Author Topic: Ruth Bader Ginsberg  (Read 1012 times)

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #100 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.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #101 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.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #102 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.  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.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #103 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.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #104 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.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #105 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.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #106 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?

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #107 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.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #108 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.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #109 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.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #110 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.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #111 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.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #112 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.

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #113 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.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #114 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.

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #115 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.   
« Last Edit: September 25, 2020, 11:00:56 PM by noel c. »

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #116 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.

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #117 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).

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #118 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.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #119 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."

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #120 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.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #121 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.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #122 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.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #123 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.

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #124 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.

« Last Edit: September 27, 2020, 03:10:32 AM by noel c. »

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #125 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.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #126 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.

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #127 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.

« Last Edit: September 27, 2020, 09:19:32 AM by noel c. »

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #128 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.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #129 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?

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #130 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.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #131 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
List of nominations
Control of Senate

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #132 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.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #133 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.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #134 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.