Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed away

#2,728
#2,728
volinbham said:
that's Joann Worley?
Click to expand...

this is from the episode I watched

jo-annp.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens, AM64, RavinDave and 1 other person
#2,730
#2,730
BowlBrother85 said:
One of the reasons that both Republican Senators Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz gave today for the urgency of filling RBG's seat before the November 3rd election, was that the Supreme Court should not have an even number of Justices at 8... even for just six weeks, because that could cause "a Constitutional crisis" to potentially have a 4-4 tie vote, especially during a Presidential election year. This hypocrisy is breathtaking. In 2016, those same two Senate Republicans defended leaving Antonin Scalia's seat vacant from the time of his death in February, all the way until April of 2017, when Neil Gorsuch was confirmed. Obviously, that was also an election year when there could have been challenges made in the courts to the results... and only having 8 Justices could have also led to a 4-4 tie. There is no chance of RBG's seat being vacant for as long as Scalia's seat was.

Also, Sen. McConnell frequently referred to Barack Obama as being a "lame duck" President in 2016, but by the actual meaning of that term, he wasn't. A "lame duck" office holder, is what you have from the time in between when a successor has been named or elected, and the time that successor takes office. Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland in March of 2016, therefore, Obama didn't become a true "lame duck" until Trump was elected on November 8th, which was over 7 months later.

The hypocrisy could not be any more clear. Senate Republicans broke precedent in 2016 when they didn't allow the normal Senate confirmation process to run its course. If Senate Republicans wanted to reject Merrick Garland's nomination, all they had to do was hold hearings, and then bring his nomination to a vote, and reject Garland with that vote. Republicans held the majority in the Senate and they could have done that. There has only been one Supreme Court nominee since the Civil War who didn't receive a Senate vote, without either withdrawing their own nomination first, having their nomination pulled by the President before there was a vote, or dying before the Senate could vote... that nominee was Merrick Garland in 2016.

So, why didn't Senate Republicans go ahead and take a vote on Garland? Because they wanted a nominee who was more conservative than Garland was, and they didn't want to have to defend rejecting someone who was qualified and also a moderate.
Click to expand...
The Dems wanted to change how the Senate operated. They were warned they would be screwed if they did so. They did so anyway. Go yell at Harry for being stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and W.TN.Orange Blood
#2,733
#2,733
BowlBrother85 said:
One of the reasons that both Republican Senators Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz gave today for the urgency of filling RBG's seat before the November 3rd election, was that the Supreme Court should not have an even number of Justices at 8... even for just six weeks, because that could cause "a Constitutional crisis" to potentially have a 4-4 tie vote, especially during a Presidential election year. This hypocrisy is breathtaking. In 2016, those same two Senate Republicans defended leaving Antonin Scalia's seat vacant from the time of his death in February, all the way until April of 2017, when Neil Gorsuch was confirmed. Obviously, that was also an election year when there could have been challenges made in the courts to the results... and only having 8 Justices could have also led to a 4-4 tie. There is no chance of RBG's seat being vacant for as long as Scalia's seat was.

Also, Sen. McConnell frequently referred to Barack Obama as being a "lame duck" President in 2016, but by the actual meaning of that term, he wasn't. A "lame duck" office holder, is what you have from the time in between when a successor has been named or elected, and the time that successor takes office. Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland in March of 2016, therefore, Obama didn't become a true "lame duck" until Trump was elected on November 8th, which was over 7 months later.

The hypocrisy could not be any more clear. Senate Republicans broke precedent in 2016 when they didn't allow the normal Senate confirmation process to run its course. If Senate Republicans wanted to reject Merrick Garland's nomination, all they had to do was hold hearings, and then bring his nomination to a vote, and reject Garland with that vote. Republicans held the majority in the Senate and they could have done that. There has only been one Supreme Court nominee since the Civil War who didn't receive a Senate vote, without either withdrawing their own nomination first, having their nomination pulled by the President before there was a vote, or dying before the Senate could vote... that nominee was Merrick Garland in 2016.

So, why didn't Senate Republicans go ahead and take a vote on Garland? Because they wanted a nominee who was more conservative than Garland was, and they didn't want to have to defend rejecting someone who was qualified and also a moderate.
Click to expand...

Bolded are your opinions and speculation.
 
#2,734
#2,734
zeppelin128 said:
The left needs to accept that this appointment is going to happen. Mitch and the GOP are not going to pass up a chance to get another conservative on the SCOTUS bench. It might not happen by election day, but it will happen before January.
Click to expand...

Yep, better to take her replacement gracefully, slink off to lick their wounds quietly, and learn from their mistakes - and they made plenty. Dems let Obama's election and having congress go to their heads, got greedy, and got gored because of it. Elections do have consequences especially if you celebrate them like like a barbarian and try to scorch the other side's turf - this is what we're shoving down your throat in the first hundred days - because we can. Not classy.
 
#2,735
#2,735
volfanhill said:
The Dems wanted to change how the Senate operated. They were warned they would be screwed if they did so. They did so anyway. Go yell at Harry for being stupid.
Click to expand...
That is a false equivalency. Nothing Harry Reid did had anything to do with the Senate refusing to follow their confirmation process and take a vote. Nor does anything Reid ever did, excuse or justify this flagrant hypocrisy from the right.
 
#2,737
#2,737
volinbham said:
I'm not a sure as you about it. Doubtful pre-election. Toss up post election unless Trump win and R retained control of Senate
Click to expand...
Nah, it is going to happen. Mitch was too quick after RGB died to say it would. If he had any doubt he wouldn't bring it up at all. He's got the votes, just a matter of timing now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#2,739
#2,739
Weezer said:
I grew up on Navy Bases in the '80's. We'd ride our bikes everywhere, play backyard football all the time. Saturday nights we'd go to the skating rink, maybe catch a movie at the on base theater. Every thing we needed was on that base, and there was a genuine sense of community. I miss the simplicity of it.
Click to expand...

Me, too. AF bases were pretty much the same - and there were planes to watch.
 
#2,740
#2,740
zeppelin128 said:
Nah, it is going to happen. Mitch was too quick after RGB died to say it would. If he had any doubt he wouldn't bring it up at all. He's got the votes, just a matter of timing now.
Click to expand...

Votes are shifting sands - if Biden wins big I can see some R's not risking reelection (those up in 2 years). If the R majority were bigger I'd agree.

We shall see.
 
#2,741
#2,741
BowlBrother85 said:
One of the reasons that both Republican Senators Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz gave today for the urgency of filling RBG's seat before the November 3rd election, was that the Supreme Court should not have an even number of Justices at 8... even for just six weeks, because that could cause "a Constitutional crisis" to potentially have a 4-4 tie vote, especially during a Presidential election year. This hypocrisy is breathtaking. In 2016, those same two Senate Republicans defended leaving Antonin Scalia's seat vacant from the time of his death in February, all the way until April of 2017, when Neil Gorsuch was confirmed. Obviously, that was also an election year when there could have been challenges made in the courts to the results... and only having 8 Justices could have also led to a 4-4 tie. There is no chance of RBG's seat being vacant for as long as Scalia's seat was.

Also, Sen. McConnell frequently referred to Barack Obama as being a "lame duck" President in 2016, but by the actual meaning of that term, he wasn't. A "lame duck" office holder, is what you have from the time in between when a successor has been named or elected, and the time that successor takes office. Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland in March of 2016, therefore, Obama didn't become a true "lame duck" until Trump was elected on November 8th, which was over 7 months later.

The hypocrisy could not be any more clear. Senate Republicans broke precedent in 2016 when they didn't allow the normal Senate confirmation process to run its course. If Senate Republicans wanted to reject Merrick Garland's nomination, all they had to do was hold hearings, and then bring his nomination to a vote, and reject Garland with that vote. Republicans held the majority in the Senate and they could have done that. There has only been one Supreme Court nominee since the Civil War who didn't receive a Senate vote, without either withdrawing their own nomination first, having their nomination pulled by the President before there was a vote, or dying before the Senate could vote... that nominee was Merrick Garland in 2016.

So, why didn't Senate Republicans go ahead and take a vote on Garland? Because they wanted a nominee who was more conservative than Garland was, and they didn't want to have to defend rejecting someone who was qualified and also a moderate.
Click to expand...

So you would have been okay with them rejecting Garland just as long as there was a vote? Something tells me, if they had voted him down, you'd still have a problem with it. Either way, the results would be the same. Was it wrong? Yes. I agree he should have got a vote. But does it really matter in the end if you get the same result?
 
#2,742
#2,742
volinbham said:
might cost them the election but I tend to agree. If Biden wins big it might not happen. If it's close or Trump wins it's likely.

the question becomes is revenge (packing the Court) worth the public backlash for Dems
Click to expand...

You'd like to think they are smarter than to start that kind of escalation, but it really questionable.
 
#2,744
#2,744
volinbham said:
Bolded are your opinions and speculation.
Click to expand...
1) If you understand the meaning of the word "hypocrisy", then you realize that is not an opinion, but rather proof of "hypocrisy".

2) There is no realistic chance of RBG's seat remaining vacant for a year and a month, as Scalia's did... so that is hardly going out on a limb. It's definitely not an opinion... maybe you could call it an educated guess? But it's not much of one.

3) The final line of that post is an opinion... but it's hardly unsupported, or made out of thin air.
 
#2,745
#2,745
BowlBrother85 said:
That is a false equivalency. Nothing Harry Reid did had anything to do with the Senate refusing to follow their confirmation process and take a vote. Nor does anything Reid ever did, excuse or justify this flagrant hypocrisy from the right.
Click to expand...
You are refusing to look at what they did. They were the first to filibuster a nomination. Did it while Bush was President. Then biatched and moaned when it was done right back to them under Obama. Then went nuke. Mitch said if you do this I will screw you. They did it anyway. The Dems started this mess. Mitch realized the Dems didn’t care about playing within senate norms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, golfballs and W.TN.Orange Blood
#2,747
#2,747
BowlBrother85 said:
1) If you understand the meaning of the word "hypocrisy", then you realize that is not an opinion, but rather established proof of "hypocrisy".

2) There is no realistic chance of RBG's seat remaining vacant for a year and a month, as Scalia's did... so that is hardly going out on a limb. It's definitely not an opinion... maybe you could call it an educated guess? But it's not much of one.

3) The final line of that post is an opinion... but it's hardly out of thin air.
Click to expand...

1) you've added qualifiers such as "staggering" - that is clearly an opinion as there is not measure of hypocrisy - it is not a fact.

2) Scalia's replacement didn't have to wait until April - could have happened sooner. Likewise, there is no guarantee when Ginsburg's will happen. Until we know the actual time it is speculation; not a fact.

3) Yes, it is an opinion/speculation as I said.

So your "nothing but the facts" is in reality your selection of some facts spun into your narrative, sprinkled with speculation to make a point. Plus, it's the same damn thing you've been saying over and over
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWR, golfballs and W.TN.Orange Blood
#2,748
#2,748
volinbham said:
Votes are shifting sands - if Biden wins big I can see some R's not risking reelection (those up in 2 years). If the R majority were bigger I'd agree.

We shall see.
Click to expand...
Trump will get his third SCOTUS Justice. The election is irrelevant to that. Mitch has never floated a possibility unless he was sure of it, especially concerning judges. He has the votes. It will happen, even if Biden wins big and the Senate flips.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#2,749
#2,749
BowlBrother85 said:
That is a false equivalency. Nothing Harry Reid did had anything to do with the Senate refusing to follow their confirmation process and take a vote. Nor does anything Reid ever did, excuse or justify this flagrant hypocrisy from the right.
Click to expand...
But you're perfectly willing to excuse and justify the flagrant hypocrisy of the left. That's my problem with all of this. Both sides believe it's okay when their side does it, yet it becomes the ultimate evil when done by the other side. It makes for inconsistent argument. Wrong doesn't suddenly become right because it's the side you support doing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, Orange_Crush, AM64 and 1 other person
#2,750
#2,750
volfanhill said:
You are refusing to look at what they did. They were the first to filibuster a nomination. Did it while Bush was President. Then biatched and moaned when it was done right back to them under Obama. Then went nuke. Mitch said if you do this I will screw you. They did it anyway. The Dems started this mess. Mitch realized the Dems didn’t care about playing within senate norms.
Click to expand...
There has been one (1) Supreme Court nominee since the Civil War who didn't get a vote... without either withdrawing their own nomination, having it pulled by the President, or dying before there could be a vote... that nominee was Merrick Garland in 2016. Now, you have Senate Republicans putting their own blatant hypocrisy on full public display... once again, nothing Harry Reid did, has anything to do with that. It's apples and oranges.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top