Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed away

[1972 Grad]

He should not have stepped in and fired Archibald Cox.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvFLXFCJvJA


Funny how Kennedy doesn't use the Sat Night Massacre, but political differences with Bork in denying his nomination. How some lowlife, murdering alcoholic piece of sh!t like Teddy Kennedy can sit in judgement of anyone is beyond my comprehension. In Kennedy's defense though, I would like to congratulate him for a milestone achievement. Last month marks 11 years since he has had a drink.

 

[0nelilreb]

Those don't mean anything other than his good luck. It is absurd that you are counting that as an achievement of his.

Dismissing who he appoints so as not to give him any credit is the absurd part . It’s not luck it’s opportunity, he and the senate could have literally put 3 left leaning activists on the SC . He could have placed 3 right leaning activists on the SC , either would change the political landscape for decades . Seems to me we are likely going to get two constitutionalist judges and a right leaner . You can’t ask for much better than 2 out of 3 .

 

[volinbham]

That’s true. But he was confirmed to the appellate court well after watergate. So the math on that seems pretty muddled to me.

the attacks on him were about abortion, supposed discrimination against minorities, women. watch the Kennedy interrogation. It isn't about some link to Watergate.

 

[volfanhill]

I have said this about a thousand times on here... Robert Bork did get a vote, and it wasn't a party line vote either. Bork was a major player in Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre" in October of 1973 and there were Republicans who held that against him as well. Apples to oranges... it wasn't a party line vote.

And some Dems voted to confirm. Everyone cool with an appellate court nomination but not the Supreme Court. That’s BS. If something that is known in his past disqualifies him for the SC then it disqualifies him for the appellate court

 

[1972 Grad]

He was killed anyway. There were anti-abortion Justices on the court in 1987. Bork had revealed himself to be a political pawn. That couldn't stand from a Supreme Court Justice, nor should it.

You must live under a rock. They are all political pawns. Please tell me how many times that Kagan and Sotomayor voted with the conservative Justices.

 

[BowlBrother85]

It does bc Mitch told you he would go scorched earth if the GOP ever had control again. That’s what they have done. The major mistake by both parties was the assumption in 08 that the Dems would have all three houses of Government for decades. Then the GOP made the same assumption in 2016. It was dumb. And it will be dumb again when the Dems hold three branches again in 2020. They will have it for two years. And then in 2024 it’s all up in the air again. But after this election tons will claim the GOP dead. They won’t be. Just like the Dems and Repubs were wrong before.

I don't agree with everything you say (such as this nonsense I placed in bold), but your arguments are always reasonable. You are the only poster on here who I can't get a good read on how you normally vote. I don't think you vote straight down a party line.

 

[volfanhill]

The nominee will face scrutiny, but the Democrats will only demonize the obvious hypocrisy of Senate Republicans, and then start to build their own case for why packing the Supreme Court is justified. Schumer was talking about it earlier on MSNBC. Of course, that first means that they need to win the presidency plus the Senate.

And that talk is really stupid. So when goes back to the GOP they will add more. So in 20 years we will have 100 Supreme Court judges. That’s what will happen.

 

[UT_VOLS13]

Sen. Ted Cruz: After Ginsburg -- 3 reasons why Senate must confirm her successor before Election Day

 

[AM64]

What if a president makes a pick who shouldn't be confirmed?

You mean candidates should be fully vetted (so we are assured there was no shady stuff in the past) before being placed in line for confirmation? Maybe like all elected candidates should be fully vetted and approved before they are allowed to run? Like perhaps someone who makes the rules that apply to teachers and background checks or the military and security clearances should first be capable of meeting the moral and ethical qualifications themselves? I have this possibly perverted idea that I have a right to know that somebody who makes the legislation about whether I'm fit to buy and/or carry a gun or get on an airplane or any number of other things is morally and ethically fit to judge anybody else - and actually meets the qualifications of office - ill defined as they are. But then I'm also starting to get this funky hang-up that agencies like the FBI aren't all that trustworthy to verify credentials.

Or are you simply arguing that somebody in line for confirmation should meet your political stance?

 

[volfanhill]

I don't agree with everything you say (such as this nonsense I placed in bold), but your arguments are always reasonable. You are the only poster on here who I can't get a good read on how you normally vote. I don't think you vote straight down a party line.

I don’t but will admit I lean GOP

 

[BowlBrother85]

You must live under a rock. They are all political pawns. Please tell me how many times that Kagan and Sotomayor voted with the conservative Justices.

So, you would want a Supreme Court Justice who had intervened in an investigation into the President's administration and fired a special prosecutor on behalf of the President, because the President had promised to nominate him for the Supreme Court if he did? There is so much wrong with what Bork did there.

 

[1972 Grad]

www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/the-supreme-courts-real-bloc-is-liberal

I found an even more damning article in USA Today, but can't link it.

 

[85SugarVol]

So let’s play it out and avoid the Garland controversy.

McConnell let’s Garland come before a vote and he’s confirmed. Allowing Obama to replace Scalia.

Trump still wins in ‘16.

Ginsberg passes, opening up her seat for Trump to fill.

What is the Democrat response today?

@BowlBrother85

I truly am interested in your response to this. Especially given your 200+ posts today referencing Garland.

@BowlBrother85

Not gonna answer this?

 

[1972 Grad]

So, you would want a Supreme Court Justice who had intervened in an investigation into the President's administration and fired a special prosecutor on behalf of the President, because the President had promised to nominate him for the Supreme Court if he did? There is so much wrong with what Bork did there.

Like Robert Kennedy and Joe Biden, and 98 other pieces of sh!t that sat in judgment are any f***ing better.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Sen. Ted Cruz: After Ginsburg -- 3 reasons why Senate must confirm her successor before Election Day

He makes it too easy to call him a hypocrite.

 

[volinbham]

He makes it too easy to call him a hypocrite.

honestly it's hard to find anyone that doesn't fit that description WRT to this situation

 

[BowlBrother85]

@BowlBrother85

Not gonna answer this?

Without the blatant hypocrisy from Senate Republicans? I don't think Democrats have a leg to stand on with any complaints. They probably wouldn't like it, but it wouldn't be the emotional and intense anger that we are seeing now. RBG should have stepped down in 2015 if she cared so much about a liberal replacing her... and that fault with her, would be getting more play than it currently is.

 

[0nelilreb]

That and the whole checks and balances thing.

There’s no such thing now it’s only partisan hackery and hypocrisy.

 

[85SugarVol]

Without the blatant hypocrisy from Senate Republicans? I don't think Democrats have a leg to stand on with any complaints. They probably wouldn't like it, but it wouldn't be the emotional and intense anger that we are seeing now. RBG should have stepped down in 2015 if she cared so much about a liberal replacing her... and that fault with her, would be getting more play than it currently is.

So the Democrats would just be sitting quietly at home tonight, waiting on Trump to replace RBG?

Interesting.

 

[BowlBrother85]

honestly it's hard to find anyone that doesn't fit that description WRT to this situation

It also gives you some insight as to who Cruz thinks is going to win the key elections on November 3rd. He thinks Biden will win and Democrats will take back the Senate... or else he wouldn't care whether or not it was before or after election day. After all, we all agree that if Trump wins and Republicans retain control of the Senate - than of course, Trump gets to pick the nominee and have him/her confirmed.

 

[0nelilreb]

honestly it's hard to find anyone that doesn't fit that description WRT to this situation

Everyone is a hypocrite on something , admitting that is where I see the problem . Some only believe that one party are hypocrites while the other is justified and call in a changed or “evolving “ political position . Semantics is a funny word .

 

[BowlBrother85]

So the Democrats would just be sitting quietly at home tonight, waiting on Trump to replace RBG?

Interesting.

I didn't say that... read it again. I said they wouldn't like it, but it wouldn't be the same emotional and intense anger that exists now. That is because genuine hypocrisy, really does stir up anger.

 

[1972 Grad]

It also gives you some insight as to who Cruz thinks is going to win the key elections on November 3rd. He thinks Biden will win and Democrats will take back the Senate... or else he wouldn't care whether or not it was before or after election day. After all, we all agree that if Trump wins and Republicans retain control of the Senate - than of course, Trump gets to pick the nominee and have him/her confirmed.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

 

[volfanhill]

I don't agree with everything you say (such as this nonsense I placed in bold), but your arguments are always reasonable. You are the only poster on here who I can't get a good read on how you normally vote. I don't think you vote straight down a party line.

I will try to find more of this speech but I remember watching it. Where do you think he was going? Ignore the Obamacare crap. Just spend ten minutes watching.


https://www.c-span.org/video/?316395-12/minority-leader-mcconnell-nuclear-option

 

[volinbham]

It also gives you some insight as to who Cruz thinks is going to win the key elections on November 3rd. He thinks Biden will win and Democrats will take back the Senate... or else he wouldn't care whether or not it was before or after election day. After all, we all agree that if Trump wins and Republicans retain control of the Senate - than of course, Trump gets to pick the nominee and have him/her confirmed.

he like everyone else doesn't know