Author Topic: Ruth Bader Ginsberg  (Read 3476 times)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« 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

Rest in peace.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #1 on: September 18, 2020, 08:06:06 PM »
A sad day.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #2 on: September 18, 2020, 08:09:07 PM »
*censored*. This is going to be bad.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #3 on: September 18, 2020, 08:41:56 PM »
I'm sure Trump will have something nice and respectful to tweet.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #4 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  :(.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #5 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!

Ouija Nightmare

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #6 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.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #7 on: September 18, 2020, 09:21:12 PM »
Will Trump go to the funeral?  Call her nasty?

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #8 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.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2020, 10:22:13 PM by noel c. »

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #9 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.

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #10 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?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #11 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.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #12 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.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #13 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?

 

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #14 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.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #15 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.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #16 on: September 19, 2020, 01:00:09 PM »
I'm sorry, who did away with the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations?

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #17 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.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #18 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.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #19 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.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #20 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.




noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #21 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
« Last Edit: September 19, 2020, 03:48:39 PM by noel c. »

Mynnion

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #22 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.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #23 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?

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #24 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.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #25 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?

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #26 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.

Mynnion

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #27 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.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #28 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?

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #29 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.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #30 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.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2020, 08:09:49 PM by NobleHunter »

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #31 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?
« Last Edit: September 19, 2020, 08:38:47 PM by noel c. »

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #32 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.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #33 on: September 19, 2020, 09:01:13 PM »
I didn't say anything about what Trump would say in regards to her death.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #34 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?

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #35 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.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #36 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.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #37 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.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #38 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...

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #39 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.

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #40 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.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #41 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.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #42 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.

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #43 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.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #44 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.


cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #45 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?

Mynnion

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #46 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.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #47 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.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #48 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. 

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #49 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.