Ruth Bader Ginsburg Has Died at 87

[seton1996]

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?

But just to be honest, you don't think the Dems would be blocking Trump's choice here if they controlled the Senate, whether or not the Garland non vote happened in 2016? Sure they would.

This is all politics, that whether you like it or not are setup by our Constitution and checks and balances system. Garland wasn't the first nominee to lapse and will not be the last. The Republicans can try to push the new nominee through, and if the public is upset by it can show them in this election or future elections.

Based on Trump winning in 2016, doesn't seem blocking Garland upset enough people, though the Dems gained a few congressional seats.

 

[Hallsome]

View embedded media

Who ha the senate in 16?

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.

do you not understand the difference? In 16, Dems didn’t have the senate. In 20, republicans do. If the shoe were on the other foot you know what would happen.

 

[cernjSHU]

Who ha the senate in 16?

do you not understand the difference? In 16, Dems didn’t have the senate. In 20, republicans do. If the shoe were on the other foot you know what would happen.

This is a BS argument and you know it. There were no qualifiers when Lyndsay Graham said "If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, 'Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.'" https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/19/opinions/rbg-supreme-court-gop-hypocrisy-avlon/index.html

The Republicans established a new Rule. Now they should have to live by that Rule. If you can't understand that, then you have no principles of fairness and your are being an outright hypocrite.

 

[Merge]

But just to be honest, you don't think the Dems would be blocking Trump's choice here if they controlled the Senate, whether or not the Garland non vote happened in 2016? Sure they would.

This is all politics, that whether you like it or not are setup by our Constitution and checks and balances system. Garland wasn't the first nominee to lapse and will not be the last. The Republicans can try to push the new nominee through, and if the public is upset by it can show them in this election or future elections.

Based on Trump winning in 2016, doesn't seem blocking Garland upset enough people, though the Dems gained a few congressional seats.

I'm sure they would have argued that the next president should decide if republicans didn't block Garland, but they wouldn't really have a leg to stand on in that argument. Given the context of what happened in 2016, their argument now has a lot of merit.

I agree that Trump should nominate someone, though I believe the right thing to do would be for the senate to take up consideration after the election if Trump wins and reject the nomination if he loses.

 

[Hallsome]

This is a BS argument and you know it. There were no qualifiers when Lyndsay Graham said "If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, 'Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.'" https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/19/opinions/rbg-supreme-court-gop-hypocrisy-avlon/index.html

The Republicans established a new Rule. Now they should have to live by that Rule. If you can't understand that, then you have no principles of fairness and your are being an outright hypocrite.

Sure (but there was no “rule”). Sorry you didn’t get your way (as was the case for some when 20 or so other SC justices were confirmed in an election year). Sorry we didn’t have the votes for Garland. in the future some things will go your way like if dems take back the senate and Pres. but one is lying if they were to say that if shoe were on other foot Dems wouldn’t push through their guy.

 

[Hallsome]

I'm sure they would have argued that the next president should decide if republicans didn't block Garland, but they wouldn't really have a leg to stand on in that argument. Given the context of what happened in 2016, their argument now has a lot of merit.

I agree that Trump should nominate someone, though I believe the right thing to do would be for the senate to take up consideration after the election if Trump wins and reject the nomination if he loses.

I agree with this, but likely won’t happen because Dems don’t have the senate. Would be nice to see a deal here where trump pick not confirmed until after election and in exchange Dems get rid of their absurd ideas to just expand the SC and make PR, etc, states. But it won’t happen.

 

[shu09]

I'm sure they would have argued that the next president should decide if republicans didn't block Garland, but they wouldn't really have a leg to stand on in that argument. Given the context of what happened in 2016, their argument now has a lot of merit.

I agree that Trump should nominate someone, though I believe the right thing to do would be for the senate to take up consideration after the election if Trump wins and reject the nomination if he loses.

Why should the nominee be tied to the election result? If the nominee is qualified, why should the senate vote no?

 

[SPK145]

This also goes back to before 2016 when Harry Reid and the dems changed the filibuster rules for judges other than the Supreme Court. And then McConnell and the repubs further did away with filibusters for the Supreme Court.

Both sides and their supporters should get off their high horses.

 

[Merge]

Why should the nominee be tied to the election result? If the nominee is qualified, why should the senate vote no?

Because that is what happened in 2016 and it was less on an issue then as the result did not change the balance of the court.

While "two wrongs don't make a right" is a lovely sentiment here... Realistically the court has become polarized and even if Biden wins, this changes the composition of the court to a 6-3 conservative majority for a decade and one of those seats was essentially stolen.

Republicans can do as they wish with a senate majority, but if they go forward, I hope democrats move to increase the size of the court if they win the senate in 2020 and do so along the lines with what Buttigieg was suggesting to make the court less politicized going forward.

 

[shu09]

Because that is what happened in 2016 and it was less on an issue then as the result did not change the balance of the court.

What happened in 2016 has no bearing. It was a garbage political trick and blatant obstructionism, not legal or constitutional precedent.

While "two wrongs don't make a right" is a lovely sentiment here... Realistically the court has become polarized and even if Biden wins, this changes the composition of the court to a 6-3 conservative majority for a decade and one of those seats was essentially stolen.

So what? Nobody is obligated to replace a justice that had a liberal voting record with someone similar. The court's ideology has shifted many times throughout history.

Republicans can do as they wish with a senate majority, but if they go forward, I hope democrats move to increase the size of the court if they win the senate in 2020 and do so along the lines with what Buttigieg was suggesting to make the court less politicized going forward.

So now we're going to pack the court because we don't like it? Why do Democrats throw such temper tantrums these days? Just who is subverting our democracy and not following US norms and traditions now?

By the way, good luck with Democrats making the court less politicized. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Merge]

What happened in 2016 has no bearing. It was a garbage political trick and blatant obstructionism, not legal or constitutional precedent.

Of course it has a bearing on today. Not legally... No one here is making an argument that there are laws being broken. This is politics, and they are playing games but democrats shouldn't be expected to play by different rules than republicans.

So what? Nobody is obligated to replace a justice that had a liberal voting record with someone similar. The court's ideology has shifted many times throughout history.

Balance of the court was a part of the discussion in 2016 and is relevant with the arguments today.

So now we're going to pack the court because we don't like it? Why do Democrats throw such temper tantrums these days?

Not because they don't like it, but if a seat was stolen with the false promise that this would be new precedent, then they shouldn't just sit back and say "oh well"

By the way, good luck with Democrats making the court less politicized. Thanks for the laugh.

Wasn't my idea. It was Buttigieg's, and his idea would make the court much less politicized.
I hope democrats move in that direction.

 

[Hallsome]

Of course it has a bearing on today. Not legally... No one here is making an argument that there are laws being broken. This is politics, and they are playing games but democrats shouldn't be expected to play by different rules than republicans.




Balance of the court was a part of the discussion in 2016 and is relevant with the arguments today.



Not because they don't like it, but if a seat was stolen with the false promise that this would be new precedent, then they shouldn't just sit back and say "oh well"



Wasn't my idea. It was Buttigieg's, and his idea would make the court much less politicized.
I hope democrats move in that direction.

It’s not stolen. Democrats don’t have the senate now and didn’t in 16.
You speak of rules being broken by republicans (which they aren’t) but then suggest that dems change the rules if they don’t get their way with this vacancy.

 

[Merge]

It’s not stolen. Democrats don’t have the senate now and didn’t in 16.
You speak of rules being broken by republicans (which they aren’t) but then suggest that dems change the rules if they don’t get their way with this vacancy.

One thing if republicans voted no to Graland, but they gave no consideration to the vacancy at all.
So yes... they changed the "rules" to not consider ANY nominee.

If they don't honor those same "rules" now, then democrats should change the rules when they gain power. And while they are not formal "rules" but norms... so is the size of the court.

 

[shu09]

Of course it has a bearing on today. Not legally... No one here is making an argument that there are laws being broken. This is politics, and they are playing games but democrats shouldn't be expected to play by different rules than republicans.

Not because they don't like it, but if a seat was stolen with the false promise that this would be new precedent, then they shouldn't just sit back and say "oh well"

You just said above that it has no bearing on today.

 

[shu09]

Wasn't my idea. It was Buttigieg's, and his idea would make the court much less politicized.
I hope democrats move in that direction.

How would that idea make the court less politicized? It would make it even more politicized and turn it into an arm of one of the two parties. The court isn't political as it currently stands, although it is moving away from that. This proposal would worsen that trend.

All that would result in would be extremest ideologues being appointed and vicious confirmation hearings.

 

[donnie_baseball]

i hope most of the board isnt antiquated like you and realizes pro assisted suicide is the only moral thing to do.

Based on what? Your say-so?

 

[Merge]

How would that idea make the court less politicized? It would make it even more politicized and turn it into an arm of one of the two parties. The court isn't political as it currently stands, although it is moving away from that. This proposal would worsen that trend.

All that would result in would be extremest ideologues being appointed and vicious confirmation hearings.

5 Justices appointed unanimously from the other 10 justices would prevent partisanship.
Not saying it is perfect or the only option, but the rational was good and one we should explore.

 

[SHUSA]

Based on what? Your say-so?

based on the millions of terminally ill patients that are forced to endure pain. unless you condone torture of innocent people there is really no justifiable argument. if you want a better say-so feel free to ask pirata. didnt think anyone would question it after offering his two cents earlier.

 

[seton1996]

One thing if republicans voted no to Graland, but they gave no consideration to the vacancy at all.
So yes... they changed the "rules" to not consider ANY nominee.

If they don't honor those same "rules" now, then democrats should change the rules when they gain power. And while they are not formal "rules" but norms... so is the size of the court.

Was Garland the first nominee to get no consideration? I thought there others albeit pre Civil War.

 

[ed odowd]

Biden in fairness probably forgot his past position on the Biden rule or figured he could reverse himself
just like he has on fracking, government sponsored abortions, etc. and we wouldn’t remember .Sorry
Joe everyone is not in the early stages of senility like you.His running mate has indicated a catholic should
not be nominated for federal judgeships because of church view on abortion.Joe wouldn’t say this directly.
but obviously wants pro choice affirmation from nominees Which he will not get.I wonder if dems would
go after a Muslim nominee since a number of Muslims oppose abortion.Probably not anti catholic comments
ok by main stream media but anti Islam means You are islamophobic.

 

[Hallsome]

One thing if republicans voted no to Graland, but they gave no consideration to the vacancy at all.
So yes... they changed the "rules" to not consider ANY nominee.

If they don't honor those same "rules" now, then democrats should change the rules when they gain power. And while they are not formal "rules" but norms... so is the size of the court.

Why consider if you know the result of the vote. Kinda like why impeachment hearing was stupid among other reasons as to why it was stupid

 

[anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0]

View embedded media

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.

Loot and riot,okay BozoSolo

 

[Hallsome]

View embedded media

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.

You’re correct for calling out limo libs. I can live with civil disobedience and support it. But we’ve let antifa and other criminals infiltrate those efforts so the left’s antics might backfire (again). The fact that this election is seemingly close tells you everything that you need to know: Democrats are LOST and they don’t know how to stop pandering to the media and far left.

 

[HALL85]

Unfortunately, I have a feeling we are on the verge of seeing a lot of civil unrest and rioting after the election. The longer it takes to determine the winner the more difficult it is going to be. The ironic part is that the cities that have experienced at most, New York, Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, etc, will feel the brunt and make them all less livable than they’ve become already. The vast majority of this country will be unaffected.

 

[ed odowd]

Bork,Thomas,Alito,Kavanaugh, all subject to smear campaigns.Ginsburg,Sotomayor,Kagan not.Dems
feel you have to destroy the reputation of a republican nominee you think might challenge any left
wing sacred issue.How can anyone defend this ends justify the means philosophy that is not only
unfair but so arrogant.Now Dems want to pack the court if Trump new justice is confirmed.Also
talking about eliminating electoral college so California can cancel other states vote.Their philosophy
is we are so superior to the deplorables we must achieve our agenda by any means necessary.

 

[HALL85]

Bork,Thomas,Alito,Kavanaugh, all subject to smear campaigns.Ginsburg,Sotomayor,Kagan not.Dems
feel you have to destroy the reputation of a republican nominee you think might challenge any left
wing sacred issue.How can anyone defend this ends justify the means philosophy that is not only
unfair but so arrogant.Now Dems want to pack the court if Trump new justice is confirmed.Also
talking about eliminating electoral college so California can cancel other states vote.Their philosophy
is we are so superior to the deplorables we must achieve our agenda by any means necessary.

Electoral college, expanding the court will never happen. That’s when a civil war will break out.

 

[SPK145]

Electoral college, expanding the court will never happen. That’s when a civil war will break out.

Biden has recently said he is not for expanding the court.

 

[SHUSA]

Unfortunately, I have a feeling we are on the verge of seeing a lot of civil unrest and rioting after the election. The longer it takes to determine the winner the more difficult it is going to be. The ironic part is that the cities that have experienced at most, New York, Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, etc, will feel the brunt and make them all less livable than they’ve become already. The vast majority of this country will be unaffected.

sounds like a nice real estate investment opportunity anyone wanna loan me some capital? LOL

 

[ed odowd]

SPK 45 Biden said today he will not take a position on whether he will back packing court.Now I
understand he flip flops every day but I think this is his latest position unless someone told him to
reverse it again in the last hour.

 

[donnie_baseball]

based on the millions of terminally ill patients that are forced to endure pain. unless you condone torture of innocent people there is really no justifiable argument. if you want a better say-so feel free to ask pirata. didnt think anyone would question it after offering his two cents earlier.

Amazing. Ethicists and sociologists have been wrestling with it for centuries, and you have it all figured out.

 

[HALL85]

So if it’s Barrett or Lioga, what is the Dem strategy to block them without looking like bullies (which would alienate suburban women)? Probably make it about healthcare and Trying to box them in on their position on the ACA.

 

[cernjSHU]

There is nothing that the Dems can do to block this nomination now. I hope they are not serious about expanding the Court. It looks petty and it reeks of the tactics of Republicans. Sometimes, I think that those southern states and Trump voters deserve what they get. Sure overturn Roe v Wade and Obama Care. Those red states will be hurt more than the blue states.

What must happen is that Biden wins the election. Then move Puerto Rico for Statehood to be the 51'st State. PR would then get maybe 4 or 5 electoral votes. Statehood has been talked about for decades for PR. It is now time for it to happen.

 

[SPK145]

There is nothing that the Dems can do to block this nomination now. I hope they are not serious about expanding the Court. It looks petty and it reeks of the tactics of Republicans. Sometimes, I think that those southern states and Trump voters deserve what they get. Sure overturn Roe v Wade and Obama Care. Those red states will be hurt more than the blue states.

What must happen is that Biden wins the election. Then move Puerto Rico for Statehood to be the 51'st State. PR would then get maybe 4 or 5 electoral votes. Statehood has been talked about for decades for PR. It is now time for it to happen.

Well unless they change the rules, and you're against that, need a 2/3rd's majority in both the House and Senate.

 

[cernjSHU]

Well unless they change the rules, and you're against that, need a 2/3rd's majority in both the House and Senate.

Well that's a problem.