The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: Seriati on September 18, 2020, 07:50:21 PM

Title: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: Seriati on September 18, 2020, 07:50:21 PM
I can't imagine anything this country needed less than Ruth Ginsberg passing away right now, but NPR is saying it's happened.  https://www.npr.org/2020/09/18/100306972/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-champion-of-gender-equality-dies-at-87 (https://www.npr.org/2020/09/18/100306972/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-champion-of-gender-equality-dies-at-87)

Rest in peace.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: yossarian22c on September 18, 2020, 08:06:06 PM
A sad day.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: NobleHunter on September 18, 2020, 08:09:07 PM
*censored*. This is going to be bad.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: TheDrake on September 18, 2020, 08:41:56 PM
I'm sure Trump will have something nice and respectful to tweet.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: yossarian22c on September 18, 2020, 08:45:21 PM
I'm sure Trump will have something nice and respectful to tweet.

Something like the name he is nominating as her replacement  :(.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: TheDrake on September 18, 2020, 09:10:29 PM
I'm sure Trump will have something nice and respectful to tweet.

Something like the name he is nominating as her replacement  :(.

Mitch McConnell would never let something like that happen! Oh wait, he already vowed to make exactly that happen. With several hard minutes of deliberation about the blatant hypocrisy inherent in that move, he realized that his constituents don't care about fairness, as long as they win. Worshippers of the Orange God know there is only one commandment - Win by any means necessary!
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: Ouija Nightmare on September 18, 2020, 09:16:34 PM
To a great woman who made us all a little better through her words and deeds.

Heroes still walk among us.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: msquared on September 18, 2020, 09:21:12 PM
Will Trump go to the funeral?  Call her nasty?
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: noel c. on September 18, 2020, 10:18:21 PM
Pull up a chair, and make yourself comfortable folks, the games have begun!

For all the indignant reaction that will inevitably be directed at Trump, and McConnell, just recall; Ms. Ginsburg was pressured to retire during Barry’s tenure, and she blew him off.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: wmLambert on September 18, 2020, 11:15:22 PM
RBG was one smart lady. She topped her class while her husband was fighting cancer, and worked hard her entire life. Noel was right she did diss Obama by staying on so he couldn't name a replacement - but also didn't step down so Trump coldn't either.

There's quite a scrap being engaged in at whether confirmation should happen at this time. The Dems want to hold off, hoping for a turnover - but the need for more than a 4-4 tie vote in case of election suits is also important. McConnell is a rules historian, and was right when he said we've only delayed confirmation when the Senate is in the hands of the opposition before elections. When not in opposition, confirmation is always held immediately. Since Harry Reid did away with the filibuster to block judicial confirmations that will not be a problem.

President Trump has had a list of appointments ready for all judicial positions, and the SCOTUS list is ready to go. He will probably name one of three great lady candidates to replace a lady, but it won't come until a discrete mourning period, and conversations with the candidates in question. Biden has also weighed-in to say it should be done as soon as possible - but only if he wins first. The GOP has 53 Senators, with Murkoski, Collins, Grassley, and Graham hinting they may want to wait until after the election. The current polls for Collins show her in trouble - largely for her failure to support Kavanaugh. If she can parlay her confirmation vote for her election votes who knows which way she goes.

The Merrick Garland nomination under Obama was urged during a time when the people had voted for a GOP Senate majority. The Democrats in the Senate can not make that argument. They call it a difference without a distinction. Biden said the Senate made that decision 10 months before the election in 2016, so should do so now - but McConnell was correct at the distinction.

The Kavanaugh confirmation went on for 89 days. This could drag on until after the election - with the election, itself, defining the outcome. I doubt the Democrat attack machine will spend the energy during the national election, after the fallout from the discredited attacks on Kavanaugh. Next week should start the ball rolling.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: noel c. on September 18, 2020, 11:19:31 PM
Published September 21, 2019:

‘It has been suggested by more than one commentator, including some law professors, that I should have stepped down during President Obama’s second term,’ said Ginsburg, 86, as reported by CNBC. ‘When that suggestion is made, I ask the question: Who do you think that the President could nominate that could get through the Republican Senate? Who you would prefer on the court [rather] than me?’ “ (RBG)

Anybody agree with her reasoning?
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: TheDeamon on September 19, 2020, 02:30:11 AM
Mitch McConnell would never let something like that happen! Oh wait, he already vowed to make exactly that happen. With several hard minutes of deliberation about the blatant hypocrisy inherent in that move, he realized that his constituents don't care about fairness, as long as they win. Worshippers of the Orange God know there is only one commandment - Win by any means necessary!

Since 1900, there have been 8 occasions I can find where a vacant SCotUS seat was filled within 1 calendar year of the election, there also was a position shuffle from Associate to Chief Justice which was stymied by a bi-partisan effort.

What I can find:

Taft(1912), Wilson(twice in the same year, 1916; 1 death, 1 resignation), Hoover(1932), and FDR(1940) all enjoyed Senates that belonged to their party and had their nominees approved the same cycle.

Which makes for 5

Eisenhower had a vacancy happen when a justice announced intent to resign in September 1956, and the Vacancy started in October, the Democrat Senate was in recess(something that never happens with the present day Congress), which allowed him to make a recess appointment which was subsequently ratified in 1957 after the elections.

Which makes for 6

Johnson was stymied by a bi-partisan filibuster in 1968 over the Chief Justice post, then held by Warren, but as his nominee was already a Justice on the Court, it didn't really impact the court's composition in any meaningful way as Warren remained in the court regardless.

This is a "plus one event," as it was simply shuffling seats in the court, not filling an empty one.

Reagan nominated Kennedy to the bench on November 30, 1987 just over 11 months prior to the election. He did have a Democratic Senate to contend with, but Kennedy was approved in a 97-0 vote in February 1988.

Which makes for 7.
 
Which then leaves us with the shenanigans which involved Obama in 2016 for number 8, where he is the 3rd president to contend with a Senate controlled by the other party in the past century while in the year prior to the election. I almost don't want to count Reagan as the vacancy he addressed happened in a different calendar year entirely, which would just leave Eisenhower, who used a recess appointment(which Congress wouldn't enable either Obama or Trump to do, they'll keep it "in session" by hook and by crook) that was addressed after the election.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: DonaldD on September 19, 2020, 04:24:06 AM
Mitch McConnell has been given the opportunity to effectively break American democracy, and it seems like he's willing to give it the old college try.

The only realistic hope that the country has at this point is if enough Republican senators are able to grow a spine and defy Trump during the last month and a half of an election season, and if necessary, during the lame duck session that follows.

RBG knew this, which is why one of her last requests was to beseech the country not to attempt to replace her until the next president, be it Trump or Biden, had been  ensconced.

TheDeamon's exercise in apologetics will convince nobody.  Those who would agree are already convinced; and those who don't have heard the Republicans previous rationalizations and simply aren't about to forget them based on weak sauce historical revisionism.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: DonaldD on September 19, 2020, 08:35:27 AM
What Republicans said 4.75 years ago:

"It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don't do this in an election year." -- Sen. Ted Cruz, Feb 14 2016

"I want you to use my words against me. 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." -- Sen Lindsey Graham, March 10, 2016

“If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election”  -- Sen Lindsey Graham, 2018

“I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.” -- Sen. Cory Gardner, 2016

“I believe the American people deserve to have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice, and the best way to ensure that happens is to have the Senate consider a nomination made by the next President." -- Sen. John Cornyn, 2016

“I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term — I would say that if it was a Republican president .” -- Sen. Marco Rubio, 2016

"I will oppose this nomination as I firmly believe we must let the people decide the Supreme Court’s future.” -- Sen. Jim Inhofe, 2016

"The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.” -- Sen. Thom Tillis, 2016.

I expect you could lather, rinse and repeat for almost every single Republican senator from 2016.  This is pure politics, and an exercise in what the Republican party is willing to try to get away with.  If the Republicans now show such blatant mendacity, what is to stop the Democrats from raising the stakes at their first opportunity and simply increasing the number of SCOTUS seats?  And once that is done, what will stop the politicians of each party from continuing the destruction of what's left of the governing norms?

 
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: noel c. on September 19, 2020, 11:51:15 AM
Donald,

“Mitch McConnell has been given the opportunity to effectively break American democracy, and it seems like he's willing to give it the old college try.”

The U.S. is a Republic governed by a written Constitution, not a democratically-coordinated candy store.

I think what you really mean is that McConnell has the constitutional authority to do something very politically distasteful to the left, and probably will. Extra-constitutional collegial accommodation, like the filibuster, was destroyed by Harry Reid on November 21st, 2013, out of political expediency. Republicans warned contemporaneously that Democrats would come to regret that move.

Political sortsightedness brings its own form of Karma.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: TheDeamon on September 19, 2020, 11:51:58 AM
What Republicans said 4.75 years ago:

"It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don't do this in an election year." -- Sen. Ted Cruz, Feb 14 2016

Technically correct but not the complete story.

The last SCotUS appointment to the office to be both nominated and confirmed to it was under FDR. Nominated on January 2nd, 1940 and confirmed on January 16th; for a vacancy that happened on November 16, 1939.

The later examples were Johnson's failed attempt to appoint a new Chief Justice by nominating an existing justice, and then Reagan who nominated on November 30th, 1987(not an election year, although it was within a year of the election) with confirmation in February 1988. So the claim of "an 80 year tradition" on the matter is the problem, more so than the actual facts he used to assert his claims. He used the Johnson filibusters and Eisenhower's recess appointment(confirmed after the election) as justification while carefully excluding Reagan's nomination from his statement.

Quote
"I want you to use my words against me. 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." -- Sen Lindsey Graham, March 10, 2016

“If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election”  -- Sen Lindsey Graham, 2018

“I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.” -- Sen. Cory Gardner, 2016

“I believe the American people deserve to have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice, and the best way to ensure that happens is to have the Senate consider a nomination made by the next President." -- Sen. John Cornyn, 2016

“I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term — I would say that if it was a Republican president .” -- Sen. Marco Rubio, 2016

"I will oppose this nomination as I firmly believe we must let the people decide the Supreme Court’s future.” -- Sen. Jim Inhofe, 2016

"The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.” -- Sen. Thom Tillis, 2016.

I expect you could lather, rinse and repeat for almost every single Republican senator from 2016.  This is pure politics, and an exercise in what the Republican party is willing to try to get away with.  If the Republicans now show such blatant mendacity, what is to stop the Democrats from raising the stakes at their first opportunity and simply increasing the number of SCOTUS seats?  And once that is done, what will stop the politicians of each party from continuing the destruction of what's left of the governing norms?

Nobody ever claimed that SCotUS appointments weren't political from time to time, Johnson's appointment getting shelved is an example of that, where a bi-partisan group took issue with how Liberal the Warren Court was.

They were also looking at the past history of such events and gambled that they wouldn't be looking at a comparable event in 2016 even though they knew they had some old SCotUS judges like RBG on the bench. I guess they were taking odds she'd either die before the end of 2019(she nearly did) or would live to see the end of 2020. They lost, now they're eating crow.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: NobleHunter on September 19, 2020, 01:00:09 PM
I'm sorry, who did away with the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations?
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: noel c. on September 19, 2020, 01:41:01 PM
NH,

“I'm sorry, who did away with the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations?”

No need to be sorry.

When federal judicial appointments were subjugated to political expediency, it was too late to become nuanced regarding an artificial limitation to district courts. The answer to your question would be... Harry.

Collegiality requires reciprocity.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: yossarian22c on September 19, 2020, 02:22:34 PM
NH,

“I'm sorry, who did away with the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations?”

No need to be sorry.

When federal judicial appointments were subjugated to political expediency, it was too late to become nuanced regarding an artificial limitation to district courts. The answer to your question would be... Harry.

Collegiality requires reciprocity.

What BS. Mitch McConnel eliminated the filibuster for SC nominations. Do you really need Republicans to be "the good guys" in your mind? Just accept you don't care how they do it, as long as they're "winning." You and wm should give up on the flim-flam excuses as to why this time is different, just say you don't care about hypocrisy as long as it gets the results you want.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: NobleHunter on September 19, 2020, 02:51:42 PM
NH,

“I'm sorry, who did away with the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations?”

No need to be sorry.

When federal judicial appointments were subjugated to political expediency, it was too late to become nuanced regarding an artificial limitation to district courts. The answer to your question would be... Harry.

Collegiality requires reciprocity.

Which sounds like a reason to always blame the other guy to justify any escalation your side decides to do. The Republicans clearly enunciated a rule about replacing members of the Supreme Court. Anything less than adherence to that rule is evidence of naked political greed and hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 19, 2020, 03:38:00 PM
But the Democrats don't agree with that "rule" do they? Which Democrat was it again that supported the Republicans not allowing a Senate vote on Merrick?

So now the Democrats want a so called rule followed even though they vehemently disagree with it? How does that make any sense?

As for Harry, remember who pushed the button on the nuclear option? When you start a war you don't always get to decide how and why it ends. If Harry hadn't started it then it wouldn't have ended up with his idea applying to the Supreme Court too. That's right. I said it. He started it! (And Mitch finished it.)

If the Republicans held off on the appointment this time and next time when the positions are reversed would the Democrats hold off too?

I may have been born at night but it wasn't last night. I don't even hear any Democrats making such a pledge.

The whole idea that just because it's close to the next elections we need to wait for the voters to decide makes no sense anyway. I agree with the Democrats on that. The voters in the last election have just as much right to have their voices heard on the new Supreme Court nominee as the voters in the next election. And I don't recall ever saying anything to the contrary.  My understanding is the rule is always "power rules". If you have the power, you make the rules. If one party has the Presidency and the Senate they get to decide on the new justice for the Supreme Court. If one party has the Presidency and the other has the Senate then it's up for grabs. If the party with the Senate can hold on until after the election then that's just the way it is. If they can't because the election is too far out then that's how that goes too. Are there any Democrats who say any different or are they all just hanging their hats on holding the Republicans to a position the Democrats not only disagree with but would never hold to themselves?

Now admittedly some Republicans did say that. But they work for the voters and the voters are telling them to get that nomination done.



Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: noel c. on September 19, 2020, 03:45:44 PM
Y-22,

“What BS. Mitch McConnel eliminated the filibuster for SC nominations. Do you really need Republicans to be "the good guys" in your mind? Just accept you don't care how they do it, as long as they're "winning." You and wm should give up on the flim-flam excuses as to why this time is different, just say you don't care about hypocrisy as long as it gets the results you want.”

Republicans are notoriously conservative on everything, including procedural policy, ie., they would never have broken with the established Senate filibuster rule if Harry had not kicked that door open. This time is not “different”. That is the point. Republicans are now following precedent. I totally understand how upsetting that must be to you. Attribute your feelings to the law of the harvest.

NH,

“Which sounds like a reason to always blame the other guy to justify any escalation your side decides to do. The Republicans clearly enunciated a rule about replacing members of the Supreme Court. Anything less than adherence to that rule is evidence of naked political greed and hypocrisy.”

How is this an “escalation”? The Democrats did not believe that the filibuster rule was worth preserving, and it wasn’t. If they now want to put political greed and hypocrisy behind them, we will know when they next take control of the Senate, and formally reinstitute Cloture Rule 22. I don’t know what “... rules Republicans clearly enunciated”, because Senate rules are written. If it wasn’t voted for by the Senate Rules Committee, then it isn’t a rule.

This is what a the cloture rule looks like:

https://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Cloture_vrd.htm
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: Mynnion on September 19, 2020, 06:07:20 PM
Ignoring for a minute the moral/ethical aspects of filling RBG's seat prior to the next administration taking over I am interested in whether the GOP Senate will be able to grab a majority before the election.  With several GOP Senate seats in close races I can see vulnerable candidates such as Collins choosing not to vote for the replacement.  It would not be surprise to see Mitch having to wait until after the election for a vote.  I am sure that the moment he has a nomination he will be polling the troops.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: NobleHunter on September 19, 2020, 06:08:43 PM
So what I'm hearing is that if the Democrats take power in this election, they should scrap the remnants of the filibuster in order to ensure they get as much of their agenda passed as possible. They should pack the Supreme Court or at least remove Trump's justices. They should abandon all respect for the minority party because that's how people voted.

 If we can't even ask the Republicans to live up to the standards they themselves set, anything less than maximum use of power at the first opportunity is to surrender to the opposition. Half measures only invite unnecessary roadblocks and give the other side a chance to undo what has already been accomplished. Why should the Democrats practice restraint if the Republicans won't?
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 19, 2020, 07:04:25 PM
"Ignoring for a minute the moral/ethical aspects of filling RBG's seat prior to the next administration taking over..."

According to the Democrats there are no moral or ethical problems with it.

Sure some Republicans had a problem with it when it was Merrick but since when did Democrats ever care about Republican morality?

This seems like another situation where Democrats try to use Republican morality/ethics/religion against them all the while the Democrats don't share any of it like when non-Christians try to use religion against Christians.

To be sure, there is something to be said for holding people to their own standards but there is also something to be said for not holding people to standards higher than your own, like when Obama and McCain both promised a Presidential campaign with public financing and then Obama reneged but McCain stuck to it and in the Presidential race was a loser. The cynic might think Obama could have planned that all along so McCain is stuck either being a liar like Obama or sticking with his word and public financing and losing. Just like the cynic might think that the Democrats while being willing to do anything to win and fighting no holds barred for power turn right around with a straight face and remind the Republicans that they promised to fight with both hands tied behind their back. Needless to say the Republican voters are sick of it which is why they picked a dirty fighter like Trump. Losing with grace is still losing and winning by throwing sand in the other guy's face is still winning. Democrats have always been dirty fighters, just like the Obama public campaign finance trick illustrates. The kicker is that while fighting dirty they act outraged when the other guy uses some of their own tricks. Goose meet gander. Pot meet kettle. And karma bow and dance. Needless to say it's quite amusing to see the Democrats getting hoisted by their own petard.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 19, 2020, 07:24:56 PM
"If we can't even ask the Republicans to live up to the standards they themselves set"

What's so absurd about asking people to live up to your own standards when your own standards are lower than theirs?

How do Democrats have the nerve to insist on Republicans doing what the Democrats refused to do?

And what they don't even say they're going to do in the future?

I fail to see the source of the outrage. Like when an atheist goes to Amish country and just walks up to an elderly Amish man and slugs him, hard. Then the Amish man hits the guy right back. And the guy is outraged. Outraged I tell you! How dare he?! How dare that Amish man not live up to his own standards? What is the world coming to?

Like with McCain and public financing again, hypothetically if McCain had backed out of it after Obama did and then Obama and the Democrats and the media acted all shocked and outraged. After all a man's word is his bond. McCain made a promise and he should stick to it. We need to hold him to the standards he set himself. And then someone points out that Obama did the same thing and they say that's just whataboutism. That's Obama. We're talking about McCain here. Don't change the subject. Is he a man of his word on not? Can't we even ask and expect him to live up to the standards he himself set?

Maybe Democrats should be flattered. I don't off hand recall the arguments they made for Merrick deserving his up or down vote in the Senate but apparently after a few year's worth of reflection and consideration those arguments are finally persuasive. The Democrats have convinced the Republicans that the Democrats were right. Congratulations?
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: NobleHunter on September 19, 2020, 07:44:56 PM
Fine, so when the Republicans swore up and down that they were delaying approving a replacement justice out of respect for the voters, they were lying. It was, in fact, a purely partisan ploy to make sure a Republican got to pick the next justice. Regardless of the damage it did to a co-equal branch of government.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: Mynnion on September 19, 2020, 07:47:31 PM
I am neither outraged or surprised.  I was outraged when the Senate failed to give Garland a hearing.  Obama was attacked for lying about keeping your doctor.  Trump lies daily and the same ones who were upset at Obama don't even blink.  Games are played on both sides but at one time I actually believed that the GOP tried to keep their promises and lived up to the values they promoted.  I gave up on that during the Second Golf war when anyone who even questioned it were demonized.  Of course now in hindsight......   

I have always valued a balanced SC because it acted as a buffer that restrained both sides.  What I now see is a scary imbalance that will have a negative impact on our rights for generations.  More rulings like Citizens United and rules that reduce the rights of the individual and increase the power of corporations are what we have to look forward to.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 19, 2020, 07:55:54 PM
I don't know about lying. That all depends on which voters they were respecting. They delayed out of respect for Republican voters. Totally true. Yes it was purely partisan. No doubt. That's why they were elected, to be partisan and do a good job for the people who voted them into office. The Democrats do the same thing for their own voters. It did no damage to a co-equal branch of government. Congress isn't a rubber stamp for the President. Maybe if Obama had nominated someone more middle of the road that person would have gotten a vote and even confirmed. Sure he can try to ram through a hard leftist but there is no reason the Republicans in the Senate have to allow a vote then. If the Democrats feel so strongly about it which of them is proposing a Constitutional Amendment to make sure the same rules apply for everyone all the time? I wouldn't be in favor of such an Amendment but it seems like the Democrats want to have it both ways. Hypothetically again, if Hillary had won and the Democrats had the same majority in the Senate the Republicans do now, would the Democrats hold off until after the election to put in the new Supreme Court justice? Of course not. They don't even say they would. Never have said anything so absurd. And good for them. And yet that's the standard they want to hold the Republicans to?

If they want that to be the standard then it can't apply just to one party. It can't just apply to the Republicans. How would that make any sense? How would that be fair? Why would Republicans allow such a thing?
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: noel c. on September 19, 2020, 07:57:20 PM
NH,

“So what I'm hearing is that if the Democrats take power in this election, they should scrap the remnants of the filibuster in order to ensure they get as much of their agenda passed as possible.”

Only if they are content to pass those rules to the next Republican Congress.

“They should pack the Supreme Court or at least remove Trump's justices.“

You act like this is a novel Democratic strategy. Do you want Republicans to “remove” Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor? How would you propose that this happen?

“They should abandon all respect for the minority party because that's how people voted.“

They already have “abandoned respect for the minority”. That is why you are in this pickle.

“If we can't even ask the Republicans to live up to the standards they themselves set... “

This phraseology is really twisted. What you seem to fear is that Republicans will live down to Democratic standards. The true irony is that Democrats were the heaviest users of Rule-22, primarily to block civil rights legislation during the 1960s.

“... anything less than maximum use of power at the first opportunity is to surrender to the opposition.”

Discuss it with Harry. He would probably tell you “Well... it worked, didn’t it?”

“Half measures only invite unnecessary roadblocks and give the other side a chance to undo what has already been accomplished. Why should the Democrats practice restraint if the Republicans won't?“

Let me rephrase this more succinctly; “By all means necessary”, does that capture the essence?

https://youtu.be/vS21udAAKq0

“Restraint”, like Democrats have shown during virtually all Republican Supreme Court nominations since Robert Bork? It sounds like you are reading out of the Teddy Kennedy play book.

Answer the question for yourself. I personally think that it is a losing proposition.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: NobleHunter on September 19, 2020, 08:06:10 PM
I don't know about lying. That all depends on which voters they were respecting. They delayed out of respect for Republican voters. Totally true. Yes it was purely partisan. No doubt. That's why they were elected, to be partisan and do a good job for the people who voted them into office. The Democrats do the same thing for their own voters. It did no damage to a co-equal branch of government. Congress isn't a rubber stamp for the President. Maybe if Obama had nominated someone more middle of the road that person would have gotten a vote and even confirmed. Sure he can try to ram through a hard leftist but there is no reason the Republicans in the Senate have to allow a vote then. If the Democrats feel so strongly about it which of them is proposing a Constitutional Amendment to make sure the same rules apply for everyone all the time? I wouldn't be in favor of such an Amendment but it seems like the Democrats want to have it both ways. Hypothetically again, if Hillary had won and the Democrats had the same majority in the Senate the Republicans do now, would the Democrats hold off until after the election to put in the new Supreme Court justice? Of course not. They don't even say they would. Never have said anything so absurd. And good for them. And yet that's the standard they want to hold the Republicans to?

If they want that to be the standard then it can't apply just to one party. It can't just apply to the Republicans. How would that make any sense? How would that be fair? Why would Republicans allow such a thing?

They were elected to run the country to the best of their ability, not to further partisan interests. They are the senator of their state, not the senator of republican voters in their state. I don't vote Liberal because I want my member of Parliament to further the Liberal Party's interest, I vote for them because I think they will run the country better than the other parties (or will prevent the Conservatives from winning who I think would do the worst job). This belief is so antithetical to the healthy functioning of a republic or democracy that if it is widespread, it's no wonder you guys are *censored*ed.

The damage wasn't to the Presidency, it was the Supreme Court. I think you are perilously close to losing the only real arbiter you have of Constitutional conflicts. As the so-called culture war wore on, the Court's legitimacy has been increasingly questioned. Sooner or later, people are going to stop listening to it.

Honestly, the Democrats are so terrible at playing hardball, I don't think they would cram a justice through. If nothing else, their base knows that a viable Supreme Court is an important bulwark against racists and fascists.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: noel c. on September 19, 2020, 08:34:14 PM
NH,

“They were elected to run the country to the best of their ability, not to further partisan interests... I think they will run the country better than the other parties (or will prevent the Conservatives from winning who I think would do the worst job).“

These comments are paradigmatic of, what appears to be, a cognitive problem. An elected conservative functioning to “... the best of their ability”, is going to make those who democratically selected him/her happy. That is the fundamental end of the democratic process. You should not expect all election outcomes to make you happy.

Can you sense how asinine your combined statements are?
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: wmLambert on September 19, 2020, 08:41:41 PM
...Do you really need Republicans to be "the good guys" in your mind? Just accept you don't care how they do it, as long as they're "winning." You and Wm should give up on the flim-flam excuses as to why this time is different, just say you don't care about hypocrisy as long as it gets the results you want.”[/i]

Republicans are notoriously conservative on everything, including procedural policy, ie., they would never have broken with the established Senate filibuster rule if Harry had not kicked that door open.

More strawman argument? When Merrick Garland was up for the nomination, I was loud and clear that the GOP should stop being wusses and play hardball. Its not being hypocritical to play to win for the betterment of the nation. Harry Reid opened the door. There is no way in the world that the Dems would not use the Reid rule changes to their own advancement. The GOP not using his rule changes would not prevent the Dems from using them ASAP.

On another point - I noticed at the start of this thread, that NobleHunter, Yoss, The Drake, msquared, and DonalsD launched accusatory insults at President Trump saying how he would attack RBG's memory.  They will never admit he was gracious to her and to her family - but just use the strawman insult as if it had been true. It was actually the Dems who launched into the need to block a nomination effort - 180 degrees contraposition from where they were with Merrick Garland. It was Cruz who recounted the lawsuits after Bush/Gore chads in Dade County had to go to SCOTUS before the election could be certified - and that a 4-4 tie vote would not be good for the nation. Not fixing that virtually ensures Pelosi becomes interim President, so we see why the Dems are so adamant about changing their position.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: NobleHunter on September 19, 2020, 09:01:13 PM
I didn't say anything about what Trump would say in regards to her death.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: DonaldD on September 19, 2020, 09:14:07 PM
I noticed at the start of this thread, that NobleHunter, Yoss, The Drake, msquared, and DonalsD launched accusatory insults at President Trump saying how he would attack RBG's memory. 
No, I didn't.  Why did you make that up?
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: wmLambert on September 19, 2020, 09:15:48 PM
I didn't say anything about what Trump would say in regards to her death.

You are correct. You followed Yoss's post that "This is a sad day" and said: "*censored*. This is going to be bad." Yoss went on to pool with TheDrake: "I'm sure Trump will have something nice and respectful to tweet," which was a sarcastic hit on Trump, which following posts enlarged upon. You were just in there in the mix. I'm not sure which way you were leaning.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: wmLambert on September 19, 2020, 09:26:12 PM
I noticed at the start of this thread, that NobleHunter, Yoss, The Drake, msquared, and DonalsD launched accusatory insults at President Trump saying how he would attack RBG's memory. 
No, I didn't.  Why did you make that up?

Sorry, you stated: "The only realistic hope that the country has at this point is if enough Republican senators are able to grow a spine and defy Trump during the last month and a half of an election season," That is not specifically saying he was disrespectful of RGB - but "The only realistic hope" is bad enough. The best selection is the content of a jurist's ability, not the party that selects him. We saw that with possibly the greatest potential Justice of all time, Robert Bork, who was shot down by Ted Kennedy's lies and knee-jerk attacks by his supporters. Bork was not voted down for anything other than party resentment.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: yossarian22c on September 19, 2020, 09:36:49 PM
On another point - I noticed at the start of this thread, that NobleHunter, Yoss, The Drake, msquared, and DonalsD launched accusatory insults at President Trump saying how he would attack RBG's memory.  They will never admit he was gracious to her and to her family - but just use the strawman insult as if it had been true.
...

I probably came closest to what you're accusing here. You should probably leave the rest of the people off that list. I made a sarcastic comment that he would nominate her successor in a tweet about her death. I never said he would attack her memory. But he certainty isn't respecting her dying wish to be replaced after the election. You can decide if you think that is gracious to her and her family or not. Mitch and Trump have immediately gone to discussions about replacements. So in that environment, my sarcastic attack on Trump wasn't even off the mark. Even if it didn't show up in a tweet that night.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: DonaldD on September 19, 2020, 09:51:27 PM
I noticed at the start of this thread, that NobleHunter, Yoss, The Drake, msquared, and DonalsD launched accusatory insults at President Trump saying how he would attack RBG's memory. 
No, I didn't.  Why did you make that up?

Sorry, you stated: "The only realistic hope that the country has at this point is if enough Republican senators are able to grow a spine and defy Trump during the last month and a half of an election season," That is not specifically saying he was disrespectful of RGB - but "The only realistic hope" is bad enough. The best selection is the content of a jurist's ability, not the party that selects him. We saw that with possibly the greatest potential Justice of all time, Robert Bork, who was shot down by Ted Kennedy's lies and knee-jerk attacks by his supporters. Bork was not voted down for anything other than party resentment.
Interesting dance to avoid admitting you... lied is such a strong word, it requires intent... so maybe not a lie - let's call it blind knee-jerk Trump derangement partisanship.  Your inability to correct yourself and apologize is telling.

And no, none of that has anything to do with insulting Trump, nor with RBG's memory. It is his job to nominate SCOTUS judges, after all.  I think it would be a huge mistake for him to do so, but disagreeing with Trump does to necessitate insult.  That you assume they are synonymous is also quite telling.  It's also kinda awful the way you group people together the easier to attack them... there is a word for that, too...
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: noel c. on September 19, 2020, 10:15:21 PM
Y-22,

“But he certainty isn't respecting her dying wish to be replaced after the election. You can decide if you think that is gracious to her and her family or not.”

“My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/2020/09/19/justice-ginsburgs-last-words/%3famp

As the writer points out; a “new president” will not, with any certainty, be installed until 2025. If her granddaughter’s alleged account is accurate, then the departed was not particularly respectful of a sitting President. This would not be the first time Ruth’s personal animus entered the public domain, exemplifying a much lower standard of social grace than... dare I say it: Donald Trump.


What Ruth, and her family, might “wish“ for amounts to less than zero. Justice Ginsberg had her chance to clear the path for a replacement associate justice of left-leaning jurisprudence, and esteemed herself just too irreplaceable to leave the stage. She died on it instead.

“Graciousness”, if it is to apply to anyone, should have been directed to Barry, who she clearly did not trust to do his job. The left may give thanks to Ms. Ginsberg for locking in place a solid conservative SCOTUS for at least the next decade. She has my gratitude.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: noel c. on September 19, 2020, 10:27:25 PM
Donald,

“... lied is such a strong word, it requires intent... so maybe not a lie - let's call it blind knee-jerk Trump derangement partisanship.  Your inability to correct yourself and apologize is telling.”

I cannot help but notice your fixation with other people’s alleged “lies”, and a need to atone to you directly for their supposed transgression. There is “a word” in psychology for this sort of obsessive focus on the motives of others.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: TheDeamon on September 20, 2020, 03:47:46 AM
Fine, so when the Republicans swore up and down that they were delaying approving a replacement justice out of respect for the voters, they were lying. It was, in fact, a purely partisan ploy to make sure a Republican got to pick the next justice. Regardless of the damage it did to a co-equal branch of government.

Ah, but it was an act in respect to the voters, their voters and they had reason to believe there was a chance that Trump would win, and he did.

It worked, they won that election, they got to pick someone else. If it hadn't worked, Hillary would have been in office, they might have lost seats in the Senate, and the nomination process would have looked very different in 2017.

In this case this, they have no "better option" potentially presenting them by waiting, as a delay simply means there is a chance that a Democratic President will be choosing a replacement rather than the Republican President they have now.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: DonaldD on September 20, 2020, 05:59:55 AM
Ah, but it was an act in respect to the voters, their voters and they had reason to believe there was a chance that Trump would win, and he did.
This is so clearly misreading NobleHunter's intent when he used the word "respect" to paraphrase the clear meaning of dozens of Republican senators.  You should be better than this.

If you. and any significant number of others, truly believe that Republican legislators only mean 'Republican voters' ("their voters") when they use words like "the people" and "the American people", then the country has little hope.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: Lloyd Perna on September 20, 2020, 06:20:00 AM
In Ginsberg's own words when asked if the Senate had an obligation to assess Judge Garland’s qualifications, her answer was immediate.

“That’s their job,” she said. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”

Many of you on this board were making the same argument at the time.

The fact is that elections have consequences.  Democrats in the Senate under Reid were tired of the minority using traditional Senate rules to block the Majority's agenda, So they changed the rules.  Nobody should be surprised that the Republicans under McConnell continued the trend that the Democrats began.

Under this new regime, if you want to appoint a Judge you better have control of both the Presidency and the Senate.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: DonaldD on September 20, 2020, 07:20:18 AM
Well, duh. Nobody disputes the existence of "the rules".

What people are pointing out now is the complete abdication by the Republican party of democratic norms, but also of honesty and consistency - that they were so blatantly lying when refusing to vote on Garland.

But in today's hyper-tribal USA, such blatant inconsistency and lack of respect for norms is just going to further alienate supporters of political opponents.  There is also no rule against increasing the size of the court.  But you do NOT see parties in control of both the legislative and executive branches stacking the court at every opportunity.  There has, in the past, been a certain deference to the idea of country before party in the USA, and that political opponents may very well have valid points, even though one might disagree with them. This scorched earth policy of win at all costs is going to break the country.

Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 20, 2020, 07:40:17 AM
Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but Democrats have NEVER been in favor of waiting until after an election to decide on a new Supreme Court justice. Even Justice Ginsberg said that Garland should get his vote in the Senate. Democrats still feel that seat on the Supreme Court was stolen from them. None of them have ever indicated that if the situation came up again they'd be in favor of waiting until after the election.

I was going to say that's hypocrisy but technically, I'm not so sure. It seems like it's just a little off from that.

hypocrisy - a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel. The definition of a hypocrite is a person who pretends to have certain beliefs, attitudes or feelings when they really do not.

Are Democrats even pretending to believe in what they are preaching? I don't know.

Do they really believe that justices shouldn't be decided upon until after an election when it's coming up soon?

Or have they never even said that's what they believe and instead only insist that we wait this time because they feel the Republicans cheated them out of Garland, because a few Republicans said last time they believed in not deciding so close to an election, and just because it's to their political advantage right now?

It's not hypocrisy when you don't believe in something at all, you insist loudly and vociferously that you are completely opposed to it, and yet you also insist that the other guy abide by rules you detest anyway. Is there a name for that?
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: Mynnion on September 20, 2020, 08:27:19 AM
Funny how you try and turn around the hypocrisy on the Democrats.  I believe you are correct about the Democrats position.  That isn't the issue they have with the situation.  The hypocrisy is that Mitch and a number of other GOP Senators stated a specific position 4 years ago (some much less than that and refused to give Garland a hearing.  Now they are changing their stated position when it benefits them.  This is hypocrisy and has nothing to do with the Democrats.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 20, 2020, 09:22:45 AM
That I agree with. No doubt the Republicans who took that position back then and are changing it now because their guy is President are hypocrites. I understand the Democrats on that and fully concur. But I see at least a few of them being a little bit misleading now and acting like they've changed their minds too when they really haven't.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: yossarian22c on September 20, 2020, 09:38:39 AM
That I agree with. No doubt the Republicans who took that position back then and are changing it now because their guy is President are hypocrites. I understand the Democrats on that and fully concur.

Thank you Cherry, you are by far the most interesting conservative on this site to read. You're conservative and therefore have a clear party preference. But you aren't Partisan to the extent that you spout the party spin on every issue. Often you have your own ideas as to what is best and express it even when it goes against the party or Trump dogma. 
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: TheDeamon on September 20, 2020, 10:08:28 AM
Or have they never even said that's what they believe and instead only insist that we wait this time because they feel the Republicans cheated them out of Garland, because a few Republicans said last time they believed in not deciding so close to an election, and just because it's to their political advantage right now?

It's not hypocrisy when you don't believe in something at all, you insist loudly and vociferously that you are completely opposed to it, and yet you also insist that the other guy abide by rules you detest anyway. Is there a name for that?

The closest I'm bringing to mind is a weird case of schadenfreude.

In any case, IIRC, I'm still in much the same position now as I was then. The Republicans were making claims to sell their position in 2016 that they didn't really believe. It was then all about the matter of the Senate being majority controlled by an Opposition Party in an election year where they had reason to believe a party change in their favor involving the White House was possible enough to warrant waiting until the lame-duck session to consider the nomination, if at all. They made a bad argument, and gambled on the fact that such specific events are very rare(happening less than once a decade in general) that they wouldn't be caught out on it in 2020, they lost that bet).

Also the argument about needing to get a justice appointed in time for the election disputes that are likely to come is a bit of a misnomer, as it is possible the new appointee may decide to recuse themselves because of "conflict of interest" ties back to the circumstances of their appointment. So they're now making another mistake in presenting that argument as they're all but setting that person up to feel compelled to do so. You just better hope the court doesn't split 4-4.

Now to go find the 2016 discussions.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: TheDeamon on September 20, 2020, 10:35:21 AM
Okay, I mostly bought into the "historical" argument at the time as I was lazy in my research.

But Wayward shared something in 2017 which is useful:

Quote
The "historically unusual" thing about Obama's SCotUS nomination in 2016 was that he made one in the first place. Had the Senate actually gone ahead and confirmed his nominee, it would be without a recent precedent. "Traditionally speaking" in the event of a SCotUS vacancy happening during what is understood to be a Presidents last year in office(8th year), the seat will remain vacant until the next President is elected and assumes office and makes their own nomination.

This is a "tradition" (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/22/mitch-mcconnell/mitch-mcconnell-exaggerates-tradition-not-confirmi/) that was made up by Republicans as a smokescreen for their partisan obstructionism.

Quote
In the past century, there have been 25 presidential elections. Just four Supreme Court seats opened up in those election years. In three of those instances, the Senate confirmed the president’s nominee, and just once — the only election-year court opening in the past 80 years — did the Senate refuse a nominee...

In June 1968, Chief Justice Earl Warren told President Lyndon Johnson he planned to retire. Johnson nominated sitting justice Abe Fortas to succeed Warren as chief. Fortas hit strong bipartisan Senate opposition and asked that his name be withdrawn for chief justice (though he stayed on the court as an associate justice). Johnson had also nominated Homer Thornberry to take Fortas’ place on the court. But that nomination, too, was withdrawn, as Fortas never became chief justice.

While there was some opposition to the Fortas nomination based on the fact that Johnson was a lame duck, Fortas’ failed confirmation primarily resulted from ethical questions over fees he received, his prior decisions and his closeness with Johnson. In any case, the Senate’s decision not to confirm didn’t actually leave a vacant seat on the court because Warren chose to stay on the bench.

There are more examples in the past century of the Senate confirming Supreme Court nominees for seats that open up in election years, though it is still a rare occasion. You have to go back about 80 years, as McConnell correctly noted on Fox News Sunday.

In 1932, President Herbert Hoover nominated, and the Senate confirmed, Benjamin Cardozo. In 1916, Woodrow Wilson nominated John Clarke and Louis Brandeis, and they both made it through the Senate.

McConnell’s talking point also ignores the two instances in the past century when the Senate confirmed Supreme Court nominees in election years, even though the seat opened up in the year prior. In 1988, the Senate confirmed Ronald Reagan’s nominee, Anthony Kennedy, though the seat became vacant in 1987. And in 1940, the Senate confirmed Franklin Roosevelt’s nominee, Frank Murphy, though the seat became vacant in 1939...

Maltese found that since the country’s founding, soon-to-depart presidents have made 32 Supreme Court nominations. Those nominations came within a period ranging from within 365 days of a successor’s election through the successor’s inauguration. Of those 32 nominations, the Senate confirmed 18 — hardly proving that McConnell or his Democratic opponents have reason to claim tradition.

The record shows that Republicans’ inaction on Obama’s nominee is not rooted in some longstanding tradition, especially in the past century.

All of the previous nominees received at least a hearing, if not a vote.

It would have been "historically unusual" if Obama hadn't nominated a SCOTUS justice.  And it is highly unusual, and blatantly partisan, for the Senate to not even hold a hearing for Garland.

Fairness dictates that Garland should at least get a vote, IMHO.

Looks like the 19th Century was more eventful than the 20th and 21st century so far, if there are only 9 examples involving election years being pointed at in that time frame, but politifact was finding 32 nominations and 18 confirmations in total, then it would seem just under half of the nominations in an election year made it to the bench in general.

Would have to drill further on those 23 other examples, although I'd strongly suspect most of those 14 failed nominations were a result of either opposition parties in control of the Senate or (minor) scandals that popped up during the process. It would be in line with only 3 of the 9 examples over the last 120 years involving a mismatched White House and Senate in terms of party control. (It should also be pointed out the due to filibuster use, Johnson's attempt to make nominations never saw a vote as well, being withdrawn prior to the election)
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: wmLambert on September 20, 2020, 11:43:08 AM
...most of those 14 failed nominations were a result of either opposition parties in control of the Senate or (minor) scandals that popped up during the process. It would be in line with only 3 of the 9 examples over the last 120 years involving a mismatched White House and Senate in terms of party control. (It should also be pointed out the due to filibuster use, Johnson's attempt to make nominations never saw a vote as well, being withdrawn prior to the election)

I agree, and the strongest impact has come because of Reid's cloture rules change. With an activist Democrat political party threatening near dictatorial powers, the Supreme Court is a major battlefield. Nadler has already stated that regardless of the RBG nomination, he would pack the court and take it away from whatever the GOP does. The goal is no longer benefiting the nation, but ensuring everlasting political power - to produce a one-party system.

For all who wonder and claim conspiracy theory, here is the whole conspiracy theory as events have defined it:

In late 2019, with Trump's economy the highest-rated and most successful of all time, the DNC was desperate for some October/November surprise to change the probable outcome of the nest election and the dimunition of their power. In Wuhan China, the Wuhan Pharmaceutical research lab, owned by George Soros and Bill Gates, released a virulent virus. China, with close relations with the Democrat Party (Obama, Biden - both Joe and Hunter) kept the virus spreading worldwide while it took actions to protect its own citizens. While The WHO allowed it to spread without warning, Trump blocked free travel from infected hot spots, While he was protecting the nation, the Democrats were busy impeaching him, and holding Pelosi hug-ins in ChinaTown and other super-spreader events to ensure Covis-19 impacting us, they also attacked Trump for racism and Xenophobia.

Once their virus started spreading, they projected their own campaign as Trump's failure to act. Hillary-backing medical bureaucrats urged an economic shutdown aimed at Trump's success. Although only 6% of the deaths attributed to Covid-19 was real, the nation was besieged with terror of the pandemic. The main blue states had allowed their stockpiles of PPE to not be available, and then blamed Trump for their malfeasance. Trump reacted by providing all the PPE and ventilators ever needed, but was still vilified.

As the most endangered people with co-morbidities were put into nursing homes with infected patients, these blue areas pushed their fatality numbers through the roof. Trump supplied hospital facilities to protect the most endangered, but those Dem leaders eschewed their use.

As the lockdown affected the economy, the Dem-funded activists, like AntiFa, BLM, and Occupy Wall Steert looked for a catalyst to allow them to further hurt the economy. George Floyd's death met the bill, and riots broke out - after Blue State leaders let convicted criminals into the street for "medical compassionate reasons" the rioters, now protected by masks, but allowed to gather in numbers disallowed for churches, were let out within hours of being arrested to continue the rioting and looting.

Instead of protecting the citizens of the cities under attack, the police were attacked and defunded by the Democrat leaders, while the complicit MSM went along for the ride.

Now with RBG's death, the Democrats reversed their stance with Merrick Garland, even though it was Harry Reid blowing up the filibuster cloture rules. Hillary said Biden should not concede the election "under any conditions." Nadler said that no matter what happens, the Dems should pack the court. Myriads of Democrat attorneys have been assigned where and how to contest whatever happens with the election.

Now the clock is ticking.

Whether this theory is a conspiracy - or merely entirely factual, it does speak the truth, doesn't it?
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: TheDeamon on September 20, 2020, 12:35:48 PM
That theory is 99% tinfoil, and 1% straw man. With a rounding error going to actual facts.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: wmLambert on September 20, 2020, 01:10:44 PM
That theory is 99% tinfoil, and 1% straw man. With a rounding error going to actual facts.

Actually all the facts are true. The only quibble could be if it was the Dems who planned all this ahead of time, or just took advantage as everything ramped up. Name one thing that is in error.

The economy before the Wuhan Flu was the best economy ever, bar none. Trump reversed the Obama/Biden trend of increasing distance between the haves and have-nots, and was increasing the median income, especially of minorities who floundered under the previous administration.

George Soros and Bill Gates do have ownership in the Wuhan Pharmaceutical lab that has been official names as the release point of the virus - not he wet market.

Nancy was dancing in the streets of ChinaTown hugging recent travelers from hot spots, while Dems called Trump Xenophobic.

Blue states did not maintain their emergency stockpiles of PPEs and Ventilators.

Trump did provide every single thing asked for.

The hospital ships stood empty, while seniors were dying in senior centers.

The bureaucrat medical officials (Fauci for one) shifted from not wearing masks to requiring them.

Lockdowns were everywehre, but worst in Democrat-controlled places (Michigan Governor Whitmer, Casinos could open but not churches.)

Criminals were let out on the streets.

George Floyd was one Black death out of hundreds, expecially in Chicago. Poiceman and first responders, the heroes of 9-11 were demonized.

What was wrong?
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: yossarian22c on September 20, 2020, 01:33:17 PM
That theory is 99% tinfoil, and 1% straw man. With a rounding error going to actual facts.

Actually all the facts are true. George Soros and Bill Gates do have ownership in the Wuhan Pharmaceutical lab that has been official names as the release point of the virus - not he wet market.
...
What was wrong?

https://time.com/5870481/coronavirus-origins/ (https://time.com/5870481/coronavirus-origins/)
Quote
There are many who look at where COVID-19 emerged and see something that can’t be just a co-incidence. In 2017, China minted its first biosecurity-level 4 (bsl-4) laboratory–the highest level cleared to even work with airborne pathogens that have no known vaccines–in Wuhan. Ever since, the country’s foremost expert on bat viruses has been toiling away inside the boxy gray buildings of the WIV. Indeed, when Shi first heard about the outbreak, she herself thought, “Could they have come from our lab?” she recently told Scientific American. An inventory of virus samples reassured her that it hadn’t, she added, yet that hasn’t stopped some from maintaining their suspicions.
...
Still, neither the WHO nor the Five Eyes intelligence network–comprising the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand–has found evidence that COVID-19 originated from Shi’s lab. Canberra has even distanced itself from a U.S.-authored dossier that sought to convince the Australian public that the Five Eyes network had intelligence of a Chinese cover-up. (It appeared to rely exclusively on open-source material.) Meanwhile, scientific peers have rallied to defend Shi from suspicion. “She is everything a senior scientist should be,” says Miller, who has collaborated with Shi on various studies. The Wuhan Institute of Virology did not respond to requests for comment.

Available evidence suggests COVID-19 leaped from wild animal to human.

I don't think you and I agree on the definition of officially named. Unless you just mean an official said it without providing supporting evidence.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: TheDeamon on September 20, 2020, 02:21:35 PM
For all who wonder and claim conspiracy theory, here is the whole conspiracy theory as events have defined it:

In late 2019, with Trump's economy the highest-rated and most successful of all time, the DNC was desperate for some October/November surprise to change the probable outcome of the nest election and the dimunition of their power. In Wuhan China, the Wuhan Pharmaceutical research lab, owned by George Soros and Bill Gates, released a virulent virus. China, with close relations with the Democrat Party (Obama, Biden - both Joe and Hunter) kept the virus spreading worldwide while it took actions to protect its own citizens. While The WHO allowed it to spread without warning, Trump blocked free travel from infected hot spots, While he was protecting the nation, the Democrats were busy impeaching him, and holding Pelosi hug-ins in ChinaTown and other super-spreader events to ensure Covis-19 impacting us, they also attacked Trump for racism and Xenophobia.

That is full tinfoil, if only because of the audacity of claiming Bill Gates and George Soros would do something in China without the consent of the CCP, something which you conspicuously kept absent in your theory. But so long as we're playing favored bogeyman scenarios, let us explore "more plausible China option."

Quote
In late 2019, with Trump's economy the highest-rated and most successful of all time, the DNCCCP was desperate for some October/November surprise to change the probable outcome of the nestnext election and the dimunitiondiminution of their power. In Wuhan China, the Wuhan Pharmaceutical research lab, owned by George Soros and Bill Gates,the CCP has had an ongoing dissident problem from the forced relocations as a result of the Three Gorges Dam project, it also had research labs in that province working on naturally occurring Corona Virus samples, and some CCP officials saw a chance to possibly achieve multiple things at once, so they "accidentally" released a virulent"promising strain" of the virus through the wet market. ChinaThe CCP then tested their own ability to respond to such an outbreak, and the abilities of the rest of the world to address the spread of a highly contagious and threatening virus for which no medical counters were readily available. with Using their close relations with the Democrat Party (Obama, Biden - both Joe and Hunter) the CCP kept the virus spreading worldwide while it took actions to protect its own citizens, as this was a "dry run" to see what the consequences of a real world Biological agent could look like and avoid too much blame, after all, it was a naturally occurring virus.

Mostly though, the CCP would have virtually no need, or desire to communicate to anyone else what was going on. The more people who know, the more chance word will get out. They know the Democrats aren't completely stupid, and expected them to find ways to make political hay out of it. In the meantime, they were busier trying to tie up "loose ends" on who knew about the "accident" and trying to limit the damage to just their "problem province" while watching their real world biowarfare "simulation" unfold in real time and needing to play suitably dumb at the same time.

Edit to add: It is also entirely possible the initial release was carried out by some over-confident local party officials and the central government was unaware until after it had been done. Which could account for some of the oddities about the very early stuff which happened in Wuhan. It was released "to teach the locals" and they thought they'd be able to contain it. But once they learned local resolution wasn't possible, and the Central Government became involved, the plan morphed from its initial intent along the way(in part thanks to all the foreigners in Wuhan).

This scenario is also almost entirely made up of tinfoil.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: wmLambert on September 20, 2020, 05:28:27 PM
...I don't think you and I agree on the definition of officially named. Unless you just mean an official said it without providing supporting evidence.

That July 23 article you posted has been superseded. Real scientists and researches have said the virus was not from animal sources and definitely from a lab. The Wuhan lab owned by Soros and Gates, is the only high-level lab that could have produced it, regardless that it is their proximity.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: DonaldD on September 20, 2020, 06:17:56 PM
Real scientists and researches have said the virus was not from animal sources and definitely from a lab. The Wuhan lab owned by Soros and Gates, is the only high-level lab that could have produced it, regardless that it is their proximity.
Something to think about, if you are able: you seemingly believe, at least according to what you choose to write, that Democrats and their supporters are the root of all evil, bad, terrible things.  Also you seem to believe that Republicans, who may not be the source of everything good, are certainly never the cause of anything bad, and are universally without fault.

Try, if you can, to figure out the mechanisms by which that is possible.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: wmLambert on September 20, 2020, 06:31:36 PM
For all who wonder and claim conspiracy theory, here is the whole conspiracy theory as events have defined it:

In late 2019, with Trump's economy the highest-rated and most successful of all time, the DNC was desperate for some October/November surprise to change the probable outcome of the nest election and the dimunition of their power. In Wuhan China, the Wuhan Pharmaceutical research lab, owned by George Soros and Bill Gates, released a virulent virus. China, with close relations with the Democrat Party (Obama, Biden - both Joe and Hunter) kept the virus spreading worldwide while it took actions to protect its own citizens. While The WHO allowed it to spread without warning, Trump blocked free travel from infected hot spots, While he was protecting the nation, the Democrats were busy impeaching him, and holding Pelosi hug-ins in ChinaTown and other super-spreader events to ensure Covis-19 impacting us, they also attacked Trump for racism and Xenophobia.

That is full tinfoil, if only because of the audacity of claiming Bill Gates and George Soros would do something in China without the consent of the CCP, something which you conspicuously kept absent in your theory. But so long as we're playing favored bogeyman scenarios, let us explore "more plausible China option."

You ignore all the facts and call a small part of it tinfoil citing the Chinese government had to be in on it. No, anyone in the lab could have engineered the outbreak without CCP knowledge. The release may have been accidental. There is little doubt now where it originated - and not from animals. Once it was out, they certainly managed to ensure its spread. I never said this was all confirmed solidly enough to put before the bench, just that it is the conspiracy theory, and how well it holds together.

...Mostly though, the CCP would have virtually no need, or desire to communicate to anyone else what was going on. The more people who know, the more chance word will get out. They know the Democrats aren't completely stupid, and expected them to find ways to make political hay out of it. In the meantime, they were busier trying to tie up "loose ends" on who knew about the "accident" and trying to limit the damage to just their "problem province" while watching their real world biowarfare "simulation" unfold in real time and needing to play suitably dumb at the same time.

Edit to add: It is also entirely possible the initial release was carried out by some over-confident local party officials and the central government was unaware until after it had been done. Which could account for some of the oddities about the very early stuff which happened in Wuhan. It was released "to teach the locals" and they thought they'd be able to contain it. But once they learned local resolution wasn't possible, and the Central Government became involved, the plan morphed from its initial intent along the way(in part thanks to all the foreigners in Wuhan).

This scenario is also almost entirely made up of tinfoil.

Wrong again. That is just the "Plan 'B'" to deflect attention from the main theory. The Government may as well have been kept out of the loop until too late to prevent anything. That everything they seemed to do guaranteed international transmission is another fact. Whether that was collusion or incompetency is moot.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: yossarian22c on September 20, 2020, 08:07:33 PM
...I don't think you and I agree on the definition of officially named. Unless you just mean an official said it without providing supporting evidence.

That July 23 article you posted has been superseded. Real scientists and researches have said the virus was not from animal sources and definitely from a lab. The Wuhan lab owned by Soros and Gates, is the only high-level lab that could have produced it, regardless that it is their proximity.

Not quite sure what you're referring too? The Yan study? Sorry I prefer my science peer reviewed and not funded by Steve Bannon. Got anything better.

Quote
A draft study associated with a group founded by former Trump adviser Steve Bannon is giving new life to social media claims that the coronavirus was manufactured intentionally in a Chinese lab.

The study, which has not been peer-reviewed, was released Monday by Chinese virologist Li-Meng Yan and three colleagues. It claims to show evidence the virus did not originate in nature.

...

 In a paper titled “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2” published in Nature in March, scientists with Scripps Research who studied the genome sequence of the virus concluded that it originated through natural processes. By looking at the virus’s molecular structure, they were able to determine that the backbone of the virus differed from coronaviruses already known to scientists and rather it resembled viruses found in bats and pangolins.
https://apnews.com/afs:Content:9391149002 (https://apnews.com/afs:Content:9391149002)

Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: wmLambert on September 20, 2020, 10:24:59 PM
...you seemingly believe, at least according to what you choose to write, that Democrats and their supporters are the root of all evil, bad, terrible things.  Also you seem to believe that Republicans, who may not be the source of everything good, are certainly never the cause of anything bad, and are universally without fault.

Try, if you can, to figure out the mechanisms by which that is possible.

More deflection and disinformation. Once you understand that the Democrats have followed the principle that the ends justify the means, everything makes sense. they don't believe it is evil - just pragmatic. the GOP has never been absolved of its stupidity and swamp denizens of its own. Do not make this an either/or contst.

I work from the starting point that Carville and Begala published to chastise the party for being too nice and to go for the throat. The whole attempted coup was inexcusable. Anyone who dismisses that as a side show needs help. Hillary broke the law. I read the code and it specifically says that intent or lack thereof, cannot excuse the crime - even though her intent was undeniable. She only got off because her entire staff was granted immunity, so there was no one left to interrogate. This is collusion by the Comey FBI to let her get away. There is no doubt she broke the law. That all defines the party. Yes, there is a legacy of Dems getting away with crimes. This is no Conspiracy theory, just the way the party operates. The GOP are not Saints, but that does nor excuse Dem perfidy.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 20, 2020, 11:11:18 PM
A nice article here with lots of quotes from the various players.

https://news.yahoo.com/pelosi-wont-rule-impeachment-delay-145600524.html

Pelosi refused to rule out impeaching Trump for the total non-crime of nominating a Supreme Court justice.

Schumer suggests an openness to expanding aka packing the Court.

Obama apparently doesn't see the irony in his statement, "A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment." That's exactly what the Democrats are doing here, applying rules they don't even agree with because of what's advantageous in the moment.

That goes for Bill Clinton's statement too: "Today it seems that Senator McConnell has lost his faith in the judgment of the American people and wants to hurry up and put somebody on the court." So Bill Clinton is saying that Obama and the Democrats including Pelosi had lost faith in the judgment of the American people when they wanted to hurry up and put Garland on the court? Knowing history makes his premise preposterous.


McConnell made the most sense when he said that, "there was not a contradiction in his two stances because the Senate and White House were under control of differing parties at that time, where as now Republicans control both. In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia's death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president's second term," he said in a statement. "We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president's Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year."

Exactly so.

And does anyone deny that the Democrats would do anything in their power to put their person in no matter what?

Just like this observation in the article: "Republicans countered that if Democrats held both the White House and Senate, they too would move forward with a nomination — regardless of circumstance."

Truer words were never written.

And the talk about packing the Court? So if Republicans win the House, Senate, and Presidency maybe they should put a hundred justices on the Supreme Court, or a thousand, or a million? Down that path lies insanity.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: TheDeamon on September 21, 2020, 01:20:26 AM
McConnell made the most sense when he said that, "there was not a contradiction in his two stances because the Senate and White House were under control of differing parties at that time, where as now Republicans control both. In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia's death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president's second term," he said in a statement. "We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president's Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year."

Not technically correct, one of his caucus members had it properly phrased in 2016.

Reagan had a SCotUS Nomination confirmed in the spring of 1988, although the vacancy was created in November of 1987.  1988 was a Presidential election year.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: TheDeamon on September 21, 2020, 01:22:25 AM
And the talk about packing the Court? So if Republicans win the House, Senate, and Presidency maybe they should put a hundred justices on the Supreme Court, or a thousand, or a million? Down that path lies insanity.

Down that path lies a constitutional amendment should one of the parties actually follow through on trying to pack the court. So far, it only seems that the Democrats are party who wants to try to do that, FDR in the 1930's, and now some rank and file Dems today.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: TheDeamon on September 21, 2020, 02:45:39 AM
McConnell made the most sense when he said that, "there was not a contradiction in his two stances because the Senate and White House were under control of differing parties at that time, where as now Republicans control both. In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia's death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president's second term," he said in a statement. "We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president's Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year."

Further checking on this:

George Shiras Jr confirmed July 26, 1892; Republican President -Republican Senate
Melville Fuller confirmed April 30, 1888;  Democract President - Republican Senate
William Burnham Woods confirmed December 15, 1880 Republican President-Democrat Senate (Next president was also Republican; incoming senate was "split" as per Wiki)
Stanley Matthews nominated January 26, 1881 and the nomination lapsed, re-nominated by next (Republican) President, confirmed May 12, 1881
Ward Hunt confirmed December 3, 1872, Republican President -Republican Senate; also the president(Grant) had won re-election.
Salmon P. Chase confirmed December 6, 1864, Republican President -Republican Senate; President(Lincoln) had won re-election.

Samuel Nelson confirmed by a Whig Senate on December 4, 1844, nominated by lame duck President Tyler(elected as a Whig, but expelled from the party). Next president was a Democrat and the next Senate majority was Democratic party as well.

Tyler also nominated 4 other people to the court starting in January 1844, some of them two or three times each. 1 was rejected outright, 4 nominations were withdrawn, one was postponed(to be withdrawn later), and another once he was truly a lame duck(february 1845) simply lapsed.

Peter Vivian Daniel was nominated by a lame duck Democrat(Van Buren) on Feb 26, 1841; and confirmed by a lame duck Democratic Senate on Feb 26, 1841. The next President was a member of the Whig Party, and the new Senate Majority was also Whig Party. Although President Harrison would go on to get sick and die immediately after assuming office, and his VP(Tyler) had issues already addressed.

John Quicy Adams also attempted a Lame Duck appointment, but the pro-Jackson Senate majority postponed the hearing and it never happened.
Going further back you have Jefferson managing to get a SCotUS nominee accepted in the spring of 1804 with a friendly(Democrat) Senate.
John Adam slipped in a SCotUS appointment during his lame duck period in January 1801, but the also lame-duck (Federalist) Senate was aligned with him politically.

Presidential election year nominations in general seem reasonably rare, and it is evidently even more rare for such an event to coincide with the President not being in the same party as the Senate majority.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: yossarian22c on September 21, 2020, 09:21:52 AM
I would support a constitutional amendment that made SC seats be 18 year appointments. One appointment every 2 years. No president ever gets to appoint more than 4 and we can stop appointing younger and younger people to the court in hopes of influencing the court for 30, 40, or 50 years.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: fizz on September 21, 2020, 10:04:58 AM
I've to say that witnessing all this mess quite confirmed in my opinion the idea that our own constituent assembly, when decided to make the judiciary a totally independent, autonomous and purely career-based branch had exactly the right idea.
It does not save them from making the occasional blunder, but generally speaking they manage to outrage all parties equally, one time or another.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: yossarian22c on September 21, 2020, 11:44:16 AM
https://www.npr.org/2017/04/04/522598965/going-nuclear-how-we-got-here (https://www.npr.org/2017/04/04/522598965/going-nuclear-how-we-got-here)

From the graph you can see why the filibuster was eliminated for judicial nominees by Harry Reid under Obama. Mitch blew up the senate by filibustering everything. Before he became Senate minority leader the previous record for filibusters in a year was 82 by a democratic minority under Clinton. In the final year before the filibuster was eliminated for executive appointments (excluding the SC) Mitch led 253 filibusters.

So yes Harry Reid took the first step in removing the filibuster for judicial appointments under Obama but it was because Mitch decided that Obama didn't get to appoint any judges in his second term. Reid left the filibuster in place for the highest court.

Let's also not forget that there were 3 DC circuit positions left vacant for years under Obama, Mitch claimed the DC circuit had too many judges therefore they didn't need to be filled. Until Trump became president and then suddenly Mitch was okay filling them. Mitch and Trump also did away with the tradition that Judge appointments within a state would be acceptable to the Senators from that state. You can point fingers wherever you like but the truth of the matter is that Mitch McConnel will be the man known for destroying the traditions of the Senate. For his efforts 1/4 of the federal Judiciary will have been appointed by Trump. I hope the price to our country is worth paying. Because I fully expect that after this supreme court nomination gets rammed through the next rules of the Senate will eliminate the Filibuster for everything. Minority rights will be dead there, it will be like the house just with a different composition that more strongly favors republicans. If the dems take power, statehood for DC would be a likelihood. Gives them another seat in the house along with 2 in the Senate to better hold onto power with.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: Lloyd Perna on September 21, 2020, 12:16:25 PM
Bush had 14 judicial nominees withdrawn and 177 to never get a vote. Obama had 4 withdrawn and 87 to never get a vote. Even with McConnell holding it up for Obama’s last two years, Bush had more than twice the blocked judicial nominations.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: Mynnion on September 21, 2020, 02:11:07 PM
Will Mitch schedule the vote before or after the election?  With several Senate seats up for grabs I can see a benefit in delay.  If Collins and ILK win they can claim support for the vote.  If they lose it will be six years before they can run again so why not vote to confirm.  Trump only needs to nominate to gain support so there is no benefit to him.  Thoughts?
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: TheDeamon on September 21, 2020, 02:49:30 PM
The other option is for the Senate to go into recess for a few weeks and let Trump pull an Eisenhower, the seat will then be filled until the congress of 2021 confirms a permanent replacement.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: Wayward Son on September 21, 2020, 05:29:21 PM
When the confirmation process comes around, you just know it will be like this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAOpzB3QYLg)  :(
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: DonaldD on September 21, 2020, 06:19:41 PM
One huge benefit of pushing forward with the confirmation process, as quickly as possible.Available oxygen, meet sucking action.

How many people are talking about 204,000 people dead from COVID-19, today? Case counts trending upwards? The west coast on fire? The Woodward book?  The CDC flip-flop?
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: Mynnion on September 21, 2020, 06:56:29 PM
It is definitely changing the conversation but Mitch better make darn sure he has the votes before he pushes forward.  He's lost two so two more is all that's needed.  A confirmation lose before the election would not be good for bringing out GOP voters.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 21, 2020, 07:52:48 PM
Thinking again about principles it's interesting that none of the Democrats are holding to their own here. None of them are saying, you know what, yeah we did get cheated out of a Supreme Court justice but when we said that the President did deserve to have his choice voted on in the Senate, we meant it. And now we're going to prove it by insisting that Trump's nominee get her vote just like Garland should have. And next time when the situation is reversed again we hope the Republicans will remember our magnanimity. I mean we don't even hear a few Democrat voices calling out from the wilderness with something like that even knowing that the Democrats in charge wouldn't let it fly so there is nothing to lose by standing by their so called principles, the ones they insisted on before. That's interesting. Fairly predictable but still interesting. Everyone's supposed principles seem to only exist when they provide a tangible benefit and are advantageous, both for Democrats and Republicans.

Democrats: "So uh... yeah. You Republicans didn't really believe any of what you were saying about how nominations shouldn't be done during an election year now did you?"

Republicans: "Well you got us there. I guess we really didn't. But you Democrats never did believe any of what you were saying either about how even in an election year a nominee deserves an up and down vote, did you?"

Democrats: "Nope."
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: LetterRip on September 21, 2020, 08:17:45 PM
Actually if the Republicans want to nominate Garland, Democrats would probably be fine with that.  Then if Garland is rejected move to Obama's next pick etc.  Till either an Obama pick is accepted or the next President takes office.

That would show that Republicans aren't just crass liars.  It is perfectly reasonable for Democrats to hold Republicans to their claimed principle or the Republicans can 'make it right', but suggesting that Republicans shouldn't be called out for their lies or for consistency to be argued for is absurd.


Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: wmLambert on September 21, 2020, 09:27:55 PM
Today,, Rush Limbaugh's opening monologue was spot-on.

Quote
RUSH: The frenzy, the panic, the out-of-controlism that the Democrat Party finds itself in, it’s all self-recrimination. They brought all of this on themselves, and they know it, and they are fit to be tied. They may want to try to blame all of this on Donald Trump, but they can’t. They have only got their own arrogance and their own presumptuous stupidity to blame for this.

Because they thought two things. They thought they would never lose in 2016, and especially they thought they would never lose to Donald Trump. So they could play around with the filibuster and they could play around with the confirmation process, could do everything they wanted to do when they ran the show, because it was all gonna benefit them.

But then they lost the show. They lost the show, 2014, 2016, 2018, they lost the Senate. The Senate is the show when talking about all of this. And they lost it. And so all of those things they did to empower themselves in perpetuity then redounded to the Republicans. And it was they, the Republicans, that got to use those levers of power.

They blew it three times, folks. After Obama’s reelection in 2012, they lost the Senate three times, as I just said, 2014, 2016, 2018. Then Dingy Harry, Harry Reid, Democrat leader in the Senate, in 2013, he ditched the judicial filibuster, meaning no reason, no requirement to get to 60 votes before you can vote on confirmation. A simple 51-vote majority, ’cause they were thinking already of packing the court.

In 2008 through 2024 they were dreaming of 16 years of Democrat presidencies, and they could steamroll appointments, pack the court, they could forever shape the Supreme Court into being something the Republicans would never, ever have any power over or control of ever again, except they lost the Senate. The next year, after Dingy Harry did this in 2014, they lost the Senate.

Now it’s all Trump’s fault. Now it’s Mr. Orange Man’s fault, ladies and gentlemen. Ginsburg, Justice Ginsburg. You know, she gambled, and it didn’t pan out, sadly. Justice Ginsburg — and everybody’s now saying this, including the Democrats — that when she was 81 or 82, she should have resigned when Obama had the Senate in 2013 and throughout the year 2014. That’s the campaign year, the Democrats lost it so the new Senate impaneled, ’15 is when it actually began Republican control.

But you see, in their arrogance, in their condescending arrogance, they thought Hillary Clinton would win. They thought she was invincible. They thought she and they would both all outlast Trump, Mr. Orange Man. Now they’re crazy. They’re going crazy ’cause they know all of this. Mr. Snerdley, they know all of this. They know they did this to themselves.

So now they’re coming along and trying to ignore that as far as the public opinion is concerned, and they’re trying to make it look like the Republicans played all these conniving, screaming games and it’s about time for the Republicans to fix what they broke. And the way the Republicans can do that is for Trump not to name a nominee and for Trump not to have a vote.

Let me tell you what’s gonna happen, folks. Trump’s gonna name a replacement. And there’s gonna be a vote. And you know what else? It is plain as day in the Constitution, there are two things here that are required. The president nominates a replacement; the Senate does it’s advice and consent. Do you realize there’s nothing about the Judiciary Committee conducting hearings? That’s just something that evolved. That’s not a requirement.

If McConnell wants to, because you know, to hell with this, we don’t have enough time. We’re just gonna go straight to the vote. And he can do it. Whether he will or not, I don’t know, but he should. Folks, this is it. This is it. Not all of it, but this is one of the “its” that Trump’s election was all about, this is it, the shaping of the Supreme Court. And the Democrats know it. Donald Trump was elected in 2016. He had gone public with his Supreme Court nominee list. Trump is way out ahead.

You know, Biden still won’t do it, and until Biden does that, until Biden furnishes a list, there should be nobody taking anybody on the Democrat side seriously about delaying the naming of a replacement for Ruth Ginsburg. No way. Biden probably doesn’t even have a list. It’s whoever’s running Biden that has the list. And they don’t want to release it. But until they do, we can’t have a serious discussion about this whole thing.

But the bottom line is this is it. We need this seat in the hands of a conservative, and it needs to happen as soon as possible. It is now a relevant part of the election. I told you, I told you things are gonna shape the election that haven’t even happened yet, told you this last week before Ruth Ginsburg passed away. Do not doubt me. And the Democrats know the position that they are in.

Now, they’re out there, they’re threatening things. But the problem is they’ve been threatening this for years, so it’s no longer a threat. It’s kind of like your uncle at Thanksgiving dinner that won’t show up and you send him up to the third floor attic for the rest of the day. They say that if they win everything in 2020, if they win the White House and if they capture the Senate and then hold on to the House, they’re gonna end the Senate filibuster for everything, which means that legislation will just be rubber — they’re threatening everybody. They are promising, slash, threatening to pack the court, 15 to 16 new total, 15 to 16.

There are nine there now, but add six. That would put ’em at 15. Make ’em all commie bastard leftists, and they’re gonna do this, they say, ASAP. Look, I’ve been the one telling you this is what they’re gonna do. Have you ever wondered how I knew it? Aside from my brilliant political and analytical skills, they’ve been telling everybody they’re trying to do this. They’ve been trying to scare everybody and they’ve been using it as a way to hype their own base.

And then they are gonna ditch the Electoral College by, you know, voter compact — They want to get rid of the Electoral College. And they — By the way, if they run everything, they can change the number of justices on the Supreme Court. Congress set up the court system. Congress long ago did. Congress has control over it, according to the Constitution. So, no, we call it packing the court, but they can do it if they want, and if they control everything, the Republicans are not gonna have the votes to stop them, folks, which is the key.

Oh, and then the statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. That would give them four brand-new Senate seats, and they would all four be commie bastard leftists. Oh, and then for good measure, they would add 16-year-old voting. They’re doing that in California. And felon voting.

I mean, folks, they’re gonna have to scrape the proverbial bottom of the barrel to get close to having a voting majority because as things stand, the Democrat Party, the radical left are nowhere near being a majority in this country. It’s one of the greatest scams that the media has succeeded in running, making it look like you and I and people on our side are outnumbered. We are not, and it’s not even close yet, but it’s dangerously trending.

These guys, the Democrats, they’re socialist revolutionaries. They want to change the rules to stay in power permanently. And they will if they win the White House and if they win the Senate. I think Trump should name his replacement. I don’t know who it’s gonna be. He could screw everybody up here — not screw everybody. He could confound everybody by naming a white male. Can you imagine? I don’t think that’s gonna be — (laughing) Oh, but if he did that… (laughing)

I don’t know who it’s gonna be, but let’s say that it is an Hispanic female from Florida — and there is one available — I want to see the Democrats for two weeks, for four weeks, I want to see them trash an Hispanic female. I want to see them Kavanaugh an Hispanic female. I want to watch them do this. I want to watch them try to get away with it. (interruption) You don’t think they will? (interruption)

They would do it like they did Miguel Estrada, absolutely, like they did Clarence Thomas, like they do any other conservative minority, they would get on ’em for being traitors, failures, phonies, bought and paid for by the white establishment. Oh. There’s no question that they would do it. (interruption) Yeah, that’s probably right. They’d call her the second “white Hispanic.” The first “white Hispanic” was George Zimmerman. The first “white Hispanic,” guy that caused Trayvon Martin to be deceased. The New York Times, the first “white Hispanic.” She would be the second “white Hispanic,” is how they would do it.

You know, I mentioned that the Judiciary Committee does not have to do its thing. It’s become a tradition, but it’s not a requirement. And since Trump has already driven them crazy, I mean, long before today, they are crazy, then why not just blow up another tradition? Because, I’ll tell you, that’s how we’re gonna maintain the ones that matter. It is the very traditions and institutions that define this country that the left has in its crosshairs. They have to be defeated. This Supreme Court seat has to be confirmed, it has to be named and confirmed before the election.

All this talk about waiting ’til after the election, Donald Trump was elected in 2016 on the very basis of the fact that he had a list of names, and people were able to judge those names and his candidacy as a result. The 2020 election has nothing to do with this Supreme Court seat, folks. It has nothing to do with it. Don’t fall for this idea that, “This is so close to the election. We need to wait. We need to wait for the election so that the right president gets to make –” No, no, no. We’ve already voted on the president that gets to make this pick, and Donald Trump is he.

The 2016 election is what this nomination is about. Not the 2020 election, both in terms of timeline, legalities, and common sense, the 2020 election has nothing to do with this Supreme Court opening. I want the Judiciary Committee — I think it’d be great if it were skipped. We don’t need to open that up for whatever length of time so that whoever this nominee is can be Kavanaughed or Borked or Thomased. Because that’s what it’s gonna be, especially when it’s not even required.

In addition, there are people on the Judiciary Committee who need to be out campaigning in October, not trying to deflect leftist attempts to distort the nominee’s junior high school yearbook. And when the vote count is assured, Mitch McConnell needs to take it straight to the floor of the Senate and have the vote. And you know Murkowski and Collins and Romney, you three, you need to look at this a different way. You were elected, your voters presumed that you’re gonna be there at times like this. Don’t tell me your voters don’t also support Donald Trump.

You people, Romney, Murkowski, Collins, you are on the cusp of misreading your own voters about this. But when the vote count is assured, go straight to the floor for a vote. You know why? That protects senators from being all-out attacked by the Democrat mobs. It stops a whole bunch of that. We don’t want to give Kamala Harris the opportunity to grandstand in that committee as a vice presidential running mate of Plugs.

RUSH: Here’s another thing too. Trump has said that he is going to wait until after Justice Ginsburg has been buried — which is gonna be at Arlington National Cemetery — before naming the nominee. A lot of people on our side, I heard from ’em today, started panicking. There are people that are afraid if Trump doesn’t name the nominee today, that it’s all gonna get destroyed and it’s gonna get lost, that we’re gonna lose the momentum, that we’re gonna lose what we’ve got going for us right now.

And I don’t subscribe to that theory. The theory on the part of those who are a little worried about this is that the Democrats can delay and delay and delay the actual burial of Justice Ginsburg until after the election if they want, which they can’t. There’s a whole host of reasons why.

Now, Trump has said today, even despite the announcement that she’s gonna be buried in Arlington National, Trump said today he’s gonna name his pick Friday or Saturday, regardless which side of the grass Justice Ginsburg is on. And I think the president knows what he’s doing here. In fact, there’s a quote I saw the president said, “We got all the time in the world.” And the way he’s looking at this, the more time — nobody’s thinking of delaying this beyond the election. Don’t panic over that. The more time there is here, the more time there is for the left to go bonkers on this. There’s more time for the left to go literally crazy and try to affect or impact whether Trump names anybody or not or whether there’s a vote or not.

But then there’s another thing. The longer that Trump can keep this whole thing as a lead item, that’s less time that COVID-19 can spend occupying lead news story status and you can’t rule that out. But I think Trump’s thinking is the more time there is here, the greater the opportunity the Democrats and the left are gonna make abject, total fools of themselves.

Do you think, for example, it helps them to be out there promising to pack the Supreme Court? Do you think it helps them to be claiming that what they’re gonna do is grant statehood to Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia so they get four brand-new Democrat senators for life? Think that helps them? ‘Cause they’re out there threatening to do it. And the threat, by the way, has been met with snoozes and crickets because how many times can you make the threat before it loses its impact? And they’ve made the threat so many times, and everybody’s aware this is what they’re gonna do now. So there’s no shock value to it. There’s no surprise in it.

RUSH: Now, you know another thing, folks. You know that from here to the election the Democrats have a series of these bombshells. Every two or three days, there’s something new. The past four years it has been at least every week, sometimes every day, but they’ve had something new every week. We’ve been talking about it. You know that they’ve got a list. They’ve got a whole series of these bombshells that they had lined up, that they were gonna drop every other day up until the election.

You have to ask what the press is gonna do with all of those. Those bombshells are just gonna accumulate, they not gonna be dropped? Because the press is saying, we’ve got to stay focused on make sure Trump does not name this replacement, make sure there’s not a vote. Here, you watch. COVID, masks, they could theoretically become nonissues real quickly, too, as all of this overwhelms everything.

This is the last thing the Democrats thought, the last thing the Democrats ever counted on happening. That’s why I say the events that shape elections largely have yet to happen, especially when you’re a month out. Way too much can still happen, and in this situation, they weren’t ready at all. And you can see it. They’re panicking every which way from Sunday.

RUSH: Harry Reid dumped the Senate rule for 60 votes to close debate to fill judicial vacancies. Harry Reid ended the filibuster for judicial nominees, which is why we even have a discussable issue here. Harry Reid made it possible for Donald Trump or any Republican president to appoint justices with a simple majority. And we talked about this earlier. Harry Reid did this because he thought the Democrats were going to win and keep the Senate interminably in the future.

Except they lost the Senate 2014, 2016, 2018, which was the last election, thereby Republicans run the Senate means Trump can pick anybody, and they only need a simple majority, which, as I said earlier, if Murkowski and Collins decide to abstain — you know, they can vote “present” and express their disagreement with the process but not vote against the nominee. If they did that — and it’s likely, or possible — then all the Republicans would need was 48 votes in the Senate to confirm, not 51.

So Harry Reid — we’re talking about political competence here, right? And the theory is that it’s the Democrats, the Democrats are the ones we need to entrust our country to because they’re the ones that have the political know-how and the political wherewithal. These are the people who are best capable of representing Americans. They understand the political system. Right. So here’s Harry Reid blowing it for the Democrats forever.

Then Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She should have retired when Obama was president, thereby allowing him to pick somebody that’s gonna be on that court another 30 to 40 years. But she didn’t. She didn’t have any idea that Donald Trump was gonna win. Nobody did. It was not possible. So now Trump won, he gets to pick her replacement.

And then the third thing, the Democrats have nominated somebody with dementia. And that would be Joe Biden. So Harry Reid blowing it, Ruth Bader Ginsburg making the wrong bet, the Democrats have nominated a guy with dementia. Now the Democrats are — what else? — they are rioting, they are looting, they are burning down their own, and our, cities, cities in states and cities they control.

Democrats sigh that if the Republicans follow the Constitution they’re gonna burn down the country. I’ve got the tweets. The Democrats are tweeting they’re gonna burn it all down. They are not going to save anything.

Now, obviously we have to allow for some fevered emotional overreaction here. But they’re already demonstrating that they are more than capable of burning down businesses and other people’s property. So it’s not an idle threat. The Democrat Party is a destructive, hateful, selfish political party, and they do not deserve to be anywhere near the levers of power as currently constituted.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: DonaldD on September 21, 2020, 09:37:17 PM
Well, that explains a lot.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: wmLambert on September 21, 2020, 09:50:53 PM
Well, that explains a lot.

Yes, it does. And the main point is the Democrats were "Hoist by their own petard." They planned this, and screwed up. Now they are on the wrong side of their own plan and are trying to project their whole mess onto the other side.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: DonaldD on September 21, 2020, 10:49:44 PM
Actually, I was talking about your taking Limbaugh as some type of source, presumably seriously.  It explains a lot.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: Fenring on September 22, 2020, 04:17:44 AM
Actually I don't have any difficulty believing that the DNC constructed long-term plans on the certainty that Hillary would win. What exactly they planned, and whether this issue was part of it, I don't know, but it's a sure thing that many, many plans were torn apart by Trump winning. I have no doubt they have been going apes*** for 3 years at least in part because of that.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: wmLambert on September 22, 2020, 11:11:14 AM
Actually, I was talking about your taking Limbaugh as some type of source, presumably seriously.  It explains a lot.

Your comeback is indicative of you buying into disinformation, You act like you actually believe that Limbaugh produced Fake information. Early on, when he became a nuisance for the Left, they lied about him and put two labels on him, both lies: First, he lies. To counter that, he hired actual researchers to check his facts. He runs at over 99% undisputed truth. Who does better? The second lie is that he yells and screams and is rude. To counter that, he is THE most polite commentator on radio. He never raises his voice. He has won the award for most polite radio host year after year. He does what no one else does. He allows anyone on his show to speak, then rephrases what they said to be sure he understands what they meant to say, and then asked them if he got it right, then he answers them, then listens to their reaction to what he said. Usually, they agree with him.

Your laughter by intimidation that he should not be respected or listened to defines you, not him.,
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: rightleft22 on September 22, 2020, 11:19:40 AM
Quote
Republicans have secured the numbers needed to ensure that President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee will face a confirmation vote in the Senate.

Is there any point of having a confirmation?
How can anyone give their vote before they know what they are voting for?

I get that this is a done deal and why... but those Senators should be ashamed. They should have at least pretended that they had some independent thoughts on the matter of who would be a good choice.

So much for Checks and Balances
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: wmLambert on September 22, 2020, 11:31:11 AM
Quote
Republicans have secured the numbers needed to ensure that President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee will face a confirmation vote in the Senate.

Is there any point of having a confirmation?
How can anyone give their vote before they know what they are voting for?

I get that this is a done deal and why... but those Senators should be ashamed. They should have at least pretended that they had some independent thoughts on the matter of who would be a good choice.

Not true. The Constitution says the Senate must vote on Confirmation - not hold any hearings. It was the Democrat Harry Reid who changed the threat of filibuster to eliminate obstruction. The Jurists have been on the list for a long time, and they all have the highest ratings from vetting organizations that all parties trust. The only reason for a hearing , as defined by recent hearings we've seen, is for the opposition party to grandstand and throw bricks. When Barr was being "interviewed" he was not even allowed to speak. Why put the nation through that? What good does it do to allow "Borking" a nominee? Since Reid allows a simple majority, which is already guaranteed, why wait, when we'll need an odd-number Court to rule on the expected election lawsuits?
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: yossarian22c on September 22, 2020, 11:38:21 AM
Quote
Republicans have secured the numbers needed to ensure that President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee will face a confirmation vote in the Senate.

Is there any point of having a confirmation?
How can anyone give their vote before they know what they are voting for?

I get that this is a done deal and why... but those Senators should be ashamed. They should have at least pretended that they had some independent thoughts on the matter of who would be a good choice.

Not true. The Constitution says the Senate must vote on Confirmation - not hold any hearings. It was the Democrat Harry Reid who changed the threat of filibuster to eliminate obstruction. The Jurists have been on the list for a long time, and they all have the highest ratings from vetting organizations that all parties trust. The only reason for a hearing , as defined by recent hearings we've seen, is for the opposition party to grandstand and throw bricks. When Barr was being "interviewed" he was not even allowed to speak. Why put the nation through that? What good does it do to allow "Borking" a nominee? Since Reid allows a simple majority, which is already guaranteed, why wait, when we'll need an odd-number Court to rule on the expected election lawsuits?

Why allow for dissent? Why not just lock up all those pesky democratic senators? Things would be a lot easier with single party Trump rule.

Also why do all the conservatives on this site keep claiming it was Harry Reid who eliminated the filibuster for SC positions. That was Mitch McConnel.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: NobleHunter on September 22, 2020, 11:40:10 AM
I believe the relevant phrase is "advice and consent."  A straight up and down vote isn't advice.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: rightleft22 on September 22, 2020, 11:41:48 AM
Quote
Republicans have secured the numbers needed to ensure that President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee will face a confirmation vote in the Senate.

Is there any point of having a confirmation?
How can anyone give their vote before they know what they are voting for?

I get that this is a done deal and why... but those Senators should be ashamed. They should have at least pretended that they had some independent thoughts on the matter of who would be a good choice.

Not true. The Constitution says the Senate must vote on Confirmation - not hold any hearings. It was the Democrat Harry Reid who changed the threat of filibuster to eliminate obstruction. The Jurists have been on the list for a long time, and they all have the highest ratings from vetting organizations that all parties trust. The only reason for a hearing , as defined by recent hearings we've seen, is for the opposition party to grandstand and throw bricks. When Barr was being "interviewed" he was not even allowed to speak. Why put the nation through that? What good does it do to allow "Borking" a nominee? Since Reid allows a simple majority, which is already guaranteed, why wait, when we'll need an odd-number Court to rule on the expected election lawsuits?

Your saying that the Confirmation was away just a formality. That one 'voted' but the vote never mattered. So there never was a point for confirmations

So no checks or balance great system.

Be careful what you wish for History starts now.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 22, 2020, 12:02:44 PM
I don't suppose there is any chance that a nominee like the wishy-washy somewhat middle of the road Kennedy could get any support from Democrats, could she? Sure Trump may be able to ram through a hard core conservative but is there any middle ground available here, anyone the Democrats might be able to go along with that the Republicans could also support?

You know that gets back to the issue of the arbitrary, capricious, and totally political nature of our judiciary. It seems like there is no underlying foundation that supports their decisions. I mean each justice has their own underlying foundation but for all of them together, and the judiciary as a whole, there isn't one. It's all personal. The proof is how many split decisions there are on the Supreme Court and the lower courts, decisions divided strictly along party and ideological lines. That much being open to interpretation and personal opinion really seems to fly in the face of any claim to consistency or predictability in our system of laws.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: rightleft22 on September 22, 2020, 12:04:18 PM
Its a shame the Democrats aren't the ones doing this. I would love to hear the arguments the GOP would have made against it.

If I were the DNC I wouldn't fight this to hard. Instead I would point out the GOP hypocrisy and what happens when those that are liberal don't vote left because the candidate isn't liberal enough.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: wmLambert on September 22, 2020, 12:12:13 PM
I believe the relevant phrase is "advice and consent."  A straight up and down vote isn't advice.

Advise and consent - but no need to hold hearings. A straight up and down vote is advice as well as consent. A hearing has become a political farce to use the MSM as a weapon. It was the Dems who invented "Borking." Ted Kennedy lied about Bork, but the media didn't tell the people he was lying. What is your solution? Or is everything automatically levered in the Democrats' direction?
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: NobleHunter on September 22, 2020, 12:13:35 PM
I think an argument could be made that on the eve of what is likely to be a heavily litigated election, it's not worth the risk of having important decisions go unresolved with a 4-4 tie. If Trump and McConnel pushed that argument and Trump nominated someone not obviously partisan, it would go far in allowing some Democrats on board. They won't do that because neither of them give a fig for the principles of the Republic but it's technically possible.

rightleft, the problem is that people voted for the Democrats in order to fight. If they go weak on this, it's more likely to disheartened supporters rather than encourage them. Besides, I don't think they can delay it enough anyways. So they can go all out to show that they can fight while still getting the example of why people need to vote for the candidates they get instead of the one they wished they had.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: wmLambert on September 22, 2020, 12:28:40 PM
I think an argument could be made that on the eve of what is likely to be a heavily litigated election, it's not worth the risk of having important decisions go unresolved with a 4-4 tie. If Trump and McConnel pushed that argument and Trump nominated someone not obviously partisan, it would go far in allowing some Democrats on board. They won't do that because neither of them give a fig for the principles of the Republic but it's technically possible.

rightleft, the problem is that people voted for the Democrats in order to fight. If they go weak on this, it's more likely to disheartened supporters rather than encourage them. Besides, I don't think they can delay it enough anyways. So they can go all out to show that they can fight while still getting the example of why people need to vote for the candidates they get instead of the one they wished they had.

Isn't the true argument to select someone who is a strict Constitutionalist vs. a Woodrow Wilson Progressive "The Constitution is not relevant any more?" How do you chose someone inbetween? Stare Decisis is what Anthony Kennedy and Roberts used to turn Left after being appointed by a strict-Constitutionalist president. Harriet Meiers was a solid choice - but would have helped balance the court in Contract Law as opposed to Constitutional Law. There are myriads of inbetween positions possible - but they get shot down by politics.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: rightleft22 on September 22, 2020, 12:40:44 PM
I think an argument could be made that on the eve of what is likely to be a heavily litigated election, it's not worth the risk of having important decisions go unresolved with a 4-4 tie. If Trump and McConnel pushed that argument and Trump nominated someone not obviously partisan, it would go far in allowing some Democrats on board. They won't do that because neither of them give a fig for the principles of the Republic but it's technically possible.

rightleft, the problem is that people voted for the Democrats in order to fight. If they go weak on this, it's more likely to disheartened supporters rather than encourage them. Besides, I don't think they can delay it enough anyways. So they can go all out to show that they can fight while still getting the example of why people need to vote for the candidates they get instead of the one they wished they had.

I don't see a fight helping the Democrats election hopes. It will harden the base and turn off the independents and the liberals that feel that Biden isn't liberal enough still wont vote for him.
It will not surprise me in the least when the Democrats lose.

Honestly I can see many a voter giving up with the view voting matters in a system that is so broken that  holding onto the illusion of the checks and balances is just to hard.   
Not to mention the idea or hope that a person can be elected and maintain their values and principles and not become a hypocritical sell out.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: wmLambert on September 22, 2020, 01:20:07 PM
...Honestly I can see many a voter giving up with the view voting matters in a system that is so broken that  holding onto the illusion of the checks and balances is just to hard.

With the Democrats in charge in the Big Blue States, it doesn't matter what the voters decide. Like has already happened in several States using mail-in ballots, the courts will order a new election because of the vote-scamming and inability to count the ballots. Voters may give up on voting - but their votes will get filed for them, and after all, who will ever know?
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: rightleft22 on September 22, 2020, 01:23:29 PM
WmLambert your view of reality just doesn't match mine. Their is no point in dialog. 

I'm sorry you see the world in the way that you do and suspect you and those that view things in this way will create exactly what you fear and never see the part you played.
Such is the way of History.

Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: Wayward Son on September 22, 2020, 02:00:44 PM
Thinking again about principles it's interesting that none of the Democrats are holding to their own here. None of them are saying, you know what, yeah we did get cheated out of a Supreme Court justice but when we said that the President did deserve to have his choice voted on in the Senate, we meant it. And now we're going to prove it by insisting that Trump's nominee get her vote just like Garland should have. And next time when the situation is reversed again we hope the Republicans will remember our magnanimity. I mean we don't even hear a few Democrat voices calling out from the wilderness with something like that even knowing that the Democrats in charge wouldn't let it fly so there is nothing to lose by standing by their so called principles, the ones they insisted on before. That's interesting. Fairly predictable but still interesting. Everyone's supposed principles seem to only exist when they provide a tangible benefit and are advantageous, both for Democrats and Republicans.

Democrats: "So uh... yeah. You Republicans didn't really believe any of what you were saying about how nominations shouldn't be done during an election year now did you?"

Republicans: "Well you got us there. I guess we really didn't. But you Democrats never did believe any of what you were saying either about how even in an election year a nominee deserves an up and down vote, did you?"

Democrats: "Nope."

Just FYI, but the reason you don't hear Democrats calling for a vote on Ginsberg's replacement is that it would concede that there are two sets of rules in the Senate: one for Republicans and one for Democrats.

If a Democrat President nominates a justice, then NINE MONTHS is too close to the election to consider it.

If a Republican President nominates a justice, then FIVE WEEKS before the election is perfectly fine.

And we've given up a long time ago on relying on Republican indebitedness.  Garland taught us that you Republicans will screw us over every chance you get.  You want us to rely on the party that REPEATEDLY promised not to consider a Supreme Court nominee after the nominations, and EVERY SINGLE ONE who did so has broken that promise??

We are holding you Republicans to your promises, whether you like it or not.  But we already know that all Republicans who support this Supreme Court nomination are simply a bunch of liars who will break every promise to get power.  So don't lecture us on how we are not being consistent.  You guys lied to us saying there was a "tradition" not to consider Supreme Court nominees during an election season.  Now you're lying to us about there being a loophole that allows you to do it when it's your guy who's up.  And we're sick of dealing honorably with those who have no honor.  Like McConnell.  Like Trump.  Like the entire Republican party who supports them.

You and your party have sold your soul to Trump.  Now you have to take responsibility for it.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: yossarian22c on September 22, 2020, 02:33:28 PM
Just FYI, but the reason you don't hear Democrats calling for a vote on Ginsberg's replacement is that it would concede that there are two sets of rules in the Senate: one for Republicans and one for Democrats.

If a Democrat President nominates a justice, then NINE MONTHS is too close to the election to consider it.

If a Republican President nominates a justice, then FIVE WEEKS before the election is perfectly fine.

And we've given up a long time ago on relying on Republican indebitedness.  Garland taught us that you Republicans will screw us over every chance you get.  You want us to rely on the party that REPEATEDLY promised not to consider a Supreme Court nominee after the nominations, and EVERY SINGLE ONE who did so has broken that promise??

Just for better public discourse and your state of mind towards your fellow Americans try not to group all Republicans in with the group of Senate Republicans who are being the giant hypocrites. They may explicitly or implicitly support those actions because it's "winning." But to hold them all equally responsible for the actions and hypocrisy of 50 senators is heading down the road of WM but on the democratic side where you see the opposition as evil.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: TheDrake on September 22, 2020, 02:40:19 PM

Just for better public discourse and your state of mind towards your fellow Americans try not to group all Republicans in with the group of Senate Republicans who are being the giant hypocrites. They may explicitly or implicitly support those actions because it's "winning." But to hold them all equally responsible for the actions and hypocrisy of 50 senators is heading down the road of WM but on the democratic side where you see the opposition as evil.

Point of order, anyone who VOTES for any of those Senators is 100% complicit and responsible.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: rightleft22 on September 22, 2020, 03:09:11 PM
I want to be compassionate, kind, turn the other check, listen to all sides of a argument.... but when do we get to call out those that support, defined, spin, excuse, hold their nose and say nothing to what is a obvious case of hypocrisy. Why are the rules different.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: Wayward Son on September 22, 2020, 04:25:15 PM
Quote
Just for better public discourse and your state of mind towards your fellow Americans try not to group all Republicans in with the group of Senate Republicans who are being the giant hypocrites. They may explicitly or implicitly support those actions because it's "winning." But to hold them all equally responsible for the actions and hypocrisy of 50 senators is heading down the road of WM but on the democratic side where you see the opposition as evil.

I guess I should make clear that those Republicans that criticize and call on their Senators to keep their promises are excluded.  Those who are outraged at their representatives.  Those who recognize what is happening.

But, of course, those people are no longer Republicans. ;)

Just look at the Republican platform:  "Whatever Trump says."  Declaring New York, Seattle and Portland as "anarchy" jurisdictions and pulling all Federal funds is now the official position of the Republican party, even though they just found out about it. :) Separating children from their parents is the official position of the Republican party.  Ignoring Congressional subpoenas is now the official position of the Republican party.

Those who are not with Trump are against him and the Republican party.  Just ask the Republicans.  Is the Lincoln Project part of the Republican party?  How about Mueller?  How about any of these people? (http://www.ornery.org/forum/index.php/topic,927.0.html)  Are they Republicans?  At best, RINOs.  At worst, traitors.  They're all Losers according to their leader.  It's the official position of the Republican party. ;)

So anyone who stands with the Republican party stands with all of it.  With its lying Senators.  With its lying President.  There are no excuses anymore.  It is plain as day.  Anyone who stands with the Republican party approves of what the party does.  Or at least can live with it.

So they have lost all moral authority.  "Democrats are lying, scheming, power-hungry amorals!" they say.  So what?  They're standing with, and defending, lying, scheming, power-hungry amorals themselves.  In fact, worse ones than Democrats.  Because they have exiled anyone who isn't.

I'm not going to listen to this BS anymore.  They want Democrats to play ethically and fairly, so they can lie and cheat to win.  So they can make sh*t up and change the rules and tell us these are the new rules then change them again.  And then they want to complain that Democrats aren't being consistent??  Sorry, I'm not going to listen to that cr*p anymore.

Whenever a Republican talks about how bad Democrats are, I'm going to remind them that they supported/voted for/stood by/defended Donald Trump, and that makes them no better than Trump.  And that they need to get a vice to help pull the beam out of their eye before mentioning any sliver in mine.  :P
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 22, 2020, 04:48:49 PM
Only a handful of Republicans said specifically that they disagreed with voting on a nominee just because it was close to an election. Rubio is one who's comment really puts him in a box here.

Mother Jones has a good recap on what they said:

https://www.motherjones.com/2020-elections/2020/09/a-long-list-of-gop-senators-who-promised-not-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-nominee-during-an-election-year/

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term — I would say that if it was a Republican president .”

So that leaves him essentially no wiggle room to get out of his own hypocrisy trap.

Some were vague on precisely why they were opposed to a confirmation vote and Cornyn specifically mentioned the divided government, President of one party and Senate of the other.

"...Confirming a new Supreme Court Justice during a presidential election year for a vacancy arising that same year is not common in our nation’s history; the last time it happened was in 1932. And it has been almost 130 years since a presidential election year nominee was confirmed for a vacancy arising the same year under divided government as we have today."

I"m not seeing where Graham made the same commitment as Rubio either.

"Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election”

If they don't specifically say like Rubio did that they oppose confirmations in an election year as a general rule then such an assumption that they do is stretching it when a more reasonable conclusion is that they don't support confirmations when they have a majority in the Senate and don't have to support or even vote on the nomination of the opposite party's President but if it was there own party's President it's a matter of course that they'd vote and confirm.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: DonaldD on September 22, 2020, 05:35:16 PM
I"m not seeing where Graham made the same commitment as Rubio either.

"Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election”

If they don't specifically say like Rubio did that they oppose confirmations in an election year as a general rule...
How is that substantively different?  I would say they are for all practical purposes identical.

There is basically no wiggle room in any of the following:
"It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don't do this in an election year." -- Sen. Ted Cruz, Feb 14 2016 (he was mistaken, but he did not know he was mistaken, and he held this position)

"I want you to use my words against me. 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." -- Sen Lindsey Graham, March 10, 2016

“If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election”  -- Sen Lindsey Graham, 2018

“I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.” -- Sen. Cory Gardner, 2016

“I believe the American people deserve to have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice, and the best way to ensure that happens is to have the Senate consider a nomination made by the next President." -- Sen. John Cornyn, 2016

"I will oppose this nomination as I firmly believe we must let the people decide the Supreme Court’s future.” -- Sen. Jim Inhofe, 2016

"The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.” -- Sen. Thom Tillis, 2016.

Nope, not really any ambiguity there.  Rubio actually does have an 'out' as he only specified "the last year of this president's term".  Maybe he wouldn't apply that rule to any other president.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: Wayward Son on September 22, 2020, 06:55:16 PM
Here's a list of every Senator in 2016 who is still in the Senate and what they have said then and now. (http://www.ornery.org/forum/index.php/topic,927.0.html)  I think you'll find far more than a handful of Republican senators that said that we should wait until after the election that was almost nine months from then.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 22, 2020, 07:11:49 PM
But are they saying we should wait until after the election because Republicans control the Senate and the President is a Democrat or do they mean that in any case no matter who controls what no Supreme Court nominee should get a vote within a year of an election?

There is no hypocrisy in what most of them said. We shouldn't hold the vote now and should wait until after the election. That in itself is not hypocritical if it's understood that the reason is because Republicans control the Senate. That's just common sense.

Isn't it true that most of time when that type of situation came up, Senate of the opposite party as the President and an open Supreme Court seat in an election year, that the issue wasn't resolved until after the election? Like 80% of the time?

Not that past precedent means much anymore, to anyone. As I'm sure the Republicans will all remind everyone, "that was then and this is now." And I'm just as certain the Democrats will be saying the same thing when they're back in charge.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: DonaldD on September 22, 2020, 07:38:01 PM
"I firmly believe we must let the people decide "

"not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president"

"the American people deserve to have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice, and the best way to ensure that happens is to have the Senate consider a nomination made by the next President"

There is no way to interpret any of these in any way as a function of the current makeup of the senate. Their sincerely held belief was to let the people make a future choice.  There is no way, after all, to "let" people make a decision in the past.

Graham's position is even less ambiguous, if that's possible, and he acknowledges it: he doesn't pretend he didn't say what he literally said over a span of multiple years: he just admits that Kavanaugh was treated so poorly that he doesn't care about his principles anymore.

Of course none of them ever held these positions as points of principle; they clearly were saying what they needed to at the time to support the abuse of their power while providing a rationalization that their followers could latch onto, and which they would conveniently forget over time.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: wmLambert on September 22, 2020, 07:46:47 PM
Most of those quotes were about "This" President - meaning Obama. With a GOP Senate, any vote would have just been a waste of time. Before Reid changed the cloture rule, it was more an impossible deal, because the President needed a filibuster-proof consent. Why allow the Reid rule change to alter the nomination process entirely? To effectuate the same consent displeasure with a simple majority is more risky. Without it, the GOP Senate could have held hearings - but were safe in opposition.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: DonaldD on September 22, 2020, 07:52:14 PM
Most of those quotes were about "This" President - meaning Obama.
What are you smoking?  Only one of them made reference to "this" president.  The words are right there, virtual inches apart for everybody to see.  Are you truly that incapable of reading and processing conflicting information, or is there some part of you that believes nobody else can see the words written above?
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: wmLambert on September 22, 2020, 09:18:27 PM
Most of those quotes were about "This" President - meaning Obama.
What are you smoking?  Only one of them made reference to "this" president.  The words are right there, virtual inches apart for everybody to see.  Are you truly that incapable of reading and processing conflicting information, or is there some part of you that believes nobody else can see the words written above?

No, you misperceive once again. The same old rules changed under Reid. They were changed because the Democrats believed they were going to win the Presidency and Senate in the next election, and then rule forever. But they lost the Senate in three straight elections. To do the same power grab now, they contend to name DC and PR as new states, and also stack the Court. The attack they initiated changed the rules. It took some in the GOP awhile to realize what was going on. It took Maxine Waters telling her people to ambush and threaten opposition members. It took Hillary telling Biden not to accept the election results. It took Schumer screaming at the Supreme Court Building threatening Gorsuch and Kavanaugh telling them they will "Pay the price!" It changed when the Democrats prosecuted a Coup attempt based on lies they knew were untrue. It took the Democrats anointing the rioters and looters and denigrating police. All this was a wake-up call.

There is no hypocrisy, except for the Democrats reversing their stance to nominate Garland, no matter what. In all cases, the Republicans need to do what they were elected to do and not fall prey to the Democrat Machiavellian call to bend over and grab their ankles.

In their defense, those GOP who opposed Garland were against the lame-duck President by-passing the majority Senate. They called on waiting for an election to give the process legitimacy. In the pre-Reid days, there is no way an Obama Nominee could get through before the election. Now it is a hair's-breadth possibility to go either way. With the Senate majority in place, doing anything except allowing postponement by the Democrats is an honorable thing to do.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: DonaldD on September 22, 2020, 09:41:47 PM
Quote
The same old rules changed under Reid
You realize that this happened years before the Republican senators made their statements, and had absolutely no effect on the words they spoke in 2016, right?  Your whole post reads as whingeing with nothing to do with supporting your challenged point.

Your claim was that their statements were about "this" president, and in that whole post, you made not a single reference to their words. 

Do so.

Show us their words that unambiguously show their words were "about" Obama.  The only references to presidents in their words were to the "next" president, and Obama was term-limited, so no matter the contortions you put yourself through, it's going to be really hard to show how their words made reference to him.

I know you are up to it though. Go for it.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: wmLambert on September 22, 2020, 11:06:02 PM
... know you are up to it though. Go for it.

Once again, you are missing the big picture. Whatever happened before was demolished by the Democrat Machiavellian plan to establish permanent power. No one can stand by proclamations based on the old game whose rules have been changed by the opposition. The Dems have threatened Court-packing and adding new States to gain more Senators. Where is that on the honors list? They also threaten violence against anyone they choose to intimidate. There is no longer decorum in the Capitol.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: DonaldD on September 22, 2020, 11:11:09 PM
Most of those quotes were about "This" President - meaning Obama.
I believe in you, wmLambert.

You made a claim - now support it.  I know you can do it.  The words are right there on this page.  Just copy them, highlight the relevant bits and explain.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: yossarian22c on September 23, 2020, 09:57:33 AM
Only a handful of Republicans said specifically that they disagreed with voting on a nominee just because it was close to an election. Rubio is one who's comment really puts him in a box here.

I'm going to ignore the specifics of each Senator's quote here. Maybe the Senator's who specifically said the reason they were waiting is because of divided government have half a leg to stand on. But if they did not specifically give that reason in 2016 they are being complete hypocrites. You seemed to understand that earlier. Just because a few of them were astute enough to not give as definitive a statement in 2016 doesn't mean they aren't being hypocritical in substance. The main argument put forth in 2016 was 8 months is too close to an election to hold a confirmation. Now 8 weeks is fine and dandy as long as its our guy doing the nominating. Just own the hypocrisy. You were more than willing to see it earlier in the thread, quit looking for "outs" for your guys, they are going to get you the SC seat you want. They're going to "win."

I expect this could be the last year of the filibuster in the Senate (unless R's win the Senate and Biden wins the white house). But the next time either party holds the house, senate, and WH in the same year the filibuster will be in the dust bin of history. And I think that's true for D's and R's. I think Mitch knows he's destroying the last vestiges of collegiality in the Senate with this move so if he gets the chance and there is an R wave in 2020 the filibuster will be dead. Likewise if D's pick off enough seats in the Senate, hold the house, and get the WH back then I think we can fully expect them to eliminate the filibuster for everything in order to get their priorities accomplished.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: yossarian22c on September 23, 2020, 09:57:39 PM
...I don't think you and I agree on the definition of officially named. Unless you just mean an official said it without providing supporting evidence.

That July 23 article you posted has been superseded. Real scientists and researches have said the virus was not from animal sources and definitely from a lab. The Wuhan lab owned by Soros and Gates, is the only high-level lab that could have produced it, regardless that it is their proximity.

Not quite sure what you're referring too? The Yan study? Sorry I prefer my science peer reviewed and not funded by Steve Bannon. Got anything better.

Okay not to beat a dead horse here. But can you back up your claim that real scientists and researchers have said the virus came from a lab? I get that's what Rush and Hannity have probably told you but could you provide some verification for the rest of us.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: noel c. on September 25, 2020, 08:40:28 PM
Y-22,

“Okay not to beat a dead horse here. But can you back up your claim that real scientists and researchers have said the virus came from a lab? I get that's what Rush and Hannity have probably told you but could you provide some verification for the rest of us.”

“Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route“

https://zenodo.org/record/4028830#.X26Ke-SAuaM

It is interesting to note that within two days this paper was “dismissed by mainstream scientists“ prior to peer review.. This may be lost by most readers, but conscientious scientists do not behave that way.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: yossarian22c on September 25, 2020, 09:04:06 PM
Y-22,

“Okay not to beat a dead horse here. But can you back up your claim that real scientists and researchers have said the virus came from a lab? I get that's what Rush and Hannity have probably told you but could you provide some verification for the rest of us.”

“Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route“

https://zenodo.org/record/4028830#.X26Ke-SAuaM

It is interesting to note that within two days this paper was “dismissed by mainstream scientists“ prior to peer review.. This may be lost by most readers, but conscientious scientists do not behave that way.

When the Steve Bannon funded paper passes peer review and gets published then we can discuss it’s merits. Until that point it’s disingenuous to say real scientists and researchers have said it came from a lab. Because lots of researchers, in lots of countries have already said otherwise in peer reviewed papers that have been published. At this point if it were manufactured it means all the researchers in multiple universities and governments all around the world were missing something for a long time. It’s possible, but unlikely.

And given the source of the funding, I have extreme reservations about the conclusions of the paper without that fundamental principle of science, independent confirmation.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: noel c. on September 25, 2020, 10:57:01 PM
Y-22,

“When the Steve Bannon funded paper passes peer review and gets published then we can discuss it’s merits.

Do you have evidence that Bannon is anything more than an associate? Direct funding by him, to the authors, is not appearing in any of my searches.

”Until that point it’s disingenuous to say real scientists and researchers have said it came from a lab.”

Unless you are going to challenge the credentials of Dr. Li-meng Yan, Dr. Shu Kang, Dr. Jie Guan, and Dr. Shanchang Hu, then it is not merely disingenuous to claim otherwise, it is just plain false. You asked for precisely what I linked.

Have you read the paper?

“Because lots of researchers, in lots of countries have already said otherwise in peer reviewed papers that have been published. At this point if it were manufactured it means all the researchers in multiple universities and governments all around the world were missing something for a long time. It’s possible, but unlikely.“

“Missing something”, like any direct information?

That creates an immediate problem on a number of levels; first, the CCP denied access by any investigative researchers to the Wuhan Institute of Virology lab from January 20th, until present. France directed the construction, and safety protocol training, of the lab beginning in 2014. It was expelled by the CCP in 2017 over supervisory disagreements, so France is not a viable source of evidence.

You are relying on the same logical fallacy used to claim the extinction of SARS-CoV through human intervention in 2003.

“And given the source of the funding... “

Do your reservations regarding reliability apply equally to the manifold labs that have received CCP funding, and claim natural SARS-CoV-2 origin?

“... I have extreme reservations about the conclusions of the paper without that fundamental principle of science, independent confirmation.”

I asked too soon. You obviously have not read the paper. It is an analysis, not an experiment. The following claims need to be confirmed, or refuted.:

1- The genomic sequence of the virus, just as fingerprints of human, demonstrates shocking similarity to bat coronaviruses (ZC45/ZXC21) discovered (2015 and 2017 respectively) and owned by CCP military lab and research facility (the military-owned viruses show extremely high similarity to SARS-CoV-2 at both nucleotide level and amino acid level, which is consistent with the hypothesis that these viruses were used as backbone to create SARS-CoV-2) .
2- The host specificity of the virus resembles that of SARS-CoV in 2003 outbreak in a suspicious way.
3- The S protein (spike protein that determines host specificity and viral infectivity) contains a cleavage site that is completely absent in coronavirus found in nature, which strongly suggests it has been inserted artificially using lab techniques.   
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 26, 2020, 03:36:54 PM
It looks like the torch will be passed to Amy Coney Barrett. She looks very well qualified and seems to be a great person as well.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: noel c. on September 26, 2020, 04:12:31 PM
CP,

“It looks like the torch will be passed to Amy Coney Barrett. She looks very well qualified and seems to be a great person as well.”

You just haven’t been liberally educated yet. This mother of five adopted two Haitian children (cultural appropriation), and the “dogma” of her Catholic faith “lives loudly” within her (per Feinstein).
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: TheDrake on September 26, 2020, 08:17:47 PM
But are they saying we should wait until after the election because Republicans control the Senate and the President is a Democrat or do they mean that in any case no matter who controls what no Supreme Court nominee should get a vote within a year of an election?

There is no hypocrisy in what most of them said. We shouldn't hold the vote now and should wait until after the election. That in itself is not hypocritical if it's understood that the reason is because Republicans control the Senate. That's just common sense.

Isn't it true that most of time when that type of situation came up, Senate of the opposite party as the President and an open Supreme Court seat in an election year, that the issue wasn't resolved until after the election? Like 80% of the time?

Not that past precedent means much anymore, to anyone. As I'm sure the Republicans will all remind everyone, "that was then and this is now." And I'm just as certain the Democrats will be saying the same thing when they're back in charge.

Why are YOU adding a qualification that they never did? They didn't say "because the senate can oppose the president", I mean you could consider that a prerequisite, but only if a matching Senate should always do the bidding of a president of the same party. I suppose I don't doubt that Democrats could have pulled this first also, and I can probably guarantee they will do it in the future. If we keep down this road, really, what's to say an opposition Senate shouldn't just refuse to hold hearings throughout the entire term? By what mechanism could you force them? The thin set of precedents that keep things functional is clearly unraveling, with both Democrats and Republicans each pulling out threads.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 26, 2020, 10:15:59 PM
I understood that to be a qualification even if they didn't say it outright. Others apparently understood there to be no qualification even if they also didn't say it outright.

It wouldn't surprise me if Trump wins and the Democrats win the Senate and another seat immediately opens up if they do exactly that, wait until the next election even if it's four years later.  But that's generally when you get your more moderate justices like Kennedy, when you have a split government.

The things the Democrats are talking about now are even more extreme than that. Impeaching Trump again for doing his job of nominating a justice. Packing the court. Getting rid of the lifetime term of the justices.


The mainstream media touted Garland as a moderate but that's debatable. Part of the process with a opposite party controlled Senate involves compromise. Obama should have floated a few more names, run them up the flagpole, and looked to see if any of the Republicans in the Senate would be willing to salute any of his choices. Instead Obama did his typical thing along the lines of his philosophy of "You can ride with us if you want, but you got to sit in the backseat." And of course his classic, "Elections have consequences."
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: NobleHunter on September 26, 2020, 11:00:54 PM
Why waste time suggesting people if the Senate wasn't going to consider them. They flat out said they weren't going to consider anyone Obama suggested. It didn't matter if he could get a few GOP senators onside because McConnel was flat out not going to hold a hearing.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 27, 2020, 12:06:49 AM
So it gets back to the problem of the judiciary being so political that there isn't one justice that both sides would be happy with, or at least could stomach, having up there. Sure Mitch said that but we'll never know what could have happened if Obama would have been willing to negotiate because he never tried. For example, he could have asked Mitch, publicly or privately, to provide a list of names of people Republicans wouldn't mind seeing on the Supreme Court. Then Obama and the Democrats could have looked that list over, long and hard, to try to find someone on there that they could live with. Or turn it around and Obama floats a bunch of names and asks the Republicans if there is anyone at all on it that they'd be okay with. Maybe there really is nobody both sides could live with because everyone is so political and that really proves that our judicial system is a joke, completely arbitrary and capricious and subjective, depending on the personality of the judges and justices to determine the law instead of having any truly objective measure.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: TheDeamon on September 27, 2020, 12:10:20 AM
As a certain youtube law blogger said recently on another case, it's a sorry state of affairs when you can predict which way a court is likely to rule on a matter by simply looking at which President it was that nominated them to that position.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 27, 2020, 12:22:30 AM
Exactly.

And I'll also note that Obama gave the Republicans nothing to lose.

If Hillary won we would have gotten nobody substantially different from the guy Obama nominated.

However, if Obama had allowed the Republicans the opportunity to provide some of the "advise" part of "advise and consent" in the nomination process and nominated someone maybe the Republicans would be okay with even if it wasn't a Kavanaugh, then the Republicans would have had a little bit to gain instead of just nothing to lose. Obama played hardball. He gambled on what he thought was a sure thing. He lost.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: noel c. on September 27, 2020, 03:06:44 AM
NH,

“It didn't matter if he could get a few GOP senators onside because McConnel was flat out not going to hold a hearing.“

There is no constitutional mandate for open Senate hearings, but that does not prevent any senator from setting a personal interview with the nominee if their consent Hinges upon it.

Deamon,

“As a certain youtube law blogger said recently on another case, it's a sorry state of affairs when you can predict which way a court is likely to rule on a matter by simply looking at which President it was that nominated them to that position.”

- Eisenhower appointment: Earl Warren, 1953-1969

- Nixon appointments: Harry Blackmun, 1970-1994, Lewis Powell, 1971-1987

- Ford appointment: John Paul Stevens, 1975-2010

- Reagan appointment: Anthony Kennedy, 1988-2018

- Bush H.W. appointment: David Souter, 1990-2005

Republicans have a decent record of unpredictability in the performance of their SCOTUS appointments. Not so with Democrats, or Trump.

Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: DonaldD on September 27, 2020, 07:44:54 AM
However, if Obama had allowed the Republicans the opportunity to provide some of the "advise" part of "advise and consent" in the nomination process and nominated someone maybe the Republicans would be okay with even if it wasn't a Kavanaugh, then the Republicans would have had a little bit to gain instead of just nothing to lose. Obama played hardball. He gambled on what he thought was a sure thing. He lost.
That is a whole load of cow patties, and I suspect you know this.  The "advise" part comes when the Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearings on a nomination.  I suppose the Judiciary committee could have pre-emptively provided an acceptable list of judges to Obama, although that would seem to be a-historical.

However, long before Obama nominated Garland, in fact only hours after the announcement of Scalia's death, McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void - that the Senate would not consider any nomination by Obama whatsoever  Or was that the advice you meant: "do not nominate anybody"?

If you had truly meant that Obama didn't give the Judiciary Committee sufficient time to provide him with a list of acceptable judges (which again, when does that ever happen?) Garland was nominated more than a month after Scalia's death.  That is more than enough time for even a Senate committee to come up with a list of names.

Given this little history lesson, are you now reconsidering your analysis above, that there was any way the Republicans "would [have been] OK with it" if Obama had just not "played hardball"?  It's pretty difficult to play hardball when you haven't even picked up the equipment, never mind having stepped onto the playing field.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: TheDrake on September 27, 2020, 08:21:40 AM
You don't want to confirm? That's a Senate privilege. Not hold a hearing? No excuse, in my opinion. And you can hold me to that any day, any year, any admin.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: noel c. on September 27, 2020, 09:15:04 AM
Donald,

“Not hold a hearing? No excuse, in my opinion. And you can hold me to that any day, any year, any admin.”

Democratic behavior during traditional confirmation hearings for Judges Bork, Miguel Estrada, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and even the gift-horse John Roberts, are all the justification McConnell needs to blow-off the Left’s modern crucifixion hearings, as introduced by Teddy Kennedy.

Amy Coney Barrett should be responsive to any individual senator’s request for a personal interview, in accord with their constitutional obligation to give informed consent on federal court nominations (although that doesn’t appear to be necessary as she already has the votes). Beyond that, Feinstein et al., can pound sand. You “can hold me to that any day, any year, any administration.“. Your position vs. mine has similarities to China threatening trade retaliation against United States tariffs. The political calculus is decidedly in favor of Republicans on this issue.

Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: wmLambert on September 27, 2020, 01:37:01 PM
You don't want to confirm? That's a Senate privilege. Not hold a hearing? No excuse, in my opinion. And you can hold me to that any day, any year, any admin.

The tabling of difficult issues has been a part of politics forever. The Constitution does not impose time limits on confirmation, and the Democrats have always used that to lie about whoever they disliked for confirmation, then not allow that person to answer the attacks. In the old days, even when Ted Kennedy at his worst was lynching Bork, the Senate was more bipartisan about confirmation votes. But they still held the filibuster option, so Kennedy could hold up all votes on anything, and hold Bork for ransom until his name was withdrawn. Can't do that anymore, so they came up with a new strategy.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: TheDrake on September 27, 2020, 05:06:59 PM
You don't want to confirm? That's a Senate privilege. Not hold a hearing? No excuse, in my opinion. And you can hold me to that any day, any year, any admin.

The tabling of difficult issues has been a part of politics forever. The Constitution does not impose time limits on confirmation, and the Democrats have always used that to lie about whoever they disliked for confirmation, then not allow that person to answer the attacks. In the old days, even when Ted Kennedy at his worst was lynching Bork, the Senate was more bipartisan about confirmation votes. But they still held the filibuster option, so Kennedy could hold up all votes on anything, and hold Bork for ransom until his name was withdrawn. Can't do that anymore, so they came up with a new strategy.

Absolutely right, there is no time limit on confirmations. Which is why a President, with an opposition Senate, must choose a centrist judge and not a screaming ideologue like Bork.

Oh, and by the way? Bork did NOT withdraw, as you claim. On October 23, 1987, the Senate rejected Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court by a roll call vote of 42–58. Didn't need a filibuster when they were in the majority. I guess according to what you say, it would have been better for them to refuse to give him a hearing?
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: noel c. on September 27, 2020, 05:43:08 PM
Drake,

“Absolutely right, there is no time limit on confirmations. Which is why a President, with an opposition Senate, must choose a centrist judge and not a screaming ideologue like Bork.”

Nobody who knew anything about Bork would characterize him as a “screaming ideologue“, that epithet is a much better fit on RGB, who found it impossible to bite her tongue. As a fun exercise; can you name a single “centrist” judge placed on the Court by a democratic administration? Resign yourself to the fact that Republicans are on the precipice of forming a solidly conservative high-court that will endure for decades. Given the inordinate number of nominations they have been elected to fill, it is about time.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: TheDrake on September 28, 2020, 12:05:47 PM
Oh please. Bork was a conservative wet dream. He was right of Scalia. Criticized almost any time the court chose to limit any legislation.

Hard to answer the second question, based on the infrequency of appointments that fit the bill.

Clinton's two appointments occurred with Democratic party Senate majorities. Obama, the same. Johnson, same. Kennedy, same. Didn't go further back than that.

It's worth noting that Ginsberg passed 96-3.

On the other side, however, there's a good example. Ford nominated Stevens who got confirmed 98-0. Stevens started out in the center and drifted very liberal over time.

Ideological leanings of USSC justices (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_justices)
List of nominations (https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm)
Control of Senate (https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/jun/25/control-house-and-senate-1900/)
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: noel c. on September 28, 2020, 03:31:15 PM
Drake,

“Hard to answer the second question, based on the infrequency of appointments that fit the bill.”

The infrequency of Democratic nominations is what makes the question easy to answer... none. There are no ”centrist” appointments by democratic administrations. The vast majority of liberal, or even “centrist” justices came through Republican presidential nominations, to wit. ; Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter.

The fact that Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan, or Breyer received nearly unanimous senatorial confirmation is no indicator of their political moderation, but Republican collegiality. If the attitude was reciprocated, we wouldn’t be seeing the current functional meltdown of the senate.

Not a single threat being issued by Democrats, upset about Amy Coney Barret’s nomination, be it Court packing, filibuster elimination, impeachment, et cetra, cannot be turned against them in a future change of power.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: TheDrake on September 28, 2020, 07:50:20 PM
You've once again failed to grasp the point. The Democrats and Republicans both can nominate staunch supporters on the ends of the spectrum when they have control of the Senate and often do. What I said was you have to go a lot more center when the opposition has the senate. After Bork was rejected, Kennedy flew through 97-0, which proves my point. It wasn't that Democrats were just going to oppose anybody the Republicans put forward.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: wmLambert on September 28, 2020, 07:55:49 PM
That collegiality Noel C. mentioned was what occurred before Reid killed the filibuster. The supposed conservative justices succumbed to the Beltway and turned left as they were praised by the MSM for doing so, and were the toast of the town at all the social soirees. Those who were determined strict Constitutionalists were Borked. With a filibuster in place they had to strike a balance.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: yossarian22c on September 29, 2020, 08:44:36 AM
That collegiality Noel C. mentioned was what occurred before Reid killed the filibuster.

The collegiality existed before McConnel filibustered every Obama appointee for any court. Then Reid ended the filibuster for every court up to the supreme court. McConnel ended the filibuster for the SC.

Why is it necessary for almost every right leaning person here to repeat this falsehood over and over again?
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: wmLambert on September 29, 2020, 07:00:11 PM
That collegiality Noel C. mentioned was what occurred before Reid killed the filibuster.

The collegiality existed before McConnel filibustered every Obama appointee for any court. Then Reid ended the filibuster for every court up to the supreme court. McConnel ended the filibuster for the SC.

Why is it necessary for almost every right leaning person here to repeat this falsehood over and over again?

No, the Democrat nominations usually went through without many dissenting votes, until Reid changed the rules. McConnell wasn't the majority leader then. Reid changed the rule in 2013, and McConnell didn't run the Senate untill 2015. By then, the writing was on the wall, and the Dems wanted unlimited rule forever more. that the Senate changed hands blindsided them - and thank goodness for that. If it had not, things would be whatever they wanted with no deference to the Constitution.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: TheDrake on September 29, 2020, 07:57:19 PM
Quote
No, the Democrat nominations usually went through without many dissenting votes, until Reid changed the rules. McConnell wasn't the majority leader then.

Are you paying attention? McConnell, as minority leader, was leading many more filibusters than was traditional. In response, Reid used the so-called "nuclear option" in order to break the jam of confirmations that were largely unjustified - at least according to some. Or if you prefer, McConnell and Republicans justifiably blocked the confirmation of unqualified nominees. But he definitely was not being "collegial".
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: DonaldD on September 29, 2020, 08:29:26 PM
Are you paying attention? McConnell, as minority leader, was leading many more filibusters than was traditional.
wmLambert's confusion is about McConnell, and not understanding that it was McConnell that removed the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: TheDrake on September 30, 2020, 10:43:16 AM
Are you paying attention? McConnell, as minority leader, was leading many more filibusters than was traditional.
wmLambert's confusion is about McConnell, and not understanding that it was McConnell that removed the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But that's just a very natural progression from removing the filibuster for every other nomination.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: noel c. on October 03, 2020, 09:22:01 AM
Y-22,

“The collegiality existed before McConnel filibustered every Obama appointee for any court. Then Reid ended the filibuster for every court up to the supreme court. McConnel ended the filibuster for the SC. Why is it necessary for almost every right leaning person here to repeat this falsehood over and over again?“

What Supreme Court nomination came to the Senate floor under Harry’s tenure that we can test this asserted “nuclear option” limitation on? Contemporaneously, there was no ambiguity regarding the effect of Reid’s decision. Your bewilderment is probably a function of political memory lapse. :

“Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned Democrats Thursday that they'd regret using the ‘nuclear option’.

‘You'll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think,’ McConnell said on the Senate floor’.“


https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/191057-mcconnell-youll-regret-this%3famp

“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday started the process of invoking the nuclear option, saying he wanted to change Senate rules to prevent the minority from filibustering any nominations other than those to the Supreme Court.”

Many claimed that this change would ultimately pave the way for more expansive changes to the filibuster, leading to a more efficient Senate.  Opponents, predictably, cried foul and lamented the “naked power grab” by Democrats.  Some opponents accused Senator Reid of using the rules change to divert attention from the “Obamacare” roll out debacle
.

History and experience contravene claims that the Senate is likely to operate more efficiently as a result of Thursday’s change to the filibuster rule.  Whenever the Senate has made it easier to end debate and reduce the impact of the filibuster, obstruction in the chamber has increased.  The particular mechanism of the rules change, too, is unlikely to inspire an increase in bipartisanship or cooperation between and among senators.”

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2013/11/23/harry-reid-nuclear-option/

So, Reid got his three District Court judges, and lost the Supreme Court for years is come. Failing to see that connection is willful amnesia.


Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: yossarian22c on October 05, 2020, 10:56:19 AM
Y-22,

“The collegiality existed before McConnel filibustered every Obama appointee for any court. Then Reid ended the filibuster for every court up to the supreme court. McConnel ended the filibuster for the SC. Why is it necessary for almost every right leaning person here to repeat this falsehood over and over again?“

What Supreme Court nomination came to the Senate floor under Harry’s tenure that we can test this asserted “nuclear option” limitation on? Contemporaneously, there was no ambiguity regarding the effect of Reid’s decision. Your bewilderment is probably a function of political memory lapse. :

Sonia Sotomayor and Elana Kagan. Reid didn't go nuclear on either.

There is no bewilderment. Reid changed the rule for appointments up to the SC and then McConnel extended it. You can claim that is a natural consequence of one rule change but it isn't. Its the persistent chant of you and wm that Reid made the rule change for the SC that makes no sense to me.

Quote
“Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned Democrats Thursday that they'd regret using the ‘nuclear option’.

‘You'll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think,’ McConnell said on the Senate floor’.“


...

So, Reid got his three District Court judges, and lost the Supreme Court for years is come. Failing to see that connection is willful amnesia.

So McConnel in the minority gets to block every judicial appointment by Obama for his entire second term? Look at the number of filibusters in 2013-2014. Reid eliminated the filibuster out of necessity, McConnel forced his hand then used Reid taking that step to extend it to the Supreme Court when he got the chance. But it was McConnel who changed that rule.

And by claiming that democrats would regret it McConnel could have meant that he would do exactly what he's done the last 4 years and ram through as many conservative judges as he could with little to no review of their actually being competent but just reliably conservative. One rule change does not mean that the rules must further be changed.

Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: noel c. on October 05, 2020, 10:53:24 PM
Y-22,

“Sonia Sotomayor and Elana Kagan. Reid didn't go nuclear on either.”

That’s my point, the Republican votes were there to confirm both liberal jurists. That is an example of the comity that existed prior to Reid’s shift in Senate rules, and a reason that he should never have deployed the “nuclear option”.

“There is no bewilderment. Reid changed the rule for appointments up to the SC and then McConnel extended it.”

Apparently you are still bewildered as to the natural extension of the rules change. Justice Merrick Garland would now be sitting on the SCOTUS, but for heavy-handed Democratic measures to skirt traditional Senate rules aimed at moderating its own impulses.

“You can claim that is a natural consequence of one rule change but it isn't.”

This is how “natural” it is; I predicted the consequences on this board, and I am not psychic. By way of analogy, let me explain how uncomplicated the “nuclear option” ramifications were. :

Suppose China makes a decision to launch a nuclear torpedo, say a 5-kiloton one, at one of our Nimitz class carriers in the South China Sea. By nuclear standards, this is a “small” yield device, but our standard non-nuclear torpedo, the Mark 48, has only .0065% of the explosive power. The Chinese do not get credit for using a “small nuclear weapon”, as its use constitutes a qualitative change in my hypothetical conflict, and we would reply with a nuclear response that would escalate, in-kind, to end the conflict decisively.

That is the problem with “nuclear options”, and the fact that everyone in the Senate understood this principle leaves me confused at your bewilderment, and that of others on this board.

“Its the persistent chant of you and wm that Reid made the rule change for the SC that makes no sense to me.”

Does it make sense to you now?
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: noel c. on October 05, 2020, 11:01:40 PM
“So McConnel in the minority gets to block every judicial appointment by Obama for his entire second term?“

You are being hyperbolic. Reid wanted three liberal justices appointed to the second most important federal court, but yep, how do you like nuclear options now?

“Look at the number of filibusters in 2013-2014. Reid eliminated the filibuster out of necessity, McConnel forced his hand then used Reid taking that step to extend it to the Supreme Court when he got the chance. But it was McConnel who changed that rule.”

Reid got Kagan, and Sotomayor, as you have already pointed out. The dems could have had Merrick Garland had Reid not shot the party in the foot.

“And by claiming that democrats would regret it McConnel could have meant that he would do exactly what he's done the last 4 years and ram through as many conservative judges as he could with little to no review of their actually being competent but just reliably conservative. One rule change does not mean that the rules must further be changed.“

Nuclear options are not nice, are they? Better to never start playing the escalation game.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: yossarian22c on October 06, 2020, 11:54:21 AM
That is the problem with “nuclear options”, and the fact that everyone in the Senate understood this principle leaves me confused at your bewilderment, and that of others on this board.

I'm not bewildered that McConnel escalated. I'm bewildered that you and wm keep saying Reid changed the rules for SC nominations.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 06, 2020, 12:05:07 PM
This might be what's called in legal jargon "proximate cause" with the "but for" test.

But for Reid's use of the nuclear option for lower court appointments, the filibuster would still exist for Supreme Court appointments.

If Reid hadn't done away with the filibuster for the lower courts, the Republicans would never have done away with it for the Supreme Court.

Whether that's true or not nobody can ever know for sure but it's a firmly held belief by just about all Republicans. Do Democrats believe that even if Reid hadn't gone nuclear with his pre-emptive strike on the lower courts, the Republicans still would have ended the filibuster for the Supreme Court? Would the Republicans have done it just for the Supreme Court and have left it in place for the lower courts or done away with both? The proximity in timing though certainly supports the assertion that one event lead inevitably to the other and it wasn't just a random coincidence.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: DonaldD on October 06, 2020, 12:16:31 PM
But for McConnell changing the rules for SC confirmations, the rules for SC confirmations would be the same.

You're treating McConnell as a NPC.  Unless reality is just a construct of your fevered imagination, McConnell likely has self-determination.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: msquared on October 06, 2020, 12:17:48 PM
I think McConnell would have changed the rules at Trumps request/demand.  And then changed it back and said it had never been changed.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: wmLambert on October 06, 2020, 01:39:43 PM
Contemporaneously, I posted on several boards on what was going to happen with Reid's rule change. At the time, the Democrats saw only total victory and unending power. They saw 16+ years of Obama rule followed by Hillary, and just made the rule change to make their reign unstoppable. The Senate changed hands. If not, do you really think anything would have stopped their juggernaut? They were looking at long-range rule changes, Gerrymandering, and stocking all the courts with activist judges. Even back then, they talked about getting rid of the Electoral College - always looking to turn our nation into a plurality-controlled democracy.

What caused the attacks on Trump after his election was the illegal and unConstitutional actions they had already done, expecting a Hillary administration to look the other way. Once he got in, with a GOP Senate, they knew they were in trouble, and Hillary was already guilty of felonies. The coup was half about power, but mostly about saving their skins and to stay out of prison.

McConnell using their nuclear option against them was as predictable as anything else. They were lucky they had a Never-Trumper like Ryan in control of the House so they could reclaim it and slow down his success. Pelosi and Schumer were as in on this as Reid was, and the usurpation by the GOP had to gall them. They were hoist by their own petard. The meanness and diatribes were about staying out of jail - not just limiting Trump's power. As his accomplishments grew, it only made them fiercer in the fear of their individual futures.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: msquared on October 06, 2020, 01:55:33 PM
No mention of Soros.  You are loosing your touch.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: noel c. on October 06, 2020, 04:16:13 PM
Donald,

“You're treating McConnell as a NPC.  Unless reality is just a construct of your fevered imagination, McConnell likely has self-determination.”

Not at all, McConnell is very much a player. That is why you folks are now paying for Dirty Harry’s rules mischief. He got the three United States Court of Appeals appointees for the District of Columbia Circuit ; Patricia Millett, Nina Pillard and Robert Wilkins. The price paid by your party was the Supreme Court appointments of ; Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and now Amy Coney Barrett. Given Breyer’s age, Trump probably has one more arrow left in his quiver.

I suppose that I should thank Harry for bringing an end to the trend set by Teddy Kennedy. No future SCOTUS appointments will be “Borked“.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: TheDeamon on October 10, 2020, 02:44:58 PM
But for McConnell changing the rules for SC confirmations, the rules for SC confirmations would be the same.

You're treating McConnell as a NPC.  Unless reality is just a construct of your fevered imagination, McConnell likely has self-determination.

I'm inclined to disagree. If another SCotUS Nomination had happened under Obama and the Republicans acted to block it under Reid's leadership, that rule would have been changed by the Democrats. They just never had the chance to do so.
Title: Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Post by: DonaldD on October 10, 2020, 03:24:57 PM
I'm inclined to disagree. If another SCotUS Nomination had happened under Obama and the Republicans acted to block it under Reid's leadership, that rule would have been changed by the Democrats. They just never had the chance to do so.
This has even less evidence supporting it than the claims of widespread voter fraud. But if it helps you sleep better...