Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (4 Viewers)

[GrandAdmiral]

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

ETA: Reported on CNN.

 

[SaintForLife]

As I said before both parties are hypocrites, but accusing the last nominee of being a gang rapist and alcoholic probably didn't help win over any Republicans that might have been on the fence with the the new seat to fill. The Democrats do have a history of smearing Republican Supreme Court nominees so it's not surprising.

 

[wardorican]

As I said before both parties are hypocrites, but accusing the last nominee of being a gang rapist and alcoholic probably didn't help win over any Republicans that might have been on the fence with the the new seat to fill. The Democrats do have a history of smearing Republican Supreme Court nominees so it's not surprising.

They don't even have a nominee.

If they 'got the votes' then they aren't taking this job seriously.

 

[SaintForLife]

So much for Mitt being one of the last few republicans with a spine

I have a feeling that Romney will no longer be popular on the left and in the media.

 

[bdb13]

I swear someone here posted that Romney said whoever wins the election should choose the nominee.. but maybe not.

If Romney is willing to vote to confirm then I think it's almost assuredly a matter only of when Trump has his nominee confirmed, not if.

 

[bdb13]

I have a feeling that Romney will no longer be popular on the left and in the media.

Eh, yeah probably... but I still give him credit for being the only Republican honorable and brave (imo, of course) enough to vote to remove Trump from office

 

[cuddlemonkey]

As I said before both parties are hypocrites, but accusing the last nominee of being a gang rapist and alcoholic probably didn't help win over any Republicans that might have been on the fence with the the new seat to fill. The Democrats do have a history of smearing Republican Supreme Court nominees so it's not surprising.

Does Herridge provide any dates for context? For example, Graham stated in October 2018 that "if an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait until the next election."

How is that reconciled with his assertion that the Kavanaugh nomination process (which played out the month before this statement) is what changed his mind?

 

[Sandman]

As I said before both parties are hypocrites, but accusing the last nominee of being a gang rapist and alcoholic probably didn't help win over any Republicans that might have been on the fence with the the new seat to fill. The Democrats do have a history of smearing Republican Supreme Court nominees so it's not surprising.

There is no way that mattered to Lindsey Graham. He would have done the same thing if the Democrats threw flowers on the floor as Kavanaugh walked in to his confirmation hearing. This is all about power. The Republicans have the power, and they don't care if using it is hypocritical.

Then the Democrats will try and stack the court, which I hate. That is the problem when you abuse the power just because you can. You open yourself up to abuse from the other side.

My approach is always, if the other side were to pull this move, would I be ticked. If the answer to that is "yes," then I oppose it even if it gets the result I want. However, you have to be honest with yourself in this approach. Too many people justify their position when they know damn well that if the other side was doing it they would be raising hell--like Graham is doing now. We need more statepersons and less politicians.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I don't see how the Constitution will be this country's undoing. The Constitution allows for amendment and adjustment - and if the Constitution is ill-equipped for the current political climate, how can we possibly create an alternative? That sounds even worse, there's no way the United States could go through a reconstruction of its government, we would splinter into different nations or into full-scale civil war. So how is that the Constitution's problem and not more accurately an American people problem?

And speaking of reconstruction, it was crazy. I think our living memory is short and we had been a relatively civil period - but the reality is that the United States has been through highly contentious, destructive power-politics before. I really don't see how the features of the Constitution are the problem, it's how we are (currently) using those features. This Supreme Court issue is a perfect example: if you look at every Supreme Court vacancy during an election year since 1900 (there were eight of them), the president made a nomination and the Senate went through the process. Six of the eight were confirmed, including one by a Senate in opposition, one was a recess appointment so it technically doesn't count until the proper appointment was made the following year, and one was Abe Fortas who was just really problematic . . . but even his nomination was taken up by the Senate and then filibustered (because of the nominee, not party politics).

Is it the Constitution's fault that McConnell decided to short-circuit the advice and consent process? As far as I can tell, that had never been done.

I’m not gonna go so far as to blame only the document, it’s more than that, but the document looms as large or larger than anything, because it has caused the path dependency that has narrowed and handicapped the range of motion we have to fix it. But other forces are certainly in play and you could write entire thesis on them.

That said:

1.) The constitution is incredibly difficult to alter.

2.) There is an almost cult-like zealotry around the document’s supposed infallibility(and the authors that penned it) and altering what is there. Which underpins everything from the way we talk about it politically, interpersonally, to how the media’s collective unconscious bias covers issues regarding it.

3.) The constitution is the 1.0 version of modern democracy and as such includes a ton of bugs and missing features that newer versions recognized and ironed out.

Because of issue number 1 and number 2 we are stuck with a ton of those bugs and missing features that are currently crippling our ability to organize government, act more appropriately representative, more effectively govern, and fix institutions in a way that makes their actual operation align with the ideal their stated purpose and the public ideal intends.

This is actually a perfect example of how that manifests itself in all those categories.

We have a branch of government that was intended to litigate matters of constitutionality with regards to the other branches impartially and above the fray of the political going ons inside of those branches and in society. But the constitution failed to adequately outline a system capable of doing that. So what we have instead is a patchwork system, that is highly charged, politically fraught arrangement where justices are heavily impacted by the politics they hold coming into their nominations, their appointments, and in their judgements. The critical normative process by which they are appointed is being abused by a leading political party. They are increasingly seen by the public as political tools and the politicians that appoint them use them as such. They are subject to lifetime appointments with no qualification standards and increasingly most of the courts are being filled by executives and majorities that were not attained with the consent of a majority of the electorate. Collectively these problems continue to erode public confidence and the public legitimacy of the institution.

Yet despite the wide consensus on those issues, we are so caught up in the myth of the constitution that people are seriously advocating allowing such perversion to stand because any changes to what is in fact a not that long of a standing arrangement would “undermine” the legitimacy of the institution and a constitution that has failed to do what it set out to do. While the party exploiting these loopholes is glad to continue doing so indefinitely and with increasing veracity because it retains their power and influence, which they are valuing above democracy, and to which their followers can be led to accept and even champion.

So the only realistic solutions we have at our disposal are normalizing the illiberal and letting it stand(all but guaranteeing its further perpetuation), accepting the abuses as is and accepting the perverted function and operation of the institution as the new norm(which scholars of failed states will point out are one of the sure signs of sliding into a vicious cycle of illiberalism) or engaging in a risky game of tit for tat or attempted non-constitutional reformation(direct or indirect, like expanding senate seats or House seats or voting rights acts, which could all be undermined by that illegitimate court mind you) amidst what will be decried by political opponents as the very thing they are engaging in that led to this place, likely pulling in a lot of those annoying “both sides” moderates that play dumb and like to equivocate in order to signal their centrist bonafides to mixed rooms, and a media that is incentivized to treat everything like a horse race and attempt to find “balance” over proper context. All but ensuring a confused public that will largely tune out or revert to tribal inclinations. Which has a very real chance of any attempted reform not holding due to a very thermostatic electorate inside a broken representative framework and an opposition that will use the response to their improprieties to justify ever more egregious improprieties at an accelerated pace.

So who is to blame for this dire situation? You can blame Republicans, and should, for the ways in which they have abandoned the spirit of the constitution and this democracy to secure power and radicalize their followers to go with them. You could and will likely be able to blame Democrats to some extent(I’m sure the Chapo left crowd will lunge for this after calling the vote for Biden or Trump immaterial) for not doing what is necessary to at least attempt to fix the problem as best they could, which would be their duty(or blame them for Republicans inevitably doubling down on their illiberalism). You can blame an apathetic and divided public for putting other issues above or not rallying around issues of constitutional crisis. But in this case I would say a large, majority chunk of the blame goes to the document that poorly defined an entire branch of government and set forces and incentives in motion that always left us open for such critical failure and abuse, and because of its difficulty to amend, makes it almost impossible to legitimately realign as long as it’s continued abuse provides benefit to one of the two major parties.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

There is no way that mattered to Lindsey Graham. He would have done the same thing if the Democrats threw flowers on the floor as Kavanaugh walked in to his confirmation hearing. This is all about power. The Republicans have the power, and they don't care if using it is hypocritical.

Then the Democrats will try and stack the court, which I hate. That is the problem when you abuse the power just because you can. You open yourself up to abuse from the other side.

My approach is always, if the other side were to pull this move, would I be ticked. If the answer to that is "yes," then I oppose it even if it gets the result I want. However, you have to be honest with yourself in this approach. Too many people justify their position when they know damn well that if the other side was doing it they would be raising hell--like Graham is doing now. We need more statepersons and less politicians.

He affirmed and reaffirmed his stance AFTER Kavanaugh was confirmed.

Graham is moving the goal posts, [MOD Edit - Sledgehammer - Make it about the post, not the poster]


NOTE: Also, Kavanaugh was credibly accused on multiple accounts and Republicans blocked a proper investigation that could have cleared him if he were innocent. Calling that a smear indicates you have proof the allegation was not only false, but knowingly false and weaponized. Without that qualification it is the person making an unsupported allegation that is smearing.

 

[SaintForLife]

There is no way that mattered to Lindsey Graham. He would have done the same thing if the Democrats threw flowers on the floor as Kavanaugh walked in to his confirmation hearing. This is all about power. The Republicans have the power, and they don't care if using it is hypocritical.

Then the Democrats will try and stack the court, which I hate. That is the problem when you abuse the power just because you can. You open yourself up to abuse from the other side.

My approach is always, if the other side were to pull this move, would I be ticked. If the answer to that is "yes," then I oppose it even if it gets the result I want. However, you have to be honest with yourself in this approach. Too many people justify their position when they know damn well that if the other side was doing it they would be raising hell--like Graham is doing now. We need more statepersons and less politicians.

I generally agree with your post, but I wasn't talking about Graham for the on the fence Republicans. This has been going on for a while starting with the smearing of Bork and Thomas, the Democrats blocking Bush's judges, the Republicans blocking Obama’s judges, and Harry Reid invoking the nuclear option.

Does anyone really think that in the current political climate the Democrats wouldn't be doing the same thing that the Republicans did with Garland had the situations been reversed? After seeing how they smeared Kavanaugh as an alcoholic and gang rapist and how they pushed the flimsly Russia investigation and impeachment I have no doubt they would do the same. Both parties are hypocrites.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

I don't see how the Constitution will be this country's undoing. The Constitution allows for amendment and adjustment - and if the Constitution is ill-equipped for the current political climate, how can we possibly create an alternative? That sounds even worse, there's no way the United States could go through a reconstruction of its government, we would splinter into different nations or into full-scale civil war. So how is that the Constitution's problem and not more accurately an American people problem?

And speaking of reconstruction, it was crazy. I think our living memory is short and we had been a relatively civil period - but the reality is that the United States has been through highly contentious, destructive power-politics before. I really don't see how the features of the Constitution are the problem, it's how we are (currently) using those features. This Supreme Court issue is a perfect example: if you look at every Supreme Court vacancy during an election year since 1900 (there were eight of them), the president made a nomination and the Senate went through the process. Six of the eight were confirmed, including one by a Senate in opposition, one was a recess appointment so it technically doesn't count until the proper appointment was made the following year, and one was Abe Fortas who was just really problematic . . . but even his nomination was taken up by the Senate and then filibustered (because of the nominee, not party politics).

Is it the Constitution's fault that McConnell decided to short-circuit the advice and consent process? As far as I can tell, that had never been done.

There isn't any 'short-circuiting' of the advice and consent process. The clause itself does not spell out any formal requirements nor is there any jurisprudence interpreting such to my knowledge. The political question doctrine applies so that the Senate itself determines the necessary procedure. With the removals of the filibusters for judicial nominees it now only requires a majority vote (after proceeding through the Judiciary Committee). The Democrats would be doing the same thing. There's nothing illegitimate about it. The word 'illiberal' has been used but the design of the Constitution itself is illiberal. It bends over backwards to protect smaller states.

People, of course, are also part of the problem. It's not an either-or proposition. Society and political morals have degraded in the last thirty or so years. The advent of talk radio and the internet (particularly these horrendous YouTube personalities) has bred a society of tribalist voters and those voters are going to install tribalist politicians. If this seems bleak that's because it is -- there is no going back. You are not going to get everyone to start being civil again. Especially when this type of behavior reaps results.

I have stopped assuming that because the sun rose yesterday on the American Empire it will rise again tomorrow. The damage Trump has done to the foundations of democracy cannot be understated. Anything could happen on November 3, including the birth of a dictatorship. All of it aided by an archaic form of government. And imagine, only a little more than half of eligible voters can actually be bothered to vote.

He affirmed and reaffirmed his stance AFTER Kavanaugh was confirmed.

Graham is moving the goal posts...

I wouldn't expect any meaningful rationalizations from Graham or Romney or any of the GOP Senators aside from: "we have the votes, so we will confirm." And that's all there is to it. And if the Democrats manage to get back into power that will be the rationalization for their policies, too.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

@SFL

Setting aside the factual inaccuracy of the both sides nonsense, if the argument for not applying your norms and principles consistently and engaging in improper governance is the other person would do it if given the chance, you’re effectively engaging in presumptive preventive illiberalism, or in the case of Kavanaugh criticisms, illiberalism as punishment, and I’m not sure how you would be able to make the case that is any different than just explicitly engaging in illiberalism on your own behalf?

As this argument rests not on a direct response to a commensurate abuse Democrats made, or balancing out a direct wrong that was committed, this is an argument justifying illiberal governance as either a punishment for an unproven and unrelated process grievence, or based on the assumption that if the roles were reversed the other side would do likewise. In practice and product, that’s just called illiberal governance.

It’s the equivalent of saying we just had to preventively jail our political opponents before they commit the actual crime we are accusing them of(the one we committed already), because they would do the same if they get in power. It’s outlandish and dangerous.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

My impression is that SFL is not necessarily saying that such actions are 'proper' or the idealized form of government; merely that is where we are at as a society. Could be wrong, though! Anyway, that's my position. I very much hope Trump loses, and loses convincingly, and the Democrats take power. At this point, it's a necessary counter-measure and at the very least it buys this country a little more time.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

There isn't any 'short-circuiting' of the advice and consent process. The clause itself does not spell out any formal requirements nor is there any jurisprudence interpreting such to my knowledge. The political question doctrine applies so that the Senate itself determines the necessary procedure. With the removals of the filibusters for judicial nominees it now only requires a majority vote (after proceeding through the Judiciary Committee). The Democrats would be doing the same thing. There's nothing illegitimate about it. The word 'illiberal' has been used but the design of the Constitution itself is illiberal. It bends over backwards to protect smaller states.

People, of course, are also part of the problem. It's not an either-or proposition. Society and political morals have degraded in the last thirty or so years. The advent of talk radio and the internet (particularly these horrendous YouTube personalities) has bred a society of tribalist voters and those voters are going to install tribalist politicians. If this seems bleak that's because it is -- there is no going back. You are not going to get everyone to start being civil again. Especially when this type of behavior reaps results.

I have stopped assuming that because the sun rose yesterday on the American Empire it will rise again tomorrow. The damage Trump has done to the foundations of democracy cannot be understated. Anything could happen on November 3, including the birth of a dictatorship. All of it aided by an archaic form of government. And imagine, only a little more than half of eligible voters can actually be bothered to vote.



I wouldn't expect any meaningful rationalizations from Graham or Romney or any of the GOP Senators aside from: "we have the votes, so we will confirm." And that's all there is to it. And if the Democrats manage to get back into power that will be the rationalization for their policies, too.

I fundamentally disagree the constitution was written with the intent to regress liberal principles and ideals. And I think you would have a hard time proving that.

but if it bothers you, just call it tyrannical: the exercise of power in arbitrary and cruel ways. Which is an equally applicable term to describe what the Republicans are doing here...though I feel less encompassing.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

I don't think it was written with that intent, but that is the practical result because it was written by imperfect men nearly 250 years ago who could not have possibly imagined the cultural and technological growth that occurred in the interim.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

My impression is that SFL is not necessarily saying that such actions are 'proper' or the idealized form of government; merely that is where we are at as a society. Could be wrong, though! Anyway, that's my position. I very much hope Trump loses, and loses convincingly, and the Democrats take power. At this point, it's a necessary counter-measure and at the very least it buys this country a little more time.

Except by his own premise that is not where we are set as a society. His argument is in justification for taking acts the other side has yet to commit, or as punishment for things not directly related to the act being taken.

It’s the equivalent of punishing perceived thought crimes or sentencing someone as a violent felon for stealing an apple. In practice it’s simply illiberal governance(or tyranny if you prefer).

The sick irony being that by continually escalating your illiberalism, the only response available to the opposition party will be other forms of illiberalism. I don’t think we are there yet, but we are getting closer than I prefer and what could push it over the edge would in fact be the way this improperly formed branch responds to reforms.

 

[Optimus Prime]

From the Wall Street Journal
===============================
The fight over replacing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has added fuel to a raging political fire. President Trump evidently believes that swiftly announcing his choice and pushing for a vote will improve his re-election prospects; the opening is deflecting public attention from the Covid-19 pandemic. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who regards a transformed federal judiciary as his principal legacy, is equally committed to replacing Justice Ginsburg.

At this moment of intense partisan polarization, arguments on the merits have little impact. For the actors in this drama, political calculation will guide behavior. The question is whether long-term self-interest will have any impact on short-term decisions.

For Mr. Trump, the answer is clearly no. Barring a contested election result, his political fate will be determined in six weeks. Before Ginsburg’s death, public opinion had stabilized against him, and he wasn’t likely to win playing the hand he held. Why not try to shuffle the deck and get a new deal?

The available evidence casts doubt on this strategy. Yes, the base of the Republican Party cares passionately about the judiciary. But these voters are highly mobilized. Before Ginsburg’s death, swing state voters reported more confidence in Joe Biden than in Mr. Trump to select the next justice..................

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[bdb13]

From the Wall Street Journal
===============================
The fight over replacing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has added fuel to a raging political fire. President Trump evidently believes that swiftly announcing his choice and pushing for a vote will improve his re-election prospects; the opening is deflecting public attention from the Covid-19 pandemic. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who regards a transformed federal judiciary as his principal legacy, is equally committed to replacing Justice Ginsburg.

At this moment of intense partisan polarization, arguments on the merits have little impact. For the actors in this drama, political calculation will guide behavior. The question is whether long-term self-interest will have any impact on short-term decisions.

For Mr. Trump, the answer is clearly no. Barring a contested election result, his political fate will be determined in six weeks. Before Ginsburg’s death, public opinion had stabilized against him, and he wasn’t likely to win playing the hand he held. Why not try to shuffle the deck and get a new deal?

The available evidence casts doubt on this strategy. Yes, the base of the Republican Party cares passionately about the judiciary. But these voters are highly mobilized. Before Ginsburg’s death, swing state voters reported more confidence in Joe Biden than in Mr. Trump to select the next justice..................

MSN

www.msn.com

I know some of y'all felt different when I said it a couple days ago, but I just don't think this is going to be anything but bad for Republicans chances at maintaining the presidency and Senate. The hypocrisy is blatant enough that I think on its own it will do some damage.. and I also think that wielding this sort of power is likely to receive push back as ultimately when one side appears to possess too much power generally there is pushback via the elections.