Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (1 Viewer)

[GrandAdmiral]

Ugh... breaking news I DID NOT want to see.

ETA: Reported on CNN.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Leaving aside the absolutely toxic hypocrisy of allowing a nomination to come to a vote at this point in the election, I’ve come to think this:

If Trump and McConnell push a vote through before the election it will be because they are convinced that Trump will lose the election. If they delay, it will be because they think Trump has a real chance.

According to them it's not hypocritical at all thank you very much
=================================================================

...........Questioned aggressively by Fox News's Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday over whether Republicans were being hypocritical on the issue, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) held his ground.

Wallace played video of comments by Cotton in 2016 arguing it would be wrong for the Senate to vote on a replacement for Scalia before the presidential election.

"Why would we squelch the voice of the people? Why would we deny the voters a chance to weigh in on the makeup of the Supreme Court?" Cotton said on the Senate floor in 2016.

"You don't see any hypocrisy between that position then and this position now?" Wallace asked.

"Chris, the Senate majority is performing our constitutional duty and fulfilling the mandate that the voters gave us," Cotton responded.............

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[MT15]

Trump can never not be petty or mean spirited. Never.

 

[superchuck500]

She has only three years on the bench, having been appointed by Trump in 2017. Why the big rush? Surely there are more accomplished women with a longer judicial record. The realistic fear is that she will rule based on her fervent religious beliefs, even though she says she won’t. And we don’t have much evidence to support her statements due to her short time on the bench.

Per a WaPo article, written about her confirmation in 2017 (emphasis mine): “That article and others by Barrett drew pointed questions from Senate Democrats during her 2017 confirmation hearing. Barrett was pressed on an article she co-wrote in 1998, in the Marquette Law Review, that said judges should not be compelled to rule in ways that contradict their religious views and that Catholic judges might therefore recuse themselves from some death penalty cases.”

Her membership in People of Praise raises questions about her beliefs as well. This is a very small movement mainly within the Catholic Church although membership is open to any Christian. They do not allow women to hold any leadership positions within the organization and teach that women should always be subservient to their husbands. Similar to Pentecostal Protestant organizations.

Im not saying she doesn’t have the right to these beliefs, but I’m not convinced by her words alone that she won’t rule in ways that are unduly influenced by her beliefs. We simply don’t have enough time seeing her on the bench to elevate her to the highest court in the land.

I don't like her resume' either. Yes, she clerked for Scalia and Judge Silberman at the D.C. Circuit in her immediate post-graduate work and she then went to work as an associate at a large DC firm. She practiced law for three years . . . and that kind of work isn't really practice. Those young associates mostly do document management (discovery) and legal research. I'd be quite surprised if she ever took a deposition or actually had to work with opposing counsel.

She's from New Orleans (graduated Dominican in '90), then went to Rhodes in Memphis ('94), before Notre Dame Law (J.D. '97) - where she then went to clerk for less than a full year at the D.C. Circuit, another clerkship (probably one session) with Scalia at S. Ct., and then on to her short-lived associate attorney job in D.C.

She's been a professor at GW Law in DC and then Notre Dame. And now she's got two-plus years on the 7th Circuit. All of this is fine, she's clearly very accomplished. But Supreme Court at age 48? This isn't a blue-chip education and straight to the big-leagues, set-the-world in fire resume. Nor is it a self-made, wunderkind who learned under the tutelage of someone like Scalia before them becoming a star advocate and legal writer. It's just sort of barely considerable - her legal views are clearly what has driven her appointments. She's already done very well to be on the 7th Circuit. She's not SCOTUS material yet.

She's never argued a case in a court of appeals, much less the Supreme Court. She's never presided over a trial or ruled on an objection.

Let's contrast this with Ginsburg when she was nominated:
Cornell B.A.
Columbia Law (finished #1 in her class)
U.S. District Court clerkship
Columbia Law Professor while simultaneously leading the Women's Rights Project at the ACLU
Argued six landmark cases at the Supreme Court
Judge D.C. Circuit for 13 years
Confirmed to Supreme Court in 1996

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

This used to be "saying the quiet part out loud" but there is not even a quiet part any more.



I don't remember where I first saw this analogy, but it has stuck with me for years. The Democratic Party of my entire lifetime have been the folks crying "nooo, that's against the rules, dogs can't even play basketball!!!!" while Mitch McConnell is a golden retriever dunking the ball on their heads over and over and over again. A GOP presidential candidate has received the most votes only once in the past seven elections, the GOP Senate majority is built on receiving even fewer of the votes, and they have gotten literally whatever they want accomplished in the last 30 years, and the Democrats one time got a health care bill passed that subsidized insurance companies and was instantly gutted by executive order. Just a complete and abject failure.

 

[wardorican]

Couple of replies, and I fail at multi-quoting so I'll try to address stuff together.

The system of government we have is fundamentally broken. Washington's warnings of the dangers of factionalism have manifested themselves over the last decade or so. But considering we aren't going to change to a parliamentary system, any change has to be made in the system that exists. There is no way reasonable way to alter the mechanics of the federal judiciary short of Constitutional Amendment. The greatest injury to federal courts was the dispensing of the 60-vote requirement which at least somewhat insured some degree of moderation to judicial appointments.

You will get no argument from me that Mitch McConnell isn't a snake. He practically revels in it, himself. But he played the system and achieved his goal of stacking the judiciary. That cannot be undone. Democrats have to play the long (yes, even longer than a 50 year-old justice's remaining lifespan) game in convincing voters that their party offers solutions to their problems. This is something Hillary Clinton failed to do in 2016 and the resulting election of Trump significantly altered the course of the nation and the world. When you consider Trump barely won Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, it isn't too much of a stretch to posit that Bernie Sanders would have beaten him in those states.

The most 'radical' action the Democrats could take is to pursue statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C. There aren't many effective arguments against it other than Republican pragmatic concerns of never controlling the Senate again. It's laughable when you hear Tom Cotton try to distinguish why people in Arkansas or Montana should have Senate representation whereas people in D.C. or Puerto Rico should not. Anyway, you couple that with demographic trends of younger voters being more liberal, a rise in the Latino population, etc. and you have a path forward for a moderate to liberal country in the not-so-distant future.

Give moderate and independent voters good policy reasons to back the Democrats and the Senate and Presidential election victories will follow. That's not a great answer in that it doesn't result in a quick fix, but there really are no quick fixes here. At least none that wouldn't serve to further radicalize more people towards the right.

Puerto Rican's being democrats isn't a safe bet.

However, I do think I they would be in that majority for a while. But there is a lot of actual conservative values there, just not always GOP.

 

[coldseat]

Republicans are overplaying their hand here. The naked power grab and rank hypocrisy is looking like it's to much for voters to accept.

It's possible that they could have used this moment to look principled by holding the seat open until the new election, as they did in 2016. Thereby using it as a rallying cry to both energize their base and win independent voters to their cause. But I think they've correctly recognized that they aren't likely to hold on to power (even if they do go the principled route) and this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to accomplish their deepest desire, a conservative super majority on the court. So they're pushing all of the chips to the middle of the table.

It looks like this is energizing the left and moderates/independents more so than anything that has happened in the last 4 years. And that's considering that we have a once in a lifetime pandemic that this administration has completely mismanaged. The repercussions in the election look like they can be devastating to Republicans along with what happens in the aftermath.

Opinion: The Democrats’ response to RBG’s death should terrify Trump | CNN

Democrats have already begun channeling their pain at losing RBG into action, pouring a record-breaking number of donations to Democratic candidates and causes, writes Dean Obeidallah. “The evidence shows that voters want to honor RBGs’ legacy by supporting Democrats to defeat Trump and his GOP...

www.cnn.com

 

[wardorican]

He did this for Scalia too, but Mitch McConnell is such a gross 'human'. For both of his condolence speeches, he had to talk about their open seat. So gross. Let the body cool down and bury them.

I know, their position needs a replacement, and it eventually needs to be discussed, but damn...

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

No IF, he has already backpedaled and put out a statement that he will

Yep. He is citing rule changes for approving circuit judges (which had already been made before he made his comments during the Garland nomination process) and the Democrats being such big meanies to Brett Kavanaugh as the reasons why his words do not matter.



But Lindsey Graham is already on camera contradicting himself so many times about Donald Trump and looking like a fool that I can assure you that Lindsey Graham Does. Not. Care. about anyone is calling him a hypocrite. All he and these other guys care about is power.

 

[superchuck500]

Puerto Rican's being democrats isn't a safe bet.

However, I do think I they would be in that majority for a while. But there is a lot of actual conservative values there, just not always GOP.

Yeah, I think it's pretty fascinating to see Mitch and other Republicans rail on about how PR statehood is just a power-grab for the Democrats "in perpetuity" as he says. It just strikes me as profoundly prejudiced if not outright racist.

Does Mitch not think that Puerto Ricans are individuals who have their own policy and social interests? They have never been campaigned to for a federal representative in Congress, how does Mitch know they are staunch Democrats? Isn't Puerto Rico a territory with a very active faith identity? Aren't there business and commercial interests in Puerto Rico that could be won over to a more Republican viewpoint?

These are the kinds of things that Republicans used to live for - now it just seems that is nothing but a memory cast against a present of tribal, identity politics that presume that minorities are Democrats.

 

[FullMonte]

Not that I want this precedent set, but more of a procedural question...

I see all of this talk about the democrats winning the white house and the senate and increasing the court to 11, is the opposite possible, procedurally? Could they drop the court to 7 seats, and eliminate the two newest justices? If so, could they then, shortly after, increase it back to 9 and fill those two seats?

 

[Booker]

Not that I want this precedent set, but more of a procedural question...

I see all of this talk about the democrats winning the white house and the senate and increasing the court to 11, is the opposite possible, procedurally? Could they drop the court to 7 seats, and eliminate the two newest justices? If so, could they then, shortly after, increase it back to 9 and fill those two seats?

Appointments are for life, so they couldn't remove any Justices, but they could at a later point decide not to fill vacancies to allow the court to shrink back to a smaller size.

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

Hypothetical scenario:

1. Trump makes nomination.

2. While nomination is pending, Joe Biden says it should wait but also decides to commit on the record to not packing the court during his term because of constitutional norms, etc.

3. Biden wins election, Democrats win the House and Senate.

4. Nomination is approved during lame duck session in December.

5. Democratic voters are super mad about the new justice, demand action.

6. House and Senate pass legislation to add two Supreme Court seats in response to popular outrage. Biden, in opposition to the completely unnecessary comments he made pre-election, goes along with it because people are big mad.

7. GOP media spends two years declaring that packing the Court is the most anti-American thing ever, Biden is a hypocrite (because only Democrat hypocrisy matters), some new astro-turfed "movement" arises to save the court.

8. Mainstream media decides to provide ample coverage of that movement, because they have to be "independent" and report both sides no matter how terrible either of the "sides" happens to be.

9. Democrats lose the House and/or Senate in 2022.

10. GOP wins the Presidency in 2024.

11. GOP immediately moves to pack the court, because even though they were so hysterical about it before "you reap what you sow" and it's only fair.

12. The earth is swallowed by the sea and flames with GOP support because of the Bible so none of this really mattered anyway.

 

[superchuck500]

Not that I want this precedent set, but more of a procedural question...

I see all of this talk about the democrats winning the white house and the senate and increasing the court to 11, is the opposite possible, procedurally? Could they drop the court to 7 seats, and eliminate the two newest justices? If so, could they then, shortly after, increase it back to 9 and fill those two seats?

I feel slimly even answering this question, but the number of Court justices is a matter for the legislative process. A new law could reduce the number of justices - in fact that happened in 1801, but was repealed not long after all of which was part of the episode that led to Marbury v. Madison, the most important case in American judicial history.

I think the biggest questions are how that would all work and still be constitutional. Could the law actually remove the two "newest justices" or would there have to be some other process? And then would the return to nine be seen as a repeal of the law reducing to seven (and would that mean the two eliminated would return because the law was repealed and they were never actually impeached)?

I hope none of that happens.

 

[Booker]

The simplest resolution is for McConnell to follow his own precedent. But if he doesn't, all options should be on the table and Democrats would be wise to stop bringing pillows to knife fights.

IF McConnell fills a seat vacated less than six weeks before an election after holding up a seat that was vacated almost nine months from the last election, AND the Democrats capture the House, Senate, and White House, I think they would be completely justified in immediately adding three justices to bring the total to twelve (especially when you factor in what McConnell has done with Federal judgeships). First they'd have to grow some balls, but the simplest, clearest argument they should be making is that there is no reason for the highest court to be so non-representative of the electoral results of the past generation and it is their job and duty under the constitution to correct the imbalance that McConnell has created by gaming the system.

Under this scenario I wouldn't see adding three justices as "stacking the court," it would be balancing the court, correcting abuses of the system imposed by McConnell, as a 6-3 conservative split is simply not representative of the country or reflective of its voting patterns over the last generation.

The longest currently serving Justice is Thomas, who was appointed under Bush I. Going back to his election, Republicans have won four elections (1988, 2000*, 2004, 2016*) and Democrats have won four (1992, 1996, 2008, 2012), but if they win this year that would be five of the last nine. It would make no sense that during a period of time when Democrats won more Presidential elections for Republicans to have named twice as many justices. If anything, considering the popular vote tallies, in which case a Biden win would be seven of the past nine elections where the Democrats won the popular vote, if would make much more sense for that to be reversed.

So you correct the imbalance by adding three seats. Again, they wouldn't be giving themselves a majority, they'd be simply balancing the court, not stacking it to give themselves an advantage. And if you want to eventually get it back to nine, then legislate that the next three vacancies aren't to be filled (or every other vacancy until it gets back to nine). And also legislate to prevent future court packing like we've seen under McConnell that created this whole situation.

This would all of course be contingent upon both the White House and Senate changing parties, both to create a potential scenario where this could happen and also to a scenario where such actions could be justified based on the will of the electorate, and neither of which is a given.

 

[First Time Poster]

Yeah, I think it's pretty fascinating to see Mitch and other Republicans rail on about how PR statehood is just a power-grab for the Democrats "in perpetuity" as he says. It just strikes me as profoundly prejudiced if not outright racist.

These are the kinds of things that Republicans used to live for -

Is it though? The African American community, similarly to PR, has very deep rooted faith-based conservative values too. We aren't a monolith of a voting bloc either but how has the Republican Party treated us minorities here on the mainland? Southern. Strategy.

Imho, the Republican Party's viewpoint of minorities has been "profoundly prejudice if not outright racist" for decades now. Our vote hasn't been something they've sought for years, despite some of our aligning values. It doesn't surprise me at all their disposition towards Puerto Ricans. It's on brand to me.

 

[wardorican]

Yeah, I think it's pretty fascinating to see Mitch and other Republicans rail on about how PR statehood is just a power-grab for the Democrats "in perpetuity" as he says. It just strikes me as profoundly prejudiced if not outright racist.

Does Mitch not think that Puerto Ricans are individuals who have their own policy and social interests? They have never been campaigned to for a federal representative in Congress, how does Mitch know they are staunch Democrats? Isn't Puerto Rico a territory with a very active faith identity? Aren't there business and commercial interests in Puerto Rico that could be won over to a more Republican viewpoint?

These are the kinds of things that Republicans used to live for - now it just seems that is nothing but a memory cast against a present of tribal, identity politics that presume that minorities are Democrats.

I see it in various areas. I think the over simplification that "immigration" is a latino (or LatinX) issue.

Is is bad enough when Black people are treated like a voting block, but latinos definitely are not a voting block.

This is still being too simplistic, but I'd assume Mexicans, Central and South Americans have a different view on immigration than Puerto Ricans and Cubans.

In the case of most Latinos, their country of origin is a bigger defining part of their identity. Black's in America don't have that really as an option, unless they're more recent immigrants from Africa, or Jamaican / Dominican. There is a more common USA Black identity, vs a historical homeland.

Sadly, too many people either aren't aware of the shared discrimination, or it just isn't taught or mentioned in the main stream to realize how much discrimination we've all historically faced.

The Long History of Anti-Latino Discrimination in America | HISTORY

School segregation, lynchings and mass deportations of Spanish-speaking U.S. citizens are just some of the injustices Latinos have faced.

www.history.com

Then Mendez’s parents fought back. In 1945, along with four other families, they filed a class action lawsuit against four Orange County school districts. Their goal: Ensure that all children could attend California schools regardless of race.

The case culminated in a two-week-long trial. In court, school officials claimed that Latino students were dirty and infected with diseases that put white students at risk. Besides, they argued, Mexican-American students didn’t speak English and were thus not entitled to attend English-speaking schools. (When asked, officials conceded that they never gave students proficiency tests.) “Mexicans are inferior in personal hygiene, ability and in their economic outlook,” said one official.

Mendez’s attorney countered with testimony from experts in social science. He argued that the policy trampled on Latino children’s Constitutional rights. When Carol Torres, a 14-year-old Latino girl, took the stand, she immediately proved that Mexican-American students in the district could and did speak English.
It took seven months for Judge Paul J. McCormick to render a decision. On February 18, 1946, he ruled that the school districts discriminated against Mexican-American students and violated their Constitutional rights. Though the school districts challenged the ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with McCormick. Thanks to Mendez v. Westminster School District, California officially ended all segregation in its schools.

 

[JimEverett]

I don't like her resume' either. Yes, she clerked for Scalia and Judge Silberman at the D.C. Circuit in her immediate post-graduate work and she then went to work as an associate at a large DC firm. She practiced law for three years . . . and that kind of work isn't really practice. Those young associates mostly do document management (discovery) and legal research. I'd be quite surprised if she ever took a deposition or actually had to work with opposing counsel.

She's from New Orleans (graduated Dominican in '90), then went to Rhodes in Memphis ('94), before Notre Dame Law (J.D. '97) - where she then went to clerk for less than a full year at the D.C. Circuit, another clerkship (probably one session) with Scalia at S. Ct., and then on to her short-lived associate attorney job in D.C.

She's been a professor at GW Law in DC and then Notre Dame. And now she's got two-plus years on the 7th Circuit. All of this is fine, she's clearly very accomplished. But Supreme Court at age 48? This isn't a blue-chip education and straight to the big-leagues, set-the-world in fire resume. Nor is it a self-made, wunderkind who learned under the tutelage of someone like Scalia before them becoming a star advocate and legal writer. It's just sort of barely considerable - her legal views are clearly what has driven her appointments. She's already done very well to be on the 7th Circuit. She's not SCOTUS material yet.

She's never argued a case in a court of appeals, much less the Supreme Court. She's never presided over a trial or ruled on an objection.

Let's contrast this with Ginsburg when she was nominated:
Cornell B.A.
Columbia Law (finished #1 in her class)
U.S. District Court clerkship
Columbia Law Professor while simultaneously leading the Women's Rights Project at the ACLU
Argued six landmark cases at the Supreme Court
Judge D.C. Circuit for 13 years
Confirmed to Supreme Court in 1996

Lagoa definitely has a better pedigree imo.
Not sure of any major cases Lagoa has written or decided, but it is hard to imagine her history is going to be more controversial than Barrett's.

Trump will pick who he thinks better helps him out. Barrett for the religious right vote, Lagoa to energize Cuban Americans and blunt some of the Democratic attack on the nominee (possibly).

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

The more I think about it the more I could see Trump picking Lagoa. Trump doesn't care about Roe v. Wade or Federalism or anything about the courts to the extent it doesn't help him politically.