Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died

Author: Vader

Posts

Total: 192
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,429
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
Rest in Peace to RBG. Thoughts and prayers. The election now gets more important. If Trump wins, expect another 6-3 Conservative house
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Vader
RIP. I expected her to live for a while longer. I guess not. Now we'll see if Trump tries to replace her before January.
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
[Insert vitriolic political argument about replacing RBG here]
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
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 court

this one's for all the marbles
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
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)?  
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,555
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@oromagi
What 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.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,331
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@oromagi
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)?  
What Joe Biden said only applied if the parties in the Senate and Presidency were different, not the same 🤷‍♂️
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,331
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
This election just got more interesting 
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,429
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
Indeed. But let's mourn her. Powerful women figure in general. Very honorable women in general. RiP

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,543
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
well Trump has 3 1/2 months to appoint a replacement. Get cracking.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,331
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
well 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
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,543
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
2016 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.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,331
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Or 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
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,543
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Honestly 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.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,331
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Honestly 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
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,543
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
You 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.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,543
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Lol, court isnt getting packed.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,331
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, court isnt getting packed.
Ed Markey already threatened to abolish the filibuster and pack the Court if Trump fills the seat before inauguration 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,543
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Empty threat.
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
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.
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 4,090
3
6
9
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
9
-->
@oromagi
Keep 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.
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ILikePie5
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
Let'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.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,331
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@dustryder
Let'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 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,543
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
As if serving the will of your constituents was supposed to be a bad thing.
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ILikePie5
You're missing some context I think.

Firstly, "if a vacancy with the same party, fill it in election year" has been arbitrarily tacked on later to justify Mitch's actions. That bit is not a part of the "Biden rule" and is the flimsy pretext.

Secondly, the context of the rule when first suggested by Biden was to allow the people to have a say in the choice. This is the justification used by Mitch in blocking Merrick Garland.

Thirdly, the suggestion made by Biden at the time was, failing the second point, a compromise pick should be made either with the consultation of the senate or the selection of a moderate.

Given the first point, Mitch is not actually invoking the Biden rule in this case. He's just doing what he wants and is legally able really.
Given the second point, clearly Mitch is a hypocrite as he does not intend to follow the justification of the Biden rule, nor his own justification made at the time for blocking Garland.
Given the third point, arguably Mitch never followed the Biden rule in the first place, because from what I understand, Garland was and is a moderate, and was actually a Republican suggestion in the first place.

Also I'd point out that the Biden rule is not actually a rule. It was a suggestion at the time and never codified or put into practice until Mitch invoked it to justify blocking Garland. Given that he obviously doesn't care about the context behind the rule clearly means that invoking it is pretextual, both in the first instance of invoking it and even moreso in the second instance.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,543
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
In the end there are no "moral justifications" for political actions.

The Democrat party took a gamble with Obamacare and lost the Senate.

Obamacare was a political gamble, not a moral one. 


losing 9 Senate seats has consequences.

"For too long, this administration has tried to tell the American people what is good for them and then blame somebody else when their policies didn't work out," Mitch McConnell, who is expected to become the next Senate majority leader, said in a victory speech.

Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
I don't see that Mitch has the votes because of a few GoP senators being potentially unwilling. He's probably got the votes though. Mitch's stance is clearly hypocritical, but it's not like anybody really believed him the first time. It's just so out in the open now, but when it comes to SCOTUS nominations the reputation damage is probably a small price to pay for the power of a life-long SCOTUS seat.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,331
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@dustryder
You're missing some context I think.

Firstly, "if a vacancy with the same party, fill it in election year" has been arbitrarily tacked on later to justify Mitch's actions. That bit is not a part of the "Biden rule" and is the flimsy pretext.
Doesn’t seem like it to me considering Joe Biden was the Chair of Judiciary Committee which Bush Sr.  was there.

Secondly, the context of the rule when first suggested by Biden was to allow the people to have a say in the choice. This is the justification used by Mitch in blocking Merrick Garland. 
Sure and that’s a logical justification.

Thirdly, the suggestion made by Biden at the time was, failing the second point, a compromise pick should be made either with the consultation of the senate or the selection of a moderate.
The President can appoint whoever he wants to. Historically, if the Senate and Presidency were in the same party’s hands a nominee was put on the bench.

Given the first point, Mitch is not actually invoking the Biden rule in this case. He's just doing what he wants and is legally able really.
Given the second point, clearly Mitch is a hypocrite as he does not intend to follow the justification of the Biden rule, nor his own justification made at the time for blocking Garland.
His justification was Biden himself. Biden acknowledged that the process would be highly partisan probably because the Senate and Presidency were in the opposite hands.

Given the third point, arguably Mitch never followed the Biden rule in the first place, because from what I understand, Garland was and is a moderate, and was actually a Republican suggestion in the first place.
Garland is not a moderate. He rules liberally on everything there and is a judicial activist.

Also I'd point out that the Biden rule is not actually a rule. It was a suggestion at the time and never codified or put into practice until Mitch invoked it to justify blocking Garland. Given that he obviously doesn't care about the context behind the rule clearly means that invoking it is pretextual, both in the first instance of invoking it and even moreso in the second instance.
If you’re going to vote for Joe you gotta listen to what he says right? Your problem here is that you’re salty RBG didn’t retire under Obama and now her seat is going to be filled by a conservative. I have no doubt Democrats would fill it if the vacancy occurred during a Democratic President. The historical precedence lies with the GOP. Go read SirAnonymous’ post.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,331
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Death23
I don't see that Mitch has the votes because of a few GoP senators being potentially unwilling. He's probably got the votes though. Mitch's stance is clearly hypocritical, but it's not like anybody really believed him the first time. It's just so out in the open now, but when it comes to SCOTUS nominations the reputation damage is probably a small price to pay for the power of a life-long SCOTUS seat.
Even if he doesn’t have the votes right now, he will have them in a lame-duck session. I don’t see hypocrisy - I see opportunity. One that Democrats also wouldn’t have hesitated to take.

This result falls on two things - RBG for not retiring earlier and Barack Obama/Democrats shoving Obamacare down the throats of the GOP and Americans that resulted in them losing the Senate.