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

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    JimEverett said:
    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).
    Click to expand...

    Yeah, that's probably the analysis. But I think he's got to get it right - a safer confirmation bet is the better play under the circumstances, even if another option seems a better ideological fit.
     
    Here's the real problem as I see it.

    The Republicans held the Senate in 2016 when Scalia died - nearly a full year before the sitting president's term was out. Obama nominated Garland to fill the vacancy and the Senate refused to process it. They didn't put Garland up for vote and then decline, through democratic and parliamentary process. The majority leader simply used his power to refuse to even put the nominee through the process.

    I think the whole rhetoric and rationale about "an election year" was an attempt to give their action a reason other than pure power politics by the Senate majority . . . there's no legal basis for it. And, in fact, we're seeing now that they didn't actually mean it. What they meant was that if the Senate majority doesn't want to put the nominee up for vote, they won't. By extension, this means that whenever the Senate is in opposition to the president, they could simply refuse to entertain any nomination. And at any time.

    I question whether this stretches the advice and consent clause (and associated legislation) beyond its constitutional bounds. The calendar is arbitrary and no election is more important than another in its legal effect: the sitting president has been elected by the people for a period of four years, and if a vacancy occurs during that period, the president has already been chosen to fill it. So I don't see how it's any more persuasive to say "we're not going to put the nomination up because it's eight months to the next election" over saying it's 18 months. There's no basis for either.

    This is where I wish Obama had been more aggressive in challenging the Senate action. I wrote in the PDB thread about it that there were possible ways Obama could bring the Senate action to judicial review (e.g. a recess appointment or some other action) so that the Court could opine on the scope of the Senate majority's control over the nomination and consent process.

    I don't think the framers intended a process by which the Senate could utterly refuse to even go through the process. It would be no different, legally, if the Senate refused to entertain any nomination by a president in opposition - for any post. Imagine if Trump wins but the Democrats win the Senate. Why should they put any nominee up for consideration? Maybe a collapse in the advice and consent process would spawn a bi-partisan need to bolster it with legislation.


    Ha! Who am I kidding.
     
    Last edited:
    Power does what it wants. Everyone knows the justifications offered are hollow. I don't really doubt the Democrats would do the same thing if given the opportunity. It's the state of politics in 2020. There isn't much Obama could have done as even most liberal justices would have said nominations are a political question where the judiciary plays no role (in the selection and confirmation process). The real problem is the Framers could not have picture a modern world or political climate like anything that exists today. Conservatives exult them to demigod status despite the fact they were all flawed men in one way or another.

    The U.S. Constitution is an outdated document and no sound argument for its self-perpetuation exists other than 'because it's really old and that's how it's always been done.' It will ultimately be this country's undoing.
     
    Trump's 5 seconds of being a decent human has come to an end.


    Asked about Ginsburg’s words ( Ginsburg dictated a statement to her granddaughter, Clara Spera, that read: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new President is installed.” ) during an interview on the Fox News program “Fox & Friends,” Trump suggested that they may have been written by his political foes: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Rep. Adam Schiff.

    “I don’t know that she said that, or was that written out by Adam Schiff and Schumer and Pelosi. I would be more inclined to the second, OK? That came out of the wind,” Trump said. “It sounds so beautiful. But that sounds like a Schumer deal or maybe a Pelosi or shifty Schiff. So that came out of the wind. Let’s see. I mean, maybe she did and maybe she didn’t.”
     
    JimEverett said:
    I imagine Tillis will publicly say he wants a vote, do you think he really does?
    Click to expand...
    Despite what I thought a few days ago, after looking at the dynamic of the NC race there is no doubt Tillis will push for Trump's nominee. I did not know that Tillis was having trouble with conservative voters.
    His opponent is the one trying to walk a sort of tightrope - so Tillis will want this issue to force Trump voters to move to him over Cunningham (assuming what is most certain to happen and that is that Cunningham criticizes a SCOTUS vote before a new Senate and President takes office).
     
    I think I saw that Trump and/or McConnell definitely plan to have a vote before the election. This tells me that they have zero confidence in Trump winning, and in keeping the Senate. If they thought it would help they would not make it a done deal before the election, IMO. The stronger political move is to use it as motivation for their base. Unless they know that their base is no longer enough and the election is likely to go badly for Republicans.
     
    MT15 said:
    I think I saw that Trump and/or McConnell definitely plan to have a vote before the election. This tells me that they have zero confidence in Trump winning, and in keeping the Senate. If they thought it would help they would not make it a done deal before the election, IMO. The stronger political move is to use it as motivation for their base. Unless they know that their base is no longer enough and the election is likely to go badly for Republicans.
    Click to expand...
    An interesting thing to think about:
    Does one pick do more to help Trump win the Presidency while another pick does more to help Republicans keep the Senate?
    For instance - does Barrett get more North Carolinians on board with Tillis (given his support) which would probably mean Republicans keep the Senate, while Lagoa helps more with shoring up Florida for Trump and perhaps helping him with suburban conservative women in the midwest in the sense of thwarting attacks on her?
     
    I think Trump has lost almost all women, and they aren’t coming back. With the exception of white women with no college. Even there his support has significantly eroded over 2016.

    He may as well try to win the Martian vote as suburban women. JMO.

    And the utter hypocrisy of Republicans is going to cost them with the electorate. Graham was on Fox tonight saying he changed his mind because of the Kavanaugh hearing, problem with that is that the second time he swore on camera that he would honor the same principle in this exact situation was after the Kavanaugh hearing. They all deserve to be defeated.
     
    Last edited:
    SaulGoodmanEsq said:
    Power does what it wants. Everyone knows the justifications offered are hollow. I don't really doubt the Democrats would do the same thing if given the opportunity. It's the state of politics in 2020. There isn't much Obama could have done as even most liberal justices would have said nominations are a political question where the judiciary plays no role (in the selection and confirmation process). The real problem is the Framers could not have picture a modern world or political climate like anything that exists today. Conservatives exult them to demigod status despite the fact they were all flawed men in one way or another.

    The U.S. Constitution is an outdated document and no sound argument for its self-perpetuation exists other than 'because it's really old and that's how it's always been done.' It will ultimately be this country's undoing.
    Click to expand...

    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.
     
    Lindsey Graham has sold his soul because he’s afraid Trump will out him as gay, he’s so far inside the closet he can’t see that we all already know.
     
    superchuck500 said:
    Here's the real problem as I see it.

    The Republicans held the Senate in 2016 when Scalia died - nearly a full year before the sitting president's term was out. Obama nominated Garland to fill the vacancy and the Senate refused to process it. They didn't put Garland up for vote and then decline, through democratic and parliamentary process. The majority leader simply used his power to refuse to even put the nominee through the process.

    I think the whole rhetoric and rationale about "an election year" was an attempt to give their action a reason other than pure power politics by the Senate majority . . . there's no legal basis for it. And, in fact, we're seeing now that they didn't actually mean it. What they meant was that if the Senate majority doesn't want to put the nominee up for vote, they won't. By extension, this means that whenever the Senate is in opposition to the president, they could simply refuse to entertain any nomination. And at any time.

    I question whether this stretches the advice and consent clause (and associated legislation) beyond its constitutional bounds. The calendar is arbitrary and no election is more important than another in its legal effect: the sitting president has been elected by the people for a period of four years, and if a vacancy occurs during that period, the president has already been chosen to fill it. So I don't see how it's any more persuasive to say "we're not going to put the nomination up because it's eight months to the next election" over saying it's 18 months. There's no basis for either.

    This is where I wish Obama had been more aggressive in challenging the Senate action. I wrote in the PDB thread about it that there were possible ways Obama could bring the Senate action to judicial review (e.g. a recess appointment or some other action) so that the Court could opine on the scope of the Senate majority's control over the nomination and consent process.

    I don't think the framers intended a process by which the Senate could utterly refuse to even go through the process. It would be no different, legally, if the Senate refused to entertain any nomination by a president in opposition - for any post. Imagine if Trump wins but the Democrats win the Senate. Why should they put any nominee up for consideration? Maybe a collapse in the advice and consent process would spawn a bi-partisan need to bolster it with legislation.


    Ha! Who am I kidding.
    Click to expand...
    I agree with all of this.

    The Senate Majority Leader was never meant to have this level of power or just ignoring their job. I get setting the agenda, but like anything, there are or should be limits.
     
    superchuck500 said:
    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.
    Click to expand...

    I agree with you that the main problem is the people that are in power today, but the Constitutions luster has really worn off over the last 4 years and even before that. I don't know how common that feeling is among people, but I certainly feel that way. At the heart of the problem with the Constitution is that it was set up so that a small group of land owning (white) men can have control and power over all. That has always been in conflict with the loftier goals and portrayal of what we have been taught and believe are our ideals as Americans. Namely that every voice and vote count equally in this country and that there is equal protection and prosecution under the law. They do not and there is not. The way the Constitution is still being used, tortured, interpreted by conservatives judges, and carried out still enforces that old original conception and historical conflict. When this power is in the hands of people like Mitch McConnell, Republican Senators and Donald Trump, the contradictions become all the more apparent and egregious and it makes one consider how we can truly survive under such a system and Constitution.

    While change is possible and does happen under the Constitution, it often requires major events that shift the perspective of the country as a whole, such as a civil war or a charismatic civil right leader being assassinated and becoming a martyr for a cause. And that change is often wrestled back in the years following said change through the same systems that have kept unequal rule in play. It makes one contemplate what better system we could have of if we could write a better Constitution than we have now.
     
    Last edited:

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom