Ruth Bader Ginsburg RIP

1955 wrote:

Terrible, terrible news. RIP.

Why is this such terrible, terrible news? She was 87 years old in spite of the multiple bouts of cancer. She lived a pretty amazing life, reached the apex of her profession, had a lot of influence on the world, made a ton of money, raised fairly successful kids, etc. Other than the fact that she was a terrible cook, I can't see too much regret in her life. She lived a life well lived, which is something to be celebrated. We all have to die someday, there is nothing tragic about that.

ted cruz wrote:

I was reading about the procedures and how McConnell has all the cards in the Senate after the Dems changed the filibuster rules. Even if the Dems make November gains, he still has until 20 January 2021 before he would lose majority leadership - plenty of time to get someone through the process.

It was Harry Reid who led the drive to change the filibuster rules. He was told way back then that it would probably come back to bite him in the butt. Sure enough, it did.

yessireedoggie wrote:

yessiree wrote:

I think so. His own re-election would be somewhat tougher, I think, if he tried to push a replacement through before Election Day--and of course he'd be putting his fellow GOP senators on the spot (he's worked hard to keep them from having to face any tough votes during the last months of their own re-election campaigns).

But sure, if Biden wins, I'd fully expect President Trump and (especially) Putin's Mitch to try to get that seat filled before Inauguration Day.

Wow, already hoping for Biden to win and you're complaining about sh*t that you know nothing about? Whine much? What a wuss!

You misunderstand. I was laying out a potential scenario. I've never checked the Democratic box for any office in any election. And I've been a voter a looong time.

Huge opportunity for Trump. He can really cement his legacy. And this will remind voters how important it is to get real judges on the Court, which will help his election chances.

Sally Vix wrote:

ted cruz wrote:

I was reading about the procedures and how McConnell has all the cards in the Senate after the Dems changed the filibuster rules. Even if the Dems make November gains, he still has until 20 January 2021 before he would lose majority leadership - plenty of time to get someone through the process.

It was Harry Reid who led the drive to change the filibuster rules. He was told way back then that it would probably come back to bite him in the butt. Sure enough, it did.

CORRECT. It was the DEMOCRATS that changed the rules which allowed McConnell to not hold a vote.

Ted Cruz might literally be our next supreme court justice.

It's as sad as anyone else dying ... the real tragedy is being able to be a supreme court justice at age 87. Lets get some term limits folks. Supreme court justices, congressmen and senators.

ted cruz wrote:

Even if the Dems make November gains, he still has until 20 January 2021 before he would lose majority leadership - plenty of time to get someone through the process.

New Senators will actually be sworn in on January 3rd. But your general point is correcct IMO.

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

CORRECT. It was the DEMOCRATS that changed the rules which allowed McConnell to not hold a vote.

Yes, this is correct. GOP Senators refused to approve Obama nominees to lower courts, so in frustration Harry Reid eliminated the super-majority requirement for those nominees.

Mitch just took that to the next level.

*correct

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

It was Harry Reid who led the drive to change the filibuster rules. He was told way back then that it would probably come back to bite him in the butt. Sure enough, it did.

CORRECT. It was the DEMOCRATS that changed the rules which allowed McConnell to not hold a vote.

Ted Cruz might literally be our next supreme court justice.

Ted Cruz would be good. He'd bring some sound ecclesiastical legal principles to a court that has been secular for far too long.

Sally Vix wrote:

ted cruz wrote:

I was reading about the procedures and how McConnell has all the cards in the Senate after the Dems changed the filibuster rules. Even if the Dems make November gains, he still has until 20 January 2021 before he would lose majority leadership - plenty of time to get someone through the process.

It was Harry Reid who led the drive to change the filibuster rules. He was told way back then that it would probably come back to bite him in the butt. Sure enough, it did.

Give me a break...it was only a matter of time before the GOP would've done the same thig.

Buster Crabbe wrote:

Ted Cruz would be good. He'd bring some sound ecclesiastical legal principles to a court that has been secular for far too long.

please be a joke

Considering all of the political implications that will result from this appointment, why has Congress never established a date in writing to determine once and for all whether the sitting President or the newly elected President will make the appointment in an election year?

We went through the same arguments in 2016 when Justice Scalia passed away. At the time President Obama made a nomination and the Republicans argued that an appointment should wait until after the election. Four years later, the two parties are arguing the opposite of what they did in 2016.

Why doesn't Congress establish a date, say June 1, so there is no arguing? Any vacancy that occurs prior to June 1, the sitting President fills it. After June 1, we wait until after the election.

Yes. New Senate starts Jan 3.

Nothing will happen before Election Day except that Trump May announce who he will nominate.

If Republicans lose the presidency and/or the Senate in November, they will confirm the new Justice by Christmas.

Either way, the new Justice will be a Trump appointee.

Any political ramifications won’t come up until 2022.

If she made it three more months the replacement would be different.

trollin' along wrote:

Why doesn't Congress establish a date, say June 1, so there is no arguing? Any vacancy that occurs prior to June 1, the sitting President fills it. After June 1, we wait until after the election.

If Congress established such a date, a different Congress could change that rule when expedient.

Only a constitutional amendment would make such a date (somewhat more) permanent. But such an amendment would never be enacted.

Sally Vix wrote:

Elvin wrote:

Can we assume that Turtle McConnell will insist on waiting until after the election to consider a replacement?

This could get very nasty if he insists on having a potential nominee voted on. Very nasty.

Which would be the exact bare-knuckle politics that Republicans need to play. Democrats are nasty all the time and get away with it - now it's our turn.

The dates are set.

There are no dates.

The president nominates a person.

The senate confirms or doesn’t confirm the nominee.

A presidential term ends Jan 20.

The Senate changes Jan 3 every two years.

If the president and senate are different parties, there can theoretically be no new Justice confirmed until they are of the same party.

Avey Barkboy wrote:

Buster Crabbe wrote:

Ted Cruz would be good. He'd bring some sound ecclesiastical legal principles to a court that has been secular for far too long.

please be a joke

Ted Cruz is a diversity candidate for the Highest Court (under god). Cuban-Canadian, Southern Baptist, swarth, and a believer in sola scriptura. He's one of the best ecclesiastical lawyers America has ever produced. Cruz would lead the way in getting Engel v. Vitale overturned, a case which has been used to persecute Christians for their deeply held faith in J. Christ for half a century now.

yessiree wrote:

[quote]masterbader wrote:

Like you liberals did with Herman Cain? GTFO with it. We've had enough.

Here's the difference: Herman Cain actually died from COVID-19; Ruth Bader Ginsburg (note the spelling, everybody) did not.[/quote

True! RIP Ruth. Herman died of covid and deserved it. Liberal logic 191.