Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed away

[1972 Grad]

No. This isn't about the Constitution at all. It is about the hypocrisy of Republican Senators which is on full display right now. There is nothing in the Constitution which said that Merrick Garland shouldn't have received a vote in 2016. The justification from Republican Senators at the time, was that it was an election year, therefore, the winner of the 2016 Presidential election should be the one to make the nomination to fill Antonin Scalia's seat. As a result, Scalia's seat remained vacant for a year. Republican Senators didn't say anything at the time, about it being okay for the Senate to go ahead and vote for confirmation, if they were from the same party as the President. This is hypocritical and incredibly self-serving.

Also, Sen. Mitch McConnell frequently described Barack Obama as being a "lame duck" president, but in the strictest sense of the term, he wasn't. A "lame duck" is what you have in the current office holder from the time in-between when a successor has been named or elected and when they take office. Barack Obama was not a "lame duck" in March of 2016 when he nominated Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court.

Believe me. You have our deepest sympathies as you deal with your TDS. May I suggest lots of alcohol?

 

[luthervol]

Ruthie was confirmed in 44 days, I believe. It's only fair to do that with her successor. You know.,.....the successor named by Trump.

Go for it.
I honestly expect nothing less from Trump and his followers.
The unavoidable fact will be the country as a whole is a far more divided, bitter, and angrier place than it was 4 years ago.
People on the left view people on the right much more negatively than they did 4 years ago.
People on the right view people on the left much more negatively than they did 4 years ago.

All of that was a foreseeable result of Trumpism. It's actually what Trumpism is founded on.

 

[NorthDallas40]

There is plenty of inconsistency and hypocrisy coming from the Democrats on this matter as well as for Ruth Bader Ginsberg herself. Partisianship has long been the MO of the Democrats.

Remember when there used to be a time when a President's SCOTUS choice would go through the formality of a Senate hearing but always be approved with 60 or more votes? The Republicans played nice with Ginsberg, (a refugee from the ACLU, what did you think you were going to get), as well as with Sotomayor and Kagan.

The road that leads to where we are now was being paved a long time ago, since the 80's and Reagan.

The Democrats started the change in that process with Bork, accelerated it with the hearings of Clarence Thomas and haven't backed off as the hearings for Kavanaugh and Gorsuch demonstrated. The last set of hearings involving Kavanaugh were particularly shameful, during which it was made crystal clear that the Democrats cared only about power and would attempt to destroy anyone that they saw as a potential threat in their quest for it.

Then we have that special move by Harry Reid that did away with the 2/3rds requirement for federal appointments leading to the "nuclear option" that is being employed now for SCOTUS.

After all of the above, is there anyone surprised that the Republicans are saying, "No more Mr. Nice Guy" if that's the way you are going to play and have responded in kind, if not upped the ante? Our most recent history on this is a record of tit for tat with no one reasonable enough to recognize when wrong things are happening, step up and say, "Hey, wait a minute. What are we doing?"

I am concerned that the selection process as envisioned by the founders has been totally corrupted by this erosion and that there is no conclusion other than all appointments shall be political and will remain this way as long as we draw from this poisoned well.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. In theory, it was to be independent judges voting on the merits of the case before them with no consideration given to political positions or personal beliefs. A true third branch of our government instead of a rubber stamp backing a political party's position. By now doing so, it is no longer an independent body but just an extension of another governmental branch.

Both parties are to blame but to cast that this reflection in the mirror is on only the Republicans and Trump, is, well, disingenuous for want of a less PC term for it.

Technically a 60 vote majority was only required to break a filibuster attempt when the minority was acting like 3 year olds. 60 required for Cloture but simple majority for vote. Clarence Thomas was a 52-48 vote ... after a close to 100 day temper tantrum.

 

[Orangeburst]

Looks like Breyer is 82. I wonder how much longer he will serve.

Trump will get him 2022.

 

[1972 Grad]

Go for it.
I honestly expect nothing less from Trump and his followers.
The unavoidable fact will be the country as a whole is a far more divided, bitter, and angrier place than it was 4 years ago.
People on the left view people on the right much more negatively than they did 4 years ago.
People on the right view people on the left much more negatively than they did 4 years ago.

All of that was a foreseeable result of Trumpism. It's actually what Trumpism is founded on.

And you side has been so tolerant of our beliefs and views the last few years. It's a shame we haven't lived up to the high standard that your side exhibits on a daily basis.

 

[ajvol01]

Go for it.
I honestly expect nothing less from Trump and his followers.
The unavoidable fact will be the country as a whole is a far more divided, bitter, and angrier place than it was 4 years ago.
People on the left view people on the right much more negatively than they did 4 years ago.
People on the right view people on the left much more negatively than they did 4 years ago.

All of that was a foreseeable result of Trumpism. It's actually what Trumpism is founded on.

Who knew a Hillary Clinton Presidency was actually going to bring the country together

 

[BowlBrother85]

Technically a 60 vote majority was only required to break a filibuster attempt when the minority was acting like 3 year olds. 60 required for Cloture but simple majority for vote. Clarence Thomas was a 52-48 vote ... after a close to 100 day temper tantrum.

Ya don't say!

 

[rocytop2624]

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.

I would hope with all the crap you talk that you would know how the Senate works if not then the Senate votes on who the president sends to them when Obama in 2016 sent his nomination in republicans was in the majority so they could vote it down just like now republicans are the majority. If the Democrats was the majority then they would turn down Trumps nomination. But got a republican president and republican Senate so why would they not both was voted in by the people.

 

[luthervol]

You expect your relativity to hold water as justification? That's so very cute.

At the end of the day, you're agreeing with and justifying the statements that:

Conservatives debate issues.
Liberals demonize people.

Ouch.

Talk about cute.
That's adorable.
I love the way you change the wording when your argument implodes.

 

[AM64]

I thought you were gonna say another body part

I think 72 was going for the double ... entendre.

 

[AM64]

That is still up in the air.

And likely would get you banned.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Ya don't say!

I’ve got some really bad news for you Karen. Go back a few pages and I already pointed that out before your temper tantrum at me

 

[volfanhill]

Go for it.
I honestly expect nothing less from Trump and his followers.
The unavoidable fact will be the country as a whole is a far more divided, bitter, and angrier place than it was 4 years ago.
People on the left view people on the right much more negatively than they did 4 years ago.
People on the right view people on the left much more negatively than they did 4 years ago.

All of that was a foreseeable result of Trumpism. It's actually what Trumpism is founded on.

The bitter angry divide from the left exists for one reason. You lost an election. It’s been bat **** crazy the response. I dislike Trump. Won’t vote for him. But to pretend the left as acted in anyway appropriate is laughable. No party has ever acted this way after losing an election. And yes I know blah blah blah despicable Trump calls for blah blah blah. But it doesn’t. You go to work beating him and his policies not whatever the hell you want to call what’s been going on with the left the last four years. Trumps an embarrassment to this country. The lefts response has been equally embarrassing

 

[AM64]

Because being only 6 weeks out in today's political environment makes it a prudent decision,
and so many repubs seem to support the concept of not naming a replacement in an election year (not just a year - six weeks).
Who said her last wishes should dictate policy?

That kind of logic didn't hold much water regarding midterms and mudslinging against Trump to get dems elected did it?

 

[luthervol]

And you side has been so tolerant of our beliefs and views the last few years. It's a shame we haven't lived up to the high standard that your side exhibits on a daily basis.

Your views were completely overshadowed by the fact that you knowingly nominated, elected, and continue to support a horrendously despicable human. Policies and issues rightfully took a back seat.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Ya don't say!

Womp womp

You know I’m referring to the simple majority vote to break the filibuster. That was the act. The more basic issue was playing fast and loose with the rules with regards to SCOTUS appointments.

Even Thomas was affirmed after what 100 days of filibuster? But he was affirmed. You girls played fast and loose to get what you wanted on your timeline. You reap what you sow and nobody is interested in your morality appeals here

 

[37L1]

Technically a 60 vote majority was only required to break a filibuster attempt when the minority was acting like 3 year olds. 60 required for Cloture but simple majority for vote. Clarence Thomas was a 52-48 vote ... after a close to 100 day temper tantrum.

Thanks for that useful information!

Ginsburg was approved 96-3 in 1993.

Sotomayor was approved 68-31 in 2009.

Kagan was approved 63-37 in 2010.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Not once did I say anything remotely close to "it should dictate policy".
Your inability to process should alarm you.

What??????????
That wish proves that she placed the responsibilities of her office above all else.
The American people should demand that her wish be granted.

Maybe you just don't know what "policy" means?

a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual.

 

[VolStrom]

Vote in the majority? You may wish to change your wording.
Let the repubs do it. Nothing like some further division and more contempt for the right. It's probably appropriate as one of Trump's final acts; his worshipers will love it, the majority will hate it, and the country will suffer. MAGA

You're right I should have worded this better. What I should have said is that if the democrats are unhappy with Trump and the senate confirming another supreme court justice then they should have won the presidency and the senate. Unfortunately for you the democrats lost and now you have to eat crow.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Thanks for that useful information!

Ginsberg was approved 96-3 in 1993.

Sotomayor was approved 68-31 in 2009.

Kagan was approved 63-37 in 2010.

Yes they were. But the bar was simple majority that’s all that was required to clear nomination. But prior to the nuclear option by Reid you needed 60 to enter cloture.

I’m not going to pretend I know why this is in place. But them were the rules.

There used to be a time when SCOTUS appointments just went by the Constitution and weren’t political rallies. Those days are gone and never coming back.

Edit: my apologies I thought you were being sarcastic I should know your posting style better than that by now. You’re welcome on the very minor clarification

 

[Orange_Crush]

No. This isn't about the Constitution at all. It is about the hypocrisy of Republican Senators which is on full display right now. There is nothing in the Constitution which said that Merrick Garland shouldn't have received a vote in 2016. The justification from Republican Senators at the time, was that it was an election year, therefore, the winner of the 2016 Presidential election should be the one to make the nomination to fill Antonin Scalia's seat. As a result, Scalia's seat remained vacant for a year. Republican Senators didn't say anything at the time, about it being okay for the Senate to go ahead and vote for confirmation, if they were from the same party as the President. This is hypocritical and incredibly self-serving.

Also, Sen. Mitch McConnell frequently described Barack Obama as being a "lame duck" president, but in the strictest sense of the term, he wasn't. A "lame duck" is what you have in the current office holder from the time in-between when a successor has been named or elected and when they take office. Barack Obama was not a "lame duck" in March of 2016 when he nominated Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court. Obama did not become a "lame duck" until that November - 8 freaking months later.

So, political parties politick?

OK. Now that that's out of the way, all you have is begging, guilting and ignoring your support of the dirty pool politics from the past 3 1/2 years.

But that's all you got.

 

[luthervol]

The bitter angry divide from the left exists for one reason. You lost an election. It’s been bat **** crazy the response. I dislike Trump. Won’t vote for him. But to pretend the left as acted in anyway appropriate is laughable. No party has ever acted this way after losing an election. And yes I know blah blah blah despicable Trump calls for blah blah blah. But it doesn’t. You go to work beating him and his policies not whatever the hell you want to call what’s been going on with the left the last four years. Trumps an embarrassment to this country. The lefts response has been equally embarrassing

It exists for one reason.
Trump is a horrendously despicable human.
That's it.
You can claim otherwise until your dying breath, but it doesn't change the reality.

I've lived through many republican administrations and lost plenty of elections...........not one single one is even remotely comparable to Trump.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Ruthie was confirmed in 44 days, I believe. It's only fair to do that with her successor. You know.,.....the successor named by Trump.

I hope so. That won't help you win elections on November 3rd... and I can see how it might hurt.

 

[luthervol]

Your attention on Trump aside, I'll repeat myself:

PLEASE try to attack her for her religious beliefs. Nothing like allowing the fringe extremism that seems to be running your party to alienate more moderates.

What did Trump say? "They actually believe that bullsh!t?" MAGA

 

[Orange_Crush]

Talk about cute.
That's adorable.
I love the way you change the wording when your argument implodes.

Uh huh.

You defended the concept that conservatives think liberals are people with bad ideas, and liberals think conservatives are bad people with ideas.

You don't see the correlation? Once again... Maybe you don't know what "demonize" means.

portray as wicked and threatening.