Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed away

[luthervol]

No? Who does? It seems that the liberal logic is that all the unrest happening in Democrat controlled cities is his fault since it's happening on his watch, but he won't get any credit for what happens on his watch?

Seems to me that you've been bemoaning for 3 1/2 years just how influential Trump has been.

The timing of the deaths of justices has nothing to do with Trump. The worsening national climate has plenty to do with Trump.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Having the senate wasn't part of any justification I heard any republican senators give at the time. The justification was that the American people should decide who they want via the presidential election.

It was a political argument then as well. It seems that the electorate decided for four and two year terms already. Not 3 1/2 and 1 1/2 year terms.

 

[newyorkvol]

Not following you. If the Republicans had not stonewalled Garland, I would have no objection to Trump appointing a nominee now. There's no limitation in the constitution as to when the president is no longer permitted to appoint. The Republicans created a de facto rule in 2016 purportedly based on a principle that would apply across the board (no consideration of a scotus nominee during a presidential election year; let the voters select a president and he'll decide). That's not being followed now. If they don't follow it here, they've demonstrated that they view scotus as a political arm. As such, I have no issue with Dems expanding the court to 15 if and when they gain senate and POTUS. Ditto with GOP. Now is the chance for the GOP to end the arms race. If they don't, eff em. The SCOTUS will just be another political branch and the rule of law dead.

There is a difference though, whether it’s legitimate or not. Read the WSJ article I posted. It makes sense to a degree. Though my preference would be for things to wait, I could at least see the underlying differences.

 

[luthervol]

And Trump will be remembered as the man who changed the court by replacing her with a conservative. Life is good!

Some may even say that makes the whole Trump catastrophe worth it.
Most will strongly disagree.

 

[Orange_Crush]

The timing of the deaths of justices has nothing to do with Trump. The worsening national climate has plenty to do with Trump.

Trump is the one getting the replacements confirmed? Or no? If not, then why are you claiming that it's wrong for Trump to do so?

You're in here simultaneously bemoaning the fact that Trump will be filling the open seat, while claiming that he gets zero credit for filling open seats. You are espousing a completely self-refuting argument.

As usual, you are emoting in place of rationally discussing.

 

[luthervol]

You said this as well. It implies that judges should only be appointed based on who appointed their predecessor. Which means the balance of the court would never actually change. And I assumed, maybe falsely, that you are content with that view when the balance of the court lies in favor of your personal leanings.

I would go with 4 being appointed by rep presidents, 4 being appointed by dem presidents, and the 9th being selected by the 8 appointed justices.

 

[1972 Grad]

You said this as well. It implies that judges should only be appointed based on who appointed their predecessor. Which means the balance of the court would never actually change. And I assumed, maybe falsely, that you are content with that view when the balance of the court lies in favor of your personal leanings.

Actually, I thought that Bill Clinton should have nominated Peyton Manning, instead of RBG. After all, she replaced a Heisman runner-up in Byron "Whizzer" White.

 

[1972 Grad]

I would go with 4 being appointed by rep presidents, 4 being appointed by dem presidents, and the 9th being selected by the 8 appointed justices.

Then, you would have it made, because the Dem Justices always vote as a group (just like in the House and Senate), while the Repubs stray from the fold occasionally. You would win ALL the 5-4 votes.

 

[1972 Grad]

The timing of the deaths of justices has nothing to do with Trump. The worsening national climate has plenty to do with Trump.

Of course it does. You folks started pissing and moaning the night of the election.

 

[evillawyer]

There is a difference though, whether it’s legitimate or not. Read the WSJ article I posted. It makes sense to a degree. Though my preference would be for things to wait, I could at least see the underlying differences.

Is it behind a paywall? Most wsj articles are.

 

[Wafflestomper]

It was a political argument then as well. It seems that the electorate decided for four and two year terms already. Not 3 1/2 and 1 1/2 year terms.

Are you saying that republicans were wrong in 2016 and they've only just realized it? That would be convenient indeed. Let's say that Hillary was president right now and republicans owned the Senate--do you think something different from 2016 would happen? I really doubt it but I'm pretty cynical I guess.

 

[0nelilreb]

What?
You don't believe that if the dems. controlled the senate today that they would wait?

I believe like everyone believes , that if the Dems held the Senate majority and the Oval they would push an appointment through before the election . If they lost the Oval , the Senate or both they would most definitely push it through before January 20 of 2021 , don’t you believe that also ? Did I do a better job that time of pinning you down Mr. Squirmy McSquimison?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Are you saying that republicans were wrong in 2016 and they've only just realized it? That would be convenient indeed. Let's say that Hillary was president right now and republicans owned the Senate--do you think something different from 2016 would happen? I really doubt it but I'm pretty cynical I guess.

I'm saying the Republicans are duplicitous power-grubbing scum as well. Hopefully that makes my feelings about them clear enough. lol

 

[evillawyer]

This is the chance for the GOP to ends the arms race. If they push forward with this and lose the POTUS and Senate, the Dems will quickly eliminate any remaining element of the filibuster, increase SCOTUS justices from 9 to 15, and expand the federal district and appellate courts as well. I don't see how they can sit around and act like the federal judiciary is legitimate when the GOP continues to play games to stock it full, in many cases, of completely unqualified judges who are simply there to do the political bidding of the GOP. For God's sake, Trump is nominating people as judges who have not argued so much as a motion to dismiss before.

 

[newyorkvol]

Is it behind a paywall? Most wsj articles are.

Weird...I don’t have WSJ either. Anyway. Point was that there have been 25 election year nominations. 21 were confirmed. In each of those confirmations, the President and Senate were of the same party, thereby reflecting the voters preference from the previous election. In the four that weren’t confirmed, there was a split between the party of the President and the Senate, and the voters in the upcoming election then became the “tiebreaker.” In 2016 there was a split, in 2020 there isn’t.

 

[0nelilreb]

Not following you. If the Republicans had not stonewalled Garland, I would have no objection to Trump appointing a nominee now. There's no limitation in the constitution as to when the president is no longer permitted to appoint. The Republicans created a de facto rule in 2016 purportedly based on a principle that would apply across the board (no consideration of a scotus nominee during a presidential election year; let the voters select a president and he'll decide). That's not being followed now. If they don't follow it here, they've demonstrated that they view scotus as a political arm. As such, I have no issue with Dems expanding the court to 15 if and when they gain senate and POTUS. Ditto with GOP. Now is the chance for the GOP to end the arms race. If they don't, eff em. The SCOTUS will just be another political branch and the rule of law dead.

There will be no end to the political arms race now , the left and the right are diametrically opposed to each other’s agendas and the further left we go the more steadfast the right will become in not giving an inch . Your choice of words is interesting since that’s exactly what got us Trump . I’m not against what you said , I agree .. F’em , let it ride and let the chips fall where they may . I’m tired of the political pandering , lies and empty promises , let’s do this and see what happens .

 

[VolsAgainstTheWorld15]

What?
You don't believe that if the dems. controlled the senate today that they would wait?

No. They too would try to push someone through. Both sides want as much power as possible. It's like a drug to them.

 

[newyorkvol]

This is the chance for the GOP to ends the arms race. If they push forward with this and lose the POTUS and Senate, the Dems will quickly eliminate any remaining element of the filibuster, increase SCOTUS justices from 9 to 15, and expand the federal district and appellate courts as well. I don't see how they can sit around and act like the federal judiciary is legitimate when the GOP continues to play games to stock it full, in many cases, of completely unqualified judges who are simply there to do the political bidding of the GOP. For God's sake, Trump is nominating people as judges who have not argued so much as a motion to dismiss before.

And yet a few pages ago there was an article from The Hill proposing Michelle Obama as Biden’s candidate should he win.

 

[newyorkvol]

I would go with 4 being appointed by rep presidents, 4 being appointed by dem presidents, and the 9th being selected by the 8 appointed justices.

Why do we need a new system now?? There have been 100+ Supreme Court justices nominated and confirmed. There have been 9 since the Civil War. But since things aren’t going your way you want to change the rules??

 

[volbeast33]

LOL......I hope you're kidding. If not, it's just one of your usual, pathetic rationalizations

Actual it was making fun of the liberals who when called out for their politician being a hypocrite claims that their opinion evolved.

 

[evillawyer]

Weird...I don’t have WSJ either. Anyway. Point was that there have been 25 election year nominations. 21 were confirmed. In each of those confirmations, the President and Senate were of the same party, thereby reflecting the voters preference from the previous election. In the four that weren’t confirmed, there was a split between the party of the President and the Senate, and the voters in the upcoming election then became the “tiebreaker.” In 2016 there was a split, in 2020 there isn’t.

No GOP said that mouthful in announcing the rule in 2016. They announced a simple principle readily understood by all who heard it: it's an election year, so let's put this on the ballot and let the people decide. I don't like that rule. I think a president is elected for a four year term and his appointees should get a hearing. But the Republicans said no on that. They stole the scotus seat and they blocked Obama's lower court appointees. And now they're not playing by their own purported "rule." This is pure politics at this point. The Democrats can't act like it is anything other than this is they win the senate and POTUS.

 

[Boston Vol]

This is the chance for the GOP to ends the arms race. If they push forward with this and lose the POTUS and Senate, the Dems will quickly eliminate any remaining element of the filibuster, increase SCOTUS justices from 9 to 15, and expand the federal district and appellate courts as well. I don't see how they can sit around and act like the federal judiciary is legitimate when the GOP continues to play games to stock it full, in many cases, of completely unqualified judges who are simply there to do the political bidding of the GOP. For God's sake, Trump is nominating people as judges who have not argued so much as a motion to dismiss before.

Even the Dems winning control of the senate doesn’t mean that they would have the votes to end the filibuster and expand the courts. There’s no guarantee that Manchin, Sinema, Tester, or Hassan go along with it.

 

[evillawyer]

And yet a few pages ago there was an article from The Hill proposing Michelle Obama as Biden’s candidate should he win.

No one in their right mind would put Michelle obama on the court.

 

[volbeast33]

Why do we need a new system now?? There have been 100+ Supreme Court justices nominated and confirmed. There have been 9 since the Civil War. But since things aren’t going your way you want to change the rules??

Same with the electoral college in 2016

 

[0nelilreb]

Trump's whole political existence is the result of a massive right wing temper tantrum.

Would not have mattered if the left had chosen more wisely . If Trump is the most despicable , horrible , intolerable human ever , how does he win with a minority of supporters ? That’s the lefts cross to bear .