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.

 

[not2rich]

I'm just saying that he had nothing to gain from those statements and now he's going to raked-over for them. He's got shirtty judgment.

I'm saying that because I live in his state and can't wait to vote against him because I think he sucks. I wasn't here when he won this term, but I did think, back then, that he was a reasonably respectable member of the Republican Senate caucus. My view has totally changed, primarily because he has inserted himself so squarely up Trump's arse that he has given up himself and lost any individual he appeal he might ever have had.

I see, so maybe you could have worded your comment differently. Maybe it's bad judgment to make the comment, but your real criticism is that he's a cowardly, unprincipled Peice of work. And that, I agree with.

 

[not2rich]

Remember this when Ted Cruz somehow becomes our next S.C. justice.

 

[superchuck500]

I see, so maybe you could have worded your comment differently. Maybe it's bad judgment to make the comment, but your real criticism is that he's a cowardly, unprincipled Peice of work. And that, I agree with.

Or both.

 

[MT15]

 

[J-DONK]

Voters motivated by supreme court nominations were already motivated to vote, because it was assumed that Ginsberg would be replaced in the next term.

If she's replaced before the next term, it might actually decrease motivation.

However if she's not replaced before the next term, then voters are also going to be highly motivated not to allow Trump to seat another justice.

I think it's most likely a zero net gain.

I see it being a much bigger issue in senate races now. Trump is really down with seniors vs 2016, and those people were always going to vote.

 

[gummbo]

Just trying to think it through:
Odds are Collins and Murkowski are going to say delay.

That gives Republicans 2 vote lead (with Pence as the tiebreaker).
I think Gardner is likely to say wait till after new Senate and want to broadcast that as a campaign point. Should know pretty soon on that.
What are the dynamics in Iowa with Ernst and in Arizona with McSally? In some ways - McSally being down so much might make her go with a vote, but not sure. Have no idea about Iowa. What about North Carolina? Tillis is in trouble. Again - is the SCOTUS nominee a hail mary for him or does he feel it would push up Democratic enthusiasm?

And you have such a razor thin shot - how likely will the entire caucus (minus Murkowski and Collins) get on board? I guess I am not familiar enough with every Republican Senator to even hazard a guess, but I mean it seems more than possible someone has an objection.

Aside from Collins and Markowski let’s not forget that mitt Romney could also be had. I believe that he has an ax to grind with the [mod edit - even if you disapprove of the President, let's seek a higher level of descriptor], and someone else brought up the fact that this particular scenario is going to bring out every Democrat to vote and hopefully vote early.

 

[Nebaghead]

Aside from Collins and Markowski let’s not forget that mitt Romney could also be had. I believe that he has an ax to grind with the orange monkey, and someone else brought up the fact that this particular scenario is going to bring out every Democrat to vote and hopefully vote early.

I was reading an article about Mark Kelly’s race. Since it is to replace McCains seat he would be sworn in on Nov 30th if he wins.

 

[gummbo]

Dignity, what a concept.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Dignity, what a concept.

I also heard Goebbels was exceptionally nice to his staff and loved his kids very much.

...All this civility porn does is distract from their real legacy and attempts to file down the edges of monsters. Like praising Trump for 30 seconds of bullshirt condolences as he aggressively plots with Republicans to force another radical on the court so they can put a nail in the coffin on democratic decree for a generation and ensure only wealthy white men will have the courts in their corner for the next 30 years.

I don’t want to hear about how someone that spent his life taking rights away from every under privileged class was a nice guy to his colleagues. Frankly, I don’t give a shirt. We are about to have a branch of government that’s majority was established without popular support of the citizenry(I think now five justice will be appointed by presidents that did not win the popular vote) and will be capable of overruling democratic laws for a generation. So honesty, people can spare me the civility porn

 

[SaintForLife]

Both parties are hypocrites. It's all about who is in power in the Senate. The rest is just window dressing.

 

[superchuck500]

Both parties are hypocrites. It's all about who is in power in the Senate. The rest is just window dressing.

Yeah I think that’s right. But they still have to get through the process quickly and get to 50 votes.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Both parties are hypocrites. It's all about who is in power in the Senate. The rest is just window dressing.

What a privilege it must be to both sides the difference between having basic rights and not and refer to the situation as “window dressing”

 

[SaintForLife]

What a privilege it must be to both sides the difference between having basic rights and not and refer to the situation as “window dressing”

People will lose their basic rights if the President nominates someone for SCOTUS and the Senate confirms them? That seems extreme. Your previous reference to the popular vote is illogical because the popular vote is irrelevant in Presidential Elections.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

People will lose their basic rights if the President nominates someone for SCOTUS and the Senate confirms them? That seems extreme. Your previous reference to the popular vote is illogical because the popular vote is irrelevant in Presidential Elections.

Illogical, no. If the goal of this country is a representative democracy and the outcome is instead a system where a majority of lifetime appointees, that studies show basically just adhere to ideological boundaries, nominated without majority support, can overrule any and all representative legislation, what would you call that country? It wouldn’t be a democracy or a representative government(I would probably only call it a limited one under ideal circumstances). So I’ll leave that new definition to you.

Beyond that, remind me what the split was on gay marriage, the recent abortion law, civil rights challenges, race conscious rulings, the ACA, the conservative positions relative to regulatory bodies that protect people from financial and environmental hazards(non delegation doctrine for one), corporate malfeasance, and what happened to the voting rights act, predatory partisan gerrymandering?

Like I said, it must be really nice to be in a place or have no one in your immediate life that will be negatively affected by a super majority conservative court that can overrule any elected representative legislation for the next 10-25 years.

To hand wave away the existential questions and arrogantly treat this like more of the same politics-as-sports is a hell of a privilege.

 

[superchuck500]

Collins - note she doesn’t say she won’t confirm if a vote comes to the floor, only that it shouldn’t.

 

[J-DONK]

Collins - note she doesn’t say she won’t confirm if a vote comes to the floor, only that it shouldn’t.

I read that as "I'm happy to vote for whoever you want in a lame duck appointment."

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Expecting integrity or moral consistency out of the Republican Party is like giving the benefit of the doubt toward Roger Goodell to equitably mediate disputes involving the Saints.


McConnell will allow a max of 3 defections and the rest will have to fall in line if they want that sweet corporate and billionaire money(or kush positions after serving). And just like his sudden belief that vacancies shouldn’t be appointed in a presidential election year, any and all “principles” are subject to change to fit that end.

 

[J-DONK]

Expecting integrity or moral consistency out of the Republican Party is like giving the benefit of the doubt toward Roger Goodell to equitably mediate disputes involving the Saints.


McConnell will allow a max of 3 defections and the rest will have to fall in line if they want that sweet corporate and billionaire money(or kush positions after serving). And just like his sudden belief that vacancies shouldn’t be appointed in a presidential election year, any and all “principles” are subject to change to fit that end.

I really hope Democrats win the presidency, and senate. They would be insane not to go nuclear, add DC/PR as states - adding 4 liberal senators, and then adding 2 more SC justices. McConnel would likely never be the majority leader again, and his gridlock strategy would fall apart while not having power.