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.

 

[FullMonte]

What's more damaging? The hypocrisy of the Republicans or the Democrats accusing a SCOTUS nominee of being a gang rapist and an alcoholic?

Well, why didn't the Republicans accuse any of the former Democratic nominees to the Supreme Court of that kind of behavior? I can only see two possibilities:

1) Republicans are above that kind of thing
2) Prior nominees were vetted to ensure there were not those kinds of skeletons in their closets

I know which of those two I believe to be true.

 

[wardorican]

Democrats shoot down talk of expanding Supreme Court

Senate Democrats are tamping down talk of expanding the Supreme Court if Republicans fill the seat held by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.Progressive activists and some lawmakers have raised …

thehill.com

SCOTUS Expansion and removing the filibuster from legislation isn't on the menu kids.

 

[wardorican]

Watch live: Ginsburg lies in repose at Supreme Court

Thousands are expected to honor the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg beginning today at the Supreme Court.Ginsburg will lie in repose at the court today and Thursday.The justice died Frid…

thehill.com

For those that want to watch.

 

[coldseat]

Democrats shoot down talk of expanding Supreme Court

Senate Democrats are tamping down talk of expanding the Supreme Court if Republicans fill the seat held by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.Progressive activists and some lawmakers have raised …

thehill.com

SCOTUS Expansion and removing the filibuster from legislation isn't on the menu kids.

SMH. Democrats always taking the weak, collaborative approach. They know that in order to get anything worthwhile done if they gain power, they will have to eliminate the filibusterer. Republicans will oppose everything they try to do. Why not just state so clearly now, run on it and let the voters decide, instead of being accused of being hypocrites later. They're always so scared of the moderates who don't want to take things to far.

Just state plainly that if Republicans continue to carry out this farce and power grab, these measures will be necessary because of this, this and that. Make the freaking case, then move on to what you want to focus on. By not talking about it or sidestepping it, they're just putting more attention on it and making the question and focus stick around a lot longer. Stop playing McConnell and Trump's games.

Even as I support them, they are frustrating as hell to me.

 

[Saintamaniac]

You're right that in the end, it's likely ultimately a political question. And refusing to take up the nomination for consideration is a form of refusing consent, so I can't say that I disagree with your view on that unfortunately. The irony is that if you look at the writings associated with the creation of the Constitution (e.g. The Federalist), there is ample discussion of why the advice and consent role is vested with the Senate, as the more wise body - less subject to political motives and shenanigans. Well, it took 220 years but that's no longer the case.

I just find your notion that the Constitution is aiding the birth of a dictatorship to be misplaced. I think you could take a more persuasive argument that it is the repeated failure of the Congress to check against (or even willingly facilitate) the consolidation of power by the executive branch that eroded the Constitution's interbranch orientation of power to the point where it could be fully exploited by a purely-political, wholly self-interested demagogue who carries no genuine commitment to the service of the American people.

I think the tools are all there, we're just not using them - and we are at a place were nearly all of the key players are committed to their party above all else. There is no mention of political parties in the Constitution.

IMO, McConnell sees Trump as a means to an end. Trump gets McConnell the judges he wants with McConnell believing that he can control Trump if he needs to. It's like a horror movie where someone summons a demon that they think they can control and then the demon realizes it no longer needs the help of the person that summoned them so it kills that person and takes over completely.

McConnell can't control Trump. Trump has Barr and doesn't need McConnell. If Republicans think they are going to be the ruling class in a Trump led oligarchy, they will find out soon enough that they too are expendable. I hope I'm being overly paranoid. I hope I'm being overly conspiratorial. I hope I'm being delusional in thinking that if Trump is elected, it will be the beginning of an oligarchy followed by a dictatorship. In short, I hope I'm wrong.

 

[wardorican]

You're right that in the end, it's likely ultimately a political question. And refusing to take up the nomination for consideration is a form of refusing consent, so I can't say that I disagree with your view on that unfortunately. The irony is that if you look at the writings associated with the creation of the Constitution (e.g. The Federalist), there is ample discussion of why the advice and consent role is vested with the Senate, as the more wise body - less subject to political motives and shenanigans. Well, it took 220 years but that's no longer the case.

I just find your notion that the Constitution is aiding the birth of a dictatorship to be misplaced. I think you could take a more persuasive argument that it is the repeated failure of the Congress to check against (or even willingly facilitate) the consolidation of power by the executive branch that eroded the Constitution's interbranch orientation of power to the point where it could be fully exploited by a purely-political, wholly self-interested demagogue who carries no genuine commitment to the service of the American people.

I think the tools are all there, we're just not using them - and we are at a place were nearly all of the key players are committed to their party above all else. There is no mention of political parties in the Constitution.

I just want to say I appreciate you @superchuck500 . I appreciate reading these kinds of dialogues on here. @SaulGoodmanEsq you're going to be added to that list too if you keep this up.

This is a very good example of how to further a conversation, while also disagreeing with class. It warms my soul (and brain) to watch learned people have a thoughtful conversation. I know many of us, myself included, are quick to criticize posts, so I felt it was important to give some props beyond a thumbs up.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

What's more damaging? The hypocrisy of the Republicans or the Democrats accusing a SCOTUS nominee of being a gang rapist and an alcoholic?

From a structure of government sense? Hypocrisy and rushing through a nominee or power doing what it wants because it can. Again, I won't pretend the Democrats wouldn't do the same thing but it is far more damaging in the grand scheme of things than having to defend an allegation of sexual assault. I would say the same thing if Democrats rushed a nominee through and the GOP 'smeared' a Democrat nominee -- which we both know they will the next time we happen to have another Democrat nominee to the Court. The pearl-clutching over Kavanaugh is a bit much. Candidates for public office have been smeared since the dawn of the Republic. Clarence Thomas got 'smeared,' too; however, we still went through the Clinton and Bush eras without the kind of tribalism we see today.

You're right that in the end, it's likely ultimately a political question. And refusing to take up the nomination for consideration is a form of refusing consent, so I can't say that I disagree with your view on that unfortunately. The irony is that if you look at the writings associated with the creation of the Constitution (e.g. The Federalist), there is ample discussion of why the advice and consent role is vested with the Senate, as the more wise body - less subject to political motives and shenanigans. Well, it took 220 years but that's no longer the case.

I just find your notion that the Constitution is aiding the birth of a dictatorship to be misplaced. I think you could take a more persuasive argument that it is the repeated failure of the Congress to check against (or even willingly facilitate) the consolidation of power by the executive branch that eroded the Constitution's interbranch orientation of power to the point where it could be fully exploited by a purely-political, wholly self-interested demagogue who carries no genuine commitment to the service of the American people.

I think the tools are all there, we're just not using them - and we are at a place were nearly all of the key players are committed to their party above all else. There is no mention of political parties in the Constitution.

It's definitely a failure of Congress but the fallibility of politicians was inevitable. Factionalism was always going to take root and effectively sabotage the ability of the Constitution to provide a working framework for government. The theory of Checks and Balances falls apart when politics devolves into a red vs. blue situation. The Framers probably thought mankind would only evolve progressively in its relative civility and integrity. Reality is we've gone backwards.

 

[Saintamaniac]

And refusing to take up the nomination for consideration is a form of refusing consent, so I can't say that I disagree with your view on that unfortunately.

Playing this out to its natural course, it can be concluded that moving forward, democrat presidents will only have their supreme court nominees confirmed with a democrat senate majority and republican presidents will only have their supreme court nominees confirmed with a republican senate majority. We could end up with supreme court seats vacant for 8 years.

 

[superchuck500]

Playing this out to its natural course, it can be concluded that moving forward, democrat presidents will only have their supreme court nominees confirmed with a democrat senate majority and republican presidents will only have their supreme court nominees confirmed with a republican senate majority. We could end up with supreme court seats vacant for 8 years.

Yeah, I actually made that point in an earlier post that the risk here is that nomination and confirmation process falls apart except when the Senate and White House are the same party. Why stop at Supreme Court? It could apply to any nomination.

 

[Optimus Prime]

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

 

[Saintamaniac]

So now Trump and McConnell are saying that they need Bader's replacement in place to settle any disputes involving the election. So I take back my earlier hope of being wrong. McConnell is fully on board with Trump in trying to steal this election and turn this country into a dictatorship.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

There were only eight justices for almost a year when Scalia died -- including during the 2016 election. Best not to even read articles about this stuff because it's smoke and mirrors.

 

[LA - L.A.]

There were only eight justices for almost a year when Scalia died -- including during the 2016 election. Best not to even read articles about this stuff because it's smoke and mirrors.

The point of emphasis of the article is not that there are only eight justices. The point of the article is why Trump is saying they need to seat a judge quickly.

What exactly about the article is "smoke and mirrors?" Everything in the article is true and sourced. "Smoke and mirrors" means that someone is trying to distract attention away from the important thing that people should be focused on.

What exactly is it that this article is seen as distracting people's attention away from?

 

[B4YOU]

@SaulGoodmanEsq
Agree. We have failed to amend the Constitution and we are seeing its limitations. The EC and Senate apportionment are outdated systems. Presidential elections should be based on the principle of “one man, one vote” instead of arbitrary lines and electoral votes. The Senate needs to move to a system that appoints more proportional to population. Right now 34 Senators represent 7% of the US population. The 26 smallest states (52 Senators) represent 18% of the population. The minority rule in the Senate is causing serious conflicts and correcting this would aid in solving some of the issues we see with judicial appointments.

 

[FullMonte]

So now Trump and McConnell are saying that they need Bader's replacement in place to settle any disputes involving the election. So I take back my earlier hope of being wrong. McConnell is fully on board with Trump in trying to steal this election and turn this country into a dictatorship.

I would pin them down to that being their REAL argument for ramming this nominee through....and once they say that, I'd offer a compromise. Hold the nomination until after the inauguration, and if the election results are challenged, and it comes down to a 4-4 tie, Trump gets to cast the deciding vote.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

The point of emphasis of the article is not that there are only eight justices. The point of the article is why Trump is saying they need to seat a judge quickly.

What exactly about the article is "smoke and mirrors?" Everything in the article is true and sourced. "Smoke and mirrors" means that someone is trying to distract attention away from the important thing that people should be focused on.

What exactly is it that this article is seen as distracting people's attention away from?

I meant the GOP justifications are smoke and mirrors. And that there is little point in reading articles about those justifications because they are meaningless. My point in highlighting the fact that there were only eight justices in 2016 was to underscore the hollow justifications. Trump and McConnell could say: "The reason we want to go forward is banana-rama shama-lama ding-dong!" and it would make just as much sense.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I meant the GOP justifications are smoke and mirrors. And that there is little point in reading articles about those justifications because they are meaningless. My point in highlighting the fact that there were only eight justices in 2016 was to underscore the hollow justifications. Trump and McConnell could say: "The reason we want to go forward is banana-rama shama-lama ding-dong!" and it would make just as much sense.

I understand and appreciate the clarification. For me, I think it's important to be aware of what people are saying to justify what they are doing. I wouldn't recommend people not read articles about it, in fact just the opposite. I think it's important to stay informed and to be critical of all information that is received.

People with bad intentions would rather people not pay attention to them, because they can get away with a lot more when people don't pay attention to them.

 

[MT15]

I've never seen anyone complain as much as you do about the sources of what people post. Despite your constant complaining, you have never once pointed out anything she has said that's inaccurate.

She didn't include what you wanted and therefore she's a partisan. She has an axe to grind or she's partisan is something you say just about every time.

It's quite obvious that you consider anyone who doesn't fall in line with the media group think as partisan. Everyone knows that the national media has a liberal bias outside of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal Opinion page.

all I am trying to do is show you how she, in particular, is playing a partisan game. In this case, and in others I have pointed out specific problems with what she posts, so you saying I don’t point out anything specific is just flat wrong. I have quoted her articles before, pointed out her omissions, shown how she only covers one side of every issue.

You calling out some supposed “group think” is particularly ironic, considering you almost always ridicule anyone who has something to say that you don’t agree with. And you will go back years to find something to discredit anyone who doesn’t toe your own party line. Just recently you took an innocuous statement made years ago by an entirely creditable lawyer to discredit a completely reasonable legal take. You do this all the time.

On the one hand, you seem to think that if anyone has ever said something that turned out to be wrong later, even if it comported with all known facts at the time, that they are forever tainted and not to be believed. On the other hand, you seem to take everything that Trump allies say at face value and never question it. All I ask is that you apply the same level of scrutiny to both sides.