Ruth Bader Ginsburg RIP

joedirt wrote:

The procedures for getting people on the supreme court are well defined. Like them or not, they are what they have been for generations, and it works. Now the Democrats want to change them because they are sore losers . . .

McConnell changed the Senate rules for Supreme Court confirmation from a super majority to a simple majority in 2017. Unless you're a bot or some such the "generations" thing is clearly incorrect.

Republicans rushing to confirm a justice before the election is bad optics. But what Democrats did to Kavanaugh was EVIL and RIDICULOUS.

We've seen the lengths democrats will go through to get their way - Pelosi ripping up the state of the union address, impeaching Trump for nothing, Kavanaugh hearings, 3 years of FAKE russiagate, and we actually have evidence that Obama and Biden were spying on the Trump campaign.

It's time for the Republicans to fight fire with fire.

The "procedures" are you nominate after the election in an election year. If Republicans follow these procedures (the same way we did in 2016) then there is no issue. This simply a power grab where you realize you ultimately don't have the power.

Well, if the goal is for a power grab when you have the power, you can't fault Democrats for expanding court.

The Dems see It as their nominee was not given a shot and the Republican claimed a precedent. Now they see the Reps have no principled stance and pretend precedent they claim does not exist and only might makes right. So how will Republicans argue against when Dems gain power that they increase the supreme court to 11 members?

The worst thing for legitimacy for the Reps to do is Trump announce his nominee and the Senate wait for the lame duck period to vote on confirmation, especially if some Reps Senators lose their seats.

My personal feeling is that I am going to be sad to see the separation of church and state to be loosened and where religious groups and companies will likely be able to be more open to reserve service or employment based on their religious beliefs in the coming years.

I am disappointed that labor laws will likely favor Corp interests over unions and environmental protections.

I am disappointed that millions will likely lose their health insurance.

I am disappointed that women will have less reproductive rights.

If this is rammed through during the lame duck period I will change from Independent to Democrat and support expanding the court to 11 members.

king lick ear wrote:

The Dems see It as their nominee was not given a shot and the Republican claimed a precedent. Now they see the Reps have no principled stance and pretend precedent they claim does not exist and only might makes right. So how will Republicans argue against when Dems gain power that they increase the supreme court to 11 members?

The difference is the Republicans didn't do anything illegal or unconstitutional in blocking Obama's nominee. You can argue ethics elsewhere.

If the Dems were to do that, it would be a Pyrrhic victory and would further erode our Democracy and the checks and balances of the US system. Then what would stop the Republicans from expanding it to 13, 15, 17... members when they get the power back? That is the whole reason there is a supreme court in the first place, so that one individual or one party cannot dictate the law. If you turn the Supreme Court into a kangaroo court where the verdict is dictated by the party in power at the time, it loses its validity (at that point you may as well eliminate the court and have cases determined by congress or by popular vote).

RBG gambled that Clinton would get elected and failed. It is not the fault of the Republicans that RBG died when she did (it is her fault for gambling).

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

Republicans rushing to confirm a justice before the election is bad optics. But what Democrats did to Kavanaugh was EVIL and RIDICULOUS.

We've seen the lengths democrats will go through to get their way - Pelosi ripping up the state of the union address, impeaching Trump for nothing, Kavanaugh hearings, 3 years of FAKE russiagate, and we actually have evidence that Obama and Biden were spying on the Trump campaign.

It's time for the Republicans to fight fire with fire.

With all due respect... bull s#!t. Your Qanon fever dream of Trump being a victim is just fantasy land.

McConnell wouldn't even give Obama the courtesy of a hearing. If Garland couldn't be confirmed in 11 months this should wait as well.

Ram it through and the Dems should go scorched earth assuming they take the Senate & WH. What do I mean by that? Day one, pass bill to expand seats on SC. Day two pass bill to outlaw every firearm that isn't a muzzle loading flintlock. Day three eliminate the tax exemption for churches. You get the picture. Punitive and Ugly.

I will say the naked hypocrisy this weekend by Cruz and Graham shows how civil and weak the population is. Democrats in particular. There were no suggestions of "second amendment people" as Trump called for, solving the problem. Not a bit of fear of any consequences from the Senators. Just "we don't care what we said. we want the power and F. U."

In the end that likely means Trump will get his pick, the Dems will wring their hands, and all us middle age white guys go on doing our thing. Women, gays, and minorities sorry... you're out of luck.

But this is creating a kangaroo court. It IS the fault of Republicans for blocking judges for years at the SC and lower courts.

I applaud their dedication to the strategy. It's a winner.

As long as you understand people that feel powerless and locked out of the system or worse feel the system rigged against them (because it is) will boil over. Will DC look like Kabul? Probably not. Will DC look like Portland? I suspect much worse.

We conservatives do not hate, dislike, nor want anything less for gays, minorities, or women. You and your ilk repeating this over and over again doesn't make it any more true. Stop it.

This is so silly.

Let's be honest...the real reason why Republicans refused to hold a vote on Garland's nomination is simple: they had that power, and it was beneficial to them. Now, in 2020, the real reason why the Republicans now want to fill the seat is exactly the same: they have the power, and it is beneficial to them.

None of them had or has the balls to say that in Public [actually, I could envision Trump saying it this time around], so they put forth disingenuous arguments in 2016, and new ones in 2020.

I believe that Trump should nominate a judge...that is his job. The senate may have enough time to vote on it without rushing, and if they do, that is appropriate.

However, refusing to even hold a vote on Garland's nomination in 2016 was IMO one of the greatest subversions of democracy in my lifetime, and the response to RBG's passing has just highlighted what anyone honest already knew: it had nothing to do with "giving the people a voice".

I hope that at some point down the road, when the senate pendulum inevitably swings back towards the democrats, that they don't pull the same BS, but I'm not optimistic. The precedent has been firmly set now - supreme court judges are only sworn in if the senate and white house are controlled by the same party.[/quote]

This is the most honest post I've seen here in 20 years.

I like your points. Only problem, the weapon ban would mean a fight in federal courts daily for 100 years. A better alternative: A federal ban of all ammunition. A minimum of 10 years for each bullet in one's possession. Ammunition is not mentioned at all in U.S. Constitution or Amendments. No U.S. citizen can proclaim a right to possess ammunition.

Ted Cruz wrote:

There is a real reason this must be done now. The likelihood of the election results will be adjudicated this November, regardless of whether Trump wins or Slow Biden wins.

A SCOTUS with only 8 members could vote 4-4.

You want to see the first real constitutional crisis since the Civil War...well there’s the scenario.

Buckle up kiddies.

Why don't we have Garland break the 4-4 tie? :-)

(I also think the Slow Biden thing is hilarious. That's the best you've got after all his years in office? Your candidate can't drink water with one hand and slurs his words. Heck the final stroke might take him out before the election.)

joedirt wrote:

The difference is the Republicans didn't do anything illegal or unconstitutional in blocking Obama's nominee. You can argue ethics elsewhere.

).

Given that expanding the supreme court isn't illegal or unconstitutional what do you think is the the difference? Saying you don't like the result really isn't valid argument.

zxcvzcvx wrote:

The Democrats dropped the filibuster on lower court judges only because they were unable to fill any openings because of Republican abuse of the filibuster far, far beyond any historical precedent. Many opposite party Supreme Court nominations have gone through, because the Senate traditionally voted to confirm qualified judges, with the exception only of a few highly controversial, ideological appointments like Bork. The Supreme Court was left with an opening for an entire year by McConnell's action and that actually did lead to a lot of 4-4 ties and many times the court punted on decisions. Now the conservatives have a 5-3 majority and it is likely we'll see some version of Bush v. Gore to prop up Trump in the White House. The only thing standing in the way of that is a cautious Roberts, who prefers incrementalism.

This is accurate history. Those of us that lived through it and even a bit of even handedness know that controlling the courts has been a long term strategy of the GOP. To their credit it worked.

What they either didn't see or don't care about is the night mare scenario you outline. As a liberal I think it is better for Trump to win outright (ideally with majority of vote) than to have an RBG replacement voting to stop counting as in Bush v. Gore.

I don't think even Barr, in his wet dreams about using troops on US citizens has imagined what DC will look like.

The democrats are being just as hypocritical. They were against it in 2016 and now are in favor of it. The truth is the democrats could have pushed Garland through but they didn't want to. They didn't even try. They thought they would get more votes in the election with a supreme court nominee on the line.

To everyone calling it a subversion of democracy - go F yourselves. You all cried for the removal of the electoral college when Clinton lost. You didn't care when Clinton paid RUSSIA for fake dirt on Trump during the 2016 election. You didn't care when Obama and Biden were spying on the Trump campaign both during the election and during the transition. You were happy to push a FAKE russian collusion narrative for 3+ years. You said nothing as democrats went forward with the MOST ILLEGITIMATE impeachment in US history. You cheered when democrats used a clearly false allegation in an attempt to stop Kavanaugh. And you now you are calling for impeachment to stop a new nominee that Trump has every constitutional right to nominate and the senate has every right to confirm.

We conservatives do not hate, dislike, nor want anything less for gays, minorities, or women. You and your ilk repeating this over and over again doesn't make it any more true. Stop it.[/quote]

I suggest you check out posts Friday night on Jen Hatmaker's Instagram. There are many, many of your ilk jumping for joy that the "baby killer" is dead. My towns facebook page littered with "overturn everything she did".

Many of those posts by women apparently too stupid to realize that would mean they couldn't own a credit card or get a mortgage.

Your evangelical friends that got Trump elected most certainly do want much less for gays and women. They're very open about it.

Uncle Pervy wrote:

We conservatives do not hate, dislike, nor want anything less for gays, minorities, or women. You and your ilk repeating this over and over again doesn't make it any more true. Stop it.

I suggest you check out posts Friday night on Jen Hatmaker's Instagram. There are many, many of your ilk jumping for joy that the "baby killer" is dead. My towns facebook page littered with "overturn everything she did".

Many of those posts by women apparently too stupid to realize that would mean they couldn't own a credit card or get a mortgage.

Your evangelical friends that got Trump elected most certainly do want much less for gays and women. They're very open about it.[/quote]

And this is your proof. Do better Perv.

I know you're probably like 14 years old but you clearly don't understand how the process works. There was no way to push Garland through. The GOP had the votes and control and the Dems didn't. McConnell wouldn't even schedule hearings. I'd love your expert opinion on what the strategy should have been.

As for believing the Trump/GOP story that all of our intelligence agencies and career military officers are in some how, some reason conspiring against Trump... well the Russians have a word for you: полезный идиот.

But do go on... tell us about the Dems drinking kids blood in the basement of the pizza joint without a basement.

And this is your proof. Do better Perv.[/quote]

Actually quoting your allies isn't proof. Tom Cotton announcing he'd overturn Roe? The bigoted religious freedom bills?