act immediately.
I'm not sure who gave these people lifetime appointments to the Congress, but it's beyond time to switch it up.
Uhm, actually i do think there would be a difference. I don’t think the Dems would be as blatantly hypocritical as what is happening. Now, I think now the Dems are starting to go to that level with the suggestion of adding more Justices to the Supreme Court. This just reeks. I don’t think this gets done before the election but it will be worse if it’s done during lame duck.
Does Romney become the new McCain in the Republican Party by saying no to this? He is the only Republican who can lead them out of these dark days at this point.
This was tried in the 90s, didnt get enough votes, there was alsona supreme court decision in 95 that said states could not impose limits on federally elected positions repping that state. If lawmakers couldn't vote to limit themselves 25 years ago, why would they do it now?
By the way, 1994 was a mid term election, 2 years into Clinton, republicans ran on big platform.
The Republican Gingrich Revolution. 54 seats in house, 8 seats in senate.
There likely should be term limits and mandatory retirement age in Congress for both houses. Doubtful it will ever occur.
Then you’re just showing your blind partisanship. Did you not witness the Kavanaugh circus?
I don’t think Romney has the juice to do that. There’s a bunch of Senate seats in play and he runs the risk of handling over the Senate by overplaying that hand.
Would be shocked if Trump doesn’t nominate ACB next week.
I don’t see how the Kavanaugh hearings are remotely equivalent to the absolute hypocrisy that is taking place. Collins said that the Senate should not vote for the SC nominee before elections and should be nominated by the person who wins the election. Will more Senators take the stand? Look to Murkowski Romney as hopefuls.
When Mitch McConnell wants to bring to vote on the senate floor the policing act bill presented as it was approved by the house then the senate can proceed with other business
Ginsberg once famously said she doesn’t consider the constitution when deciding a case because it
was written so long ago. Iprefer judges that at least consider the constitution
was written so long ago. Iprefer judges that at least consider the constitution
Trump should nominate judge Lagoa. First Cuban American judge appointed to appeals courtHer parents escaped
castro.She was born in Miami and still lives there.I like the image of dems telling Florida Hispanics opposing first
cuban American Supreme Court judge and a woman to boot and forcing their supporters to forcibly attempt to
prevent congress from acting on the nomination.I think it would make the lying campaign against kavanugh
look like a walk in the park and provide a good election year image for Republicans.
castro.She was born in Miami and still lives there.I like the image of dems telling Florida Hispanics opposing first
cuban American Supreme Court judge and a woman to boot and forcing their supporters to forcibly attempt to
prevent congress from acting on the nomination.I think it would make the lying campaign against kavanugh
look like a walk in the park and provide a good election year image for Republicans.
Amy Coney Barrett will be the nominee. Whether the vote happens before or after the election will all depend on whether or not McConnell thinks it will be easier or harder to whip the vote after the election.
Who are the 4 GOP senators who would vote against? Collins, Murkowski, maybe Romney, and who?
Who are the 4 GOP senators who would vote against? Collins, Murkowski, maybe Romney, and who?
Actually I heard Barrett’s name is in one of Romney’s “binders of women”… Sorry, couldn’t resist that one. Romney will support the pick because it’s not really about Trump. It’s about SCOTUS.
FWIW, it’s disappointing that everyone (Trump, Dems, Reps, MSM), have jumped right to the next SCOTUS, without much mention of her life and accomplishments. I know that this is now THE issue for the election but they couldn’t wait a few days?
Last edited:
Funny that her dying wish was not for World Peace or to end Poverty but selfishly about her position. That's not how the Constitutional lays things out and therefore she does not get a say in it. Ridiculous
She's just another CD hypocrite:
<<< In the Times interview, Ginsburg also chastised the Republican-led Senate for not acting on the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland, a moderate, to fill the vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February.
"That's their job," she said. "There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year." >>>
Ruth Bader Ginsburg "can't imagine" what the U.S. would be with President Trump
The idea of a Trump win made her think of her late husband's words: "'Now it's time for us to move to New Zealand,'" she told the New York Times
www.cbsnews.com
SInce obvious biased dem NYShoreguy only posts republican hypocrites, here's the dem side in 2016:
Although Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden favored putting off a confirmation hearing during an election year in 1992 as a senator, Biden supported Garland’s confirmation in 2016 as vice president, according to ABC News. He said there was no supposed “Biden Rule” concerning Supreme Court nominations in an election year.
“Deciding in advance simply to turn your back before the president even names a nominee is not an option the Constitution leaves open,” Biden said, according to Business Insider. “It’s a plain abdication from the Senate’s duty. … [It’s] never occurred before in our history.”
“Elections have consequences,” then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said, according to Politico. “The president has a responsibility to nominate a new justice and the Senate has a responsibility to vote.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer tweeted: “Garland has integrity, a brilliant legal mind & is a perfect fit for [the Supreme Court]. GOP inaction does our country a great disservice.”
And then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi tweeted: “Judge Merrick Garland, is a respected jurist who must be given a fair hearing & timely vote.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats, tweeted, “Judge Garland is a strong nominee with decades of experience on the bench. [Obama] has done his job. It’s time for Republicans to do theirs.”
Meanwhile, Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted that Republicans must “ditch their extremism” and schedule a vote for Garland.
Then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said the Senate should consider a nominee immediately, according to Politico.
“It would be unprecedented in recent history for the Supreme Court to go a year with a vacant seat,” Reid said, Politico reported. “Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate’s most essential Constitutional responsibilities.”
Although Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden favored putting off a confirmation hearing during an election year in 1992 as a senator, Biden supported Garland’s confirmation in 2016 as vice president, according to ABC News. He said there was no supposed “Biden Rule” concerning Supreme Court nominations in an election year.
“Deciding in advance simply to turn your back before the president even names a nominee is not an option the Constitution leaves open,” Biden said, according to Business Insider. “It’s a plain abdication from the Senate’s duty. … [It’s] never occurred before in our history.”
“Elections have consequences,” then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said, according to Politico. “The president has a responsibility to nominate a new justice and the Senate has a responsibility to vote.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer tweeted: “Garland has integrity, a brilliant legal mind & is a perfect fit for [the Supreme Court]. GOP inaction does our country a great disservice.”
And then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi tweeted: “Judge Merrick Garland, is a respected jurist who must be given a fair hearing & timely vote.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats, tweeted, “Judge Garland is a strong nominee with decades of experience on the bench. [Obama] has done his job. It’s time for Republicans to do theirs.”
Meanwhile, Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted that Republicans must “ditch their extremism” and schedule a vote for Garland.
Then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said the Senate should consider a nominee immediately, according to Politico.
“It would be unprecedented in recent history for the Supreme Court to go a year with a vacant seat,” Reid said, Politico reported. “Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate’s most essential Constitutional responsibilities.”
All of them were right then, just as the Republicans are today. Hypocrites with no principles, all.
I agree, Garland deserved a vote and said so back then.
The president serves for 4 years, not 3.67.
Just like to point out ALL the hypocrites.
Wrong. The Dems were correct then when Garland was the nominee. He deserved a vote. Nothing hypocritical about their stance then. Once the Republicans changed the rules, the Dems are not being hypocritical for demanding that the vote be stalled now. They want the rules to be fairly applied when it happens just four years ago. That’s not hypocrisy. That’s a demand to have the rules applied fairly and evenly. The Republicans want it both ways and the Dems no ways.
Moreover, there is a deep tradition in law enforcement that you don’t indict or have investigation announcements from
September to Labor Day as you don’t want that affecting the election. This certainly falls into that period especially since it is so close to the election.
Btw, there is no Biden Rule. When Biden made his remarks when Bush was president, there was no vacancy on the bench. And no vacancy ever came up. Biden never blocked a nominee. All he did was urge Bush if a vacancy comes up, that you hold off until after the election. Therefore, Biden never blocked a nominee. McConnel then used that statement as a rule whicb is complete nonsense.
Last edited:
Dem leadership should have all 5 of these ideas at the ready to be deployed shortly. Some are far more aggressive than others, but all have their merits. What more needs to happen for these assholes to wake up & stop playing paddycakes? But I expect feckless, paid to lose stooges like Schumer & Pelosi to do absolutely none of them. And the only one they're talking about on cable news, packing the court, has already been shot down by another paid to lose corporate Dem in Biden.
Everything Cenk discusses need to be on table. Republicans consistently win b/c they do NOT F around, ever. They play to win, and liberals are stuck holding the bag & sputtering nonsense about going high. Thats great, and Mitch is laughing at them as he amasses more & more power for a group of disgusting, historically unpopular reactionaries that know how to game the system & WIN. Everyone in Dem leadership needs to be tossed anyway, but now more than ever if they don't stop this. rEsIsTaNcE...spare me unless you're actually going to FIGHT.
I also hope some mass civil disobedience is in the works in DC, but we'll see about that.
Kagen has gone against the liberal judges and Roberts has gone against the conservative judges. Sotomayor and RBG always voted liberal without exception. I respect Roberts and Kagen the most because they appear to be fair and open. This will be interesting. I don’t think the nominee will get through. The Kavanaugh lynching was a ridiculous display and this could be worse. Get your popcorn ready.
We democrats need to understand that this is not really about the last 4 years but rather the culmination of the 30-40 year conservative effort to make the entire federal court system more conservative. Sure, try to stop the confirmation of a new Trump judge, but Dems gotta start playing the long game. It is what it is.
This is a good point--"conservative" and "liberal"" don't always translate to the Supreme Court in the way they are practiced in electoral politics. Judges like Souter, Kennedy, and yes, Roberts, seem to demonstrate this.
Democrats were correct four years ago and wrong now. Republicans were wrong four years ago and right now. Hypocrites, all.
You can’t be hypocrite if you are playing the very rules that were established by the Republicans just four years ago. That is not hypocrisy. What is good for the good is good for the gander. It only aré Republicans hypocrites they are outright liars. John McCain is rolling over in his grave to see what Lyndsay Graham and the rest of his Party has become.
The only rule that matters is the Constitution, not some arbitrary political garbage concocted by Mitch McConnell four years ago. The Constitution calls for the president to nominate someone and the senate to consider that nomination.
In a vacuum, absolutely.
Considering republicans blocked any consideration of a nomination 9 months prior to an election, should democrats just go along with replacing one 6 weeks before an election - after early voting has started?
As I said, Republicans were wrong to block the Garland nomination. Elections have consequences and the president was elected to a four year term that ends on January 20, 2021. It is fully within his rights, in fact it is his obligation, to put forth a nomination. President Obama did the same four years ago.
Similar threads
