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.

 

[efil4]

Trump was just booed off ( and a large chant of "Vote him Out" ) at the RBG wake.

Wow.

 

[MT15]

Yeah, so it’s pretty safe to say that people paying respects to RBG would be opposed to him. It’s good for leaders to get booed from time to time. Brings them down to earth.

 

[superchuck500]

Wouldn't it be something if the election results do get the Supreme Court and all of trump's picks vote that the results are legit, you lost and you've got to go

His twitter feed would be fun to read if that happened
=================================================

President Trump, who has spent the past several months baselessly arguing that Democrats might try to steal the November election from him, now says that the Senate must quickly confirm a new Supreme Court justice to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg in case the court has to rule on the outcome.

“We need nine justices,” Trump said at the White House Tuesday. “You need that with the unsolicited millions of ballots that they’re sending. It’s a scam. It’s a hoax. Everybody knows that. And the Democrats know it better than anybody else. So you’re going to need nine justices out there. I think it’s very important.”

“I think this will end up in the Supreme Court and I think it’s very important to have nine justices,” Trump said of the election again on Wednesday, adding, “And I think having a four-four situation is not a good situation, if you get that — I don’t know that you get that I think it should be eight-nothing or nine-nothing. Just in case it would be more political than it should be, I think it’s very important to have a nine justice.”.................

Trump and GOP allies say new Supreme Court justice may be needed to decide the election

Presidential elections are generally state-court matters. There seems to be a growing notion that the Supreme Court plays some role of certifying elections somehow, but the scope of Supreme Court review of presidential election results is pretty narrow - there has to be some kind of federal constitutional interest presented by how the relevant state is resolving the election dispute.

I think the are basically three different ways the Supreme Court gets involved, but I think the case has to come up through state court - as we saw in 2000 in Florida. But those three areas are (1) the presidential election clause Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 2, (2) constitutional due process, and (3) constitutional equal protection.

The concurrence from the conservative wing (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas) in Bush v. Gore makes the point that when the Supreme Court undertakes examination of a challenge to how a state has resolved a dispute over its presidential elector process, the presidential election clause requires particular attention to how the state legislature has provided for the process. I point to that because I think the current conservative wing would look to that rationale.

State election laws and procedures are already in place and will provide the framework for any judicial review. And that review will most likely happen in the state court system, subject only to final review upon application to the Supreme Court, and only if the Court accepts it because there is a basis in one of these three areas - and even then, that review will be through the lens of the relevant state legislation.

Sure, there's always room for politics or the appearance of politics. But this broad notion that Trump will lose a swing state but then appeal to the Supreme Court, which then changes the result, is a far simpler and easier idea than what would actually have to happen.

There's far greater risk of shenanigans (by anyone for that matter) at the state level, IMO.

 

[efil4]

Yeah, so it’s pretty safe to say that people paying respects to RBG would be opposed to him. It’s good for leaders to get booed from time to time. Brings them down to earth.

it gets pretty loud around the 45 sec mark and he clearly gets annoyed, turns and walks out.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Trump booed by crowd as he visits Ruth Bader Ginsburg&#39;s casket on the steps of the Supreme Court <a href="https://t.co/iASjgYYQjU">pic.twitter.com/iASjgYYQjU</a></p>&mdash; Zach Purser Brown (@zachjourno) <a href="">September 24, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Saintamaniac]

it gets pretty loud around the 45 sec mark and he clearly gets annoyed, turns and walks out.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Trump booed by crowd as he visits Ruth Bader Ginsburg&#39;s casket on the steps of the Supreme Court <a href="https://t.co/iASjgYYQjU">pic.twitter.com/iASjgYYQjU</a></p>&mdash; Zach Purser Brown (@zachjourno) <a href="">September 24, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

You know if he could, he'd summarily execute each and every one of the people out there.

 

[efil4]

You know if he could, he'd summarily execute each and every one of the people out there.

somehow, there is a part of my brain that says " you could be right" .

sheesh...Nov 3 HAS to be a landslide. has to. Make him fold his tent and exile in Mother Russia

 

[MT15]

You know if he could, he'd summarily execute each and every one of the people out there.

he’s too cowardly to do it himself, but he would be fine if it just “happened”.

 

[TaylorB]

he’s too cowardly to do it himself, but he would be fine if it just “happened”.

Might depend on whether there was any risk of them being lumped in with the COVID numbers.

 

[wardorican]

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

To add to this, I haven't read it all yet, but noticed this pop up on five thirty eight...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/theres-no-such-thing-as-the-latino-vote/

With only 42 days left until the election, Joe Biden has his work cut out for him with Latino voters. That’s according to his senior adviser Symone Sanders, who has had to answer for why Biden appears to be losing ground among Latinos. According to a recent Latino Decisions/National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials poll, 65 percent of Latinos plan to vote for Biden or lean toward him, but this is still 14 percentage points lower than the 79 percent of Latino voters who said they supported Clinton in the pollster’s national election-eve poll in 2016.

It’s true that Latino voters do, as a whole, tend to be more Democratic than Republican, a trend that has only accelerated in recent years. But they don’t vote as a single bloc (in 2016, at least 1 in 5 Latino voters still backed Trump): How Latinos vote in Florida, for instance, can be very different from how Latinos in the Southwest or Northeast vote. These differences especially matter due to the size of the Latino population in a number of key swing states.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Oh he heard alright
======================

 

[zztop]

On Monday this conspiracy theory was pushed by Trump.



On Fox News Monday evening, the conspiracy theory was pushed by Tucker Carlson.



Democrats forwarded a resolution honoring RBG, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) blocked the effort

 

[superchuck500]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/25/politics/donald-trump-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court/index.html

(CNN)President Donald Trump intends to choose Amy Coney Barrett to be the new Supreme Court justice, according to multiple senior Republican sources with knowledge of the process.
In conversations with some senior Republican allies on the Hill, the White House is indicating that Barrett is the intended nominee, multiple sources said.
All sources cautioned that until it is announced by the President, there is always the possibility that Trump makes a last-minute change but the expectation is Barrett is the choice. He is scheduled to make the announcement on Saturday afternoon.

 

[MT15]

This will hurt him more than the more qualified woman from Florida, IMO. Barrett is too inexperienced and has some really questionable writings in her past. I also saw a video the other day where she argued that it was proper to not fill Scalia’s seat because it would upset the balance of the court to fill a conservative seat with even a moderate like Garland. That was a stupid argument to make in hindsight.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Barrett is a walking/talking/breathing Establishment Clause violation.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

This will hurt him more than the more qualified woman from Florida, IMO. Barrett is too inexperienced and has some really questionable writings in her past. I also saw a video the other day where she argued that it was proper to not fill Scalia’s seat because it would upset the balance of the court to fill a conservative seat with even a moderate like Garland. That was a stupid argument to make in hindsight.

If you can find that clip again, would you please PM it to me? It seems like that should be broadcast on a loop in the swing states.

 

[MT15]

It was on Twitter and it was a couple days ago. If I see it again I will grab it. I don’t remember who tweeted it though.

 

[Richard]

If you can find that clip again, would you please PM it to me? It seems like that should be broadcast on a loop in the swing states.

The man in the video says CBS was going to put the full interview on their website, but I couldn't find it there. What she says in the video does not appear to be incorrect or even troubling. However, Barrett doesn't project the gravitas of a member of the Supreme Court either. Her answers seemed rather elementary to me and didn't seem to be put forth with the intelligence we have seen from members of the Court. From this interview and other quotes I have seen or read, she appears to be kind of a lightweight appointment. While I viewed Gorsuch as a more traditional appointment, I saw Kavanaugh as a lesser light intellectually and this choice seems to me to be more similar to Kavanaugh. She may turn out to be a legal giant on the Court, but my early impressions are that she is more likely to be a Clarence Thomas background type of Justice rather than one of the Court's great thinkers.

 

[MT15]

I think the upshot for me is that she is saying it’s important to keep a balance on the court, and that would justify denying Garland his hearing, since he wasn't similar to Scalia in his views. But that now, she may accept a nomination to replace Ginsberg without acknowledging any hypocrisy.

And I totally agree with you, Richard, about your assessment of the three judges nominated by Trump, assuming Barrett is his pick, as reported. We are not getting the best legal minds, we are getting whoever fits the ideological bent of the Federalist Society, and strikes Trump’s fancy.