Rest in Peace to RBG. Thoughts and prayers. The election now gets more important. If Trump wins, expect another 6-3 Conservative house
Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died
Topic's posts
Posts in total:
192
-
-
--> @SupaDudzRIP. I expected her to live for a while longer. I guess not. Now we'll see if Trump tries to replace her before January. -
[Insert vitriolic political argument about replacing RBG here]
-
her stubbornness in refusing to resign years ago caught up with her.no more lettin john roberts stand in the way of the conservative majority on the courtthis one's for all the marbles -
I don't think there's any question trumpists will surrender all prior moral objections to appointing justices from four years ago and demand an appointment before January. What if Trump manages to bring the election outcome before the court (a la 2000)? -
AND schumer pulls a mcconnel-https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/517167-schumer-ruth-bader-ginsburg-seat-should-be-filled-by-next-president -
--> @oromagiWhat if Trump manages to bring the election outcome before the court (a la 2000)?Then we all get even more hyperpartisan and scream at each other even louder?Hopefully, we don't have another disputed election like 2000. We don't need any more division in this country than we already have.
-
--> @oromagiI don't think there's any question trumpists will surrender all prior moral objections to appointing justices from four years ago and demand an appointment before January. What if Trump manages to bring the election outcome before the court (a la 2000)?What Joe Biden said only applied if the parties in the Senate and Presidency were different, not the same 🤷♂️ -
--> @GreyparrotThis election just got more interesting
-
Indeed. But let's mourn her. Powerful women figure in general. Very honorable women in general. RiP
-
--> @ILikePie5well Trump has 3 1/2 months to appoint a replacement. Get cracking. -
--> @Greyparrotwell Trump has 3 1/2 months to appoint a replacement. Get cracking.The one thing Mitch is good at is getting judges on the bench. Even if there’s one week left, he’ll do it for sure. It’ll be easier during a lame duck session even if Trump loses
-
--> @ILikePie52016 election has consequences. When the people elect a senate and a president that have the same goals, they expect them to put those goals in action.Or they can do like Biden and not get anything done for 40 years and see how that works out.
-
--> @GreyparrotOr they can do like Biden and not get anything done for 40 years and see how that works out.Mitch is just following the Biden Rule - if vacancy with same party, fill it in election year, if parties are different wait till after election
-
--> @ILikePie5Honestly if the public gets upset about a conservative court, it will be the first time in over 70 years that the people actually cared about what the SCOTUS does.That's a good thing no matter who wins the election.
-
--> @GreyparrotHonestly if the public gets upset about a conservative court, it will be the first time in over 70 years that the people actually cared about what the SCOTUS does.That's a good thing no matter who wins the election.Imagine a court packing bill being sued and court decides against it lol
-
--> @ILikePie5You can probably credit the extreme failure of Obamacare for the party flip in the Senate, leading to all these conservative judge appointments.The public was downright pissed over that mess.
-
--> @ILikePie5Lol, court isnt getting packed.
-
--> @GreyparrotLol, court isnt getting packed.Ed Markey already threatened to abolish the filibuster and pack the Court if Trump fills the seat before inauguration
-
--> @ILikePie5Empty threat.
-
Since it's relevant again, here's a good article on the historical precedents and norms regarding election year SC nominations.Some key passages:"In short: There have been ten vacancies resulting in a presidential election-year or post-election nomination when the president and Senate were from opposite parties. In six of the ten cases, a nomination was made before Election Day. Only one of those, Chief Justice Melville Fuller’s nomination by Grover Cleveland in 1888, was confirmed before the election.""Nineteen times between 1796 and 1968, presidents have sought to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential-election year while their party controlled the Senate. Ten of those nominations came before the election; nine of the ten were successful, the only failure being the bipartisan filibuster of the ethically challenged Abe Fortas as chief justice in 1968...Nine times, presidents have made nominations after the election in a lame-duck session. These include some storied nominations, such as John Adams picking Chief Justice John Marshall in 1801 and Abraham Lincoln selecting Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase in 1864. Of the nine, the only one that did not succeed was Washington’s 1793 nomination of William Paterson, which was withdrawn for technical reasons and resubmitted and confirmed the first day of the next Congress (Paterson had helped draft the Judiciary Act of 1789 creating the Court, and the Constitution thus required his term as a senator to end before he could be appointed to the Court)."That's 1 out of 6 nominees being confirmed when the president and Senate were of different parties and 17 out of 19 nominees being confirmed when they were of the same party. In short, historical precedence supported the Republican-controlled Senate's rejection of Merrick Garland, although the refusal to vote was different. Of course, actually voting on his nomination would have led to the same result. Also, if the Senate confirms whoever Trump's nomination will be, which McConnell has already promised to do, that will be backed by a strong historical precedent.
-
--> @oromagiKeep in mind that the rules were thrown out when the Democrats tried to block Kavanaugh. They tried to block the will of the people, which is what McConnell argued for four years ago. Now, Democrats have made it political. So be it, then. Let us squeeze in a pick before January. This, of course, is assuming Biden will even win, which is up in the air. -
--> @ILikePie5Mitch is just following the Biden Rule - if vacancy with same party, fill it in election year, if parties are different wait till after electionLet's try not to justify Mitch's actions under such a flimsy pretext. It is sufficient to say that while hypocritical, Mitch is legally serving his party's best interests. -
--> @dustryderLet's try not to justify Mitch's actions under such a flimsy pretext. It is sufficient to say that while hypocritical, Mitch is legally serving his party's best interests.It’s not a flimsy pretext if that’s what he actually said. It is by no means hypocritical. The rule was created by Biden and Mitch just using it. A side effect is that he’s serving his party’s best interest. Historically same party in Senate and Presidency have nominated people
-
--> @ILikePie5As if serving the will of your constituents was supposed to be a bad thing.