Author Topic: Ruth Bader Ginsberg  (Read 3470 times)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #50 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" 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 Fortas hit strong bipartisan Senate opposition and asked that his name be withdrawn for chief justice (though he stayed on the court as an associate justice).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 But that nomination, too, was withdrawn, as Fortas never became chief justice.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)

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #51 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?
« Last Edit: September 20, 2020, 11:48:24 AM by wmLambert »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #52 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.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #53 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?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #54 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/
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.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #55 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.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2020, 02:30:13 PM by TheDeamon »

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #56 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.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #57 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.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #58 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.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #59 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


wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #60 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.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #61 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.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #62 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.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #63 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.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #64 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.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #65 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.

fizz

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #66 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.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #67 on: September 21, 2020, 11:44:16 AM »
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.

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #68 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.

Mynnion

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #69 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?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #70 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.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #71 on: September 21, 2020, 05:29:21 PM »
When the confirmation process comes around, you just know it will be like this.  :(

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #72 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?

Mynnion

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #73 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.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #74 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."

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #75 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.



wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #76 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.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #77 on: September 21, 2020, 09:37:17 PM »
Well, that explains a lot.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #78 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.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #79 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.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #80 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.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #81 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.,

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #82 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
« Last Edit: September 22, 2020, 11:25:30 AM by rightleft22 »

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #83 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?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #84 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.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #85 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.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #86 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.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #87 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.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #88 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.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2020, 12:10:43 PM by rightleft22 »

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #89 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?

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #90 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.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #91 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.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #92 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.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #93 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?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #94 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.


Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #95 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.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #96 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.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #97 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.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #98 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.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« Reply #99 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?  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