RBG dead at 87 RIP

[bubba]

Bye. So-long to one of the only people who (though college educated) could not read the English language. Fare-well to a person who defined herself by the belief that it was possible to pick up a turd by the “clean end”..... See, she was an over paid moron who was a puppet of the leftist / communist insurectionists that need to be culled from this Republic. God be willing, and the Sun don’t shine, we will re-establish this Republic........ Game On!

[Airbornelawyer]

First law of politics: All political arguments are hypocritical. Republicans will demand a vote even though McConnell refused to bring Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016 to the floor. The Dems will scream bloody murder and cite the case of Garland to deny a vote until after the election, even though they were in favor of Garland getting a vote, yet have been holding up other Trump nominees for upwards of three years. In other words, both parties believe the nominee deserves a vote when the outcome favors them, and both parties believe the nominee does not deserve a vote until the voting public gets a chance to voice its opinion when the outcome favors them.

It will basically come down to a whip count. Lisa Murkowski is already on record saying she won't vote on a nominee until after inauguration. Peel off Romney and Collins, and assuming the Dems and "Independents" are in lockstep against any nominee, and McConnell is down to 50 votes. Collins is up for reelection in a blue-state, and would probably prefer not to be forced to take a stance either way.

[tom kelly]

Justice Ruth B Ginsburg...RIP. President Trump will nominate a person on his list of candidates for the Supreme Court...The Senate will not get the nomination out of the Senate Judiciary Committee because of the Liberal Democrats Coons, Durban, Harris, and the rest of the democrat members will delay a vote. The Court could be the deciding factor for the POTUS. Dems have their playbook, & will not let a President Trump appointment come before the full senate for an UP or DOWN vote.

[NurseTim]

Originally Posted by Airbornelawyer

First law of politics: All political arguments are hypocritical. Republicans will demand a vote even though McConnell refused to bring Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016 to the floor. The Dems will scream bloody murder and cite the case of Garland to deny a vote until after the election, even though they were in favor of Garland getting a vote, yet have been holding up other Trump nominees for upwards of three years. In other words, both parties believe the nominee deserves a vote when the outcome favors them, and both parties believe the nominee does not deserve a vote until the voting public gets a chance to voice its opinion when the outcome favors them.

It will basically come down to a whip count. Lisa Murkowski is already on record saying she won't vote on a nominee until after inauguration. Peel off Romney and Collins, and assuming the Dems and "Independents" are in lockstep against any nominee, and McConnell is down to 50 votes. Collins is up for reelection in a blue-state, and would probably prefer not to be forced to take a stance either way.

I think she said, “...until after the election”

[Flagg]

I believe Team Trump will aggressively push for the most rapid nomination plan as possible.

The left has already clearly articulated on social that it will burn everything to stop it.

Everytime a fire is lit, more undecided voters will shift towards Trump to decisively put it out.

Everytime BLM demand a BLM salute to swear allegiance to national socialist justice, more undecided voters will shift towards Trump.

Political reconnaissance by fire.

Provoke a response, akin to IRA shooting a few rounds at UK Paras who overwhelmingly fired back into the crowd, and you get Bloody Sunday....a generation hardened against the UK.

Provoke a response on the Left by a rapid SCJ nomination, watch the Left burn things, and bump a few % points in voter sentiment towards Trump.

Thoughts?

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Old Dog New Trick

That’s a good solid call.

Thx, there are a couple others besides Barrett. Probably there are too many RINOs peeled away to get a vote. I would be whamboozled if McConnell can pull this off. I also do not trust that him saying a nominee will get an up/down vote means he has conservative interests at heart, or that it's important to enable a legacy that offsets having to refit Roberts for diapers. McConnell's interests are McConnell. And besides the obvious RINO quislings there are others up for re-election who may not want to be seen as part of something hypocritical. Stuff cuts two ways.

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally Posted by NurseTim

I think she said, “...until after the election”

I believe the reporter who quoted her as saying "after the election" later corrected his report, saying she said after inauguration and he inadvertently misquoted her.

[cat in the hat]

Originally Posted by Airbornelawyer

First law of politics: All political arguments are hypocritical. Republicans will demand a vote even though McConnell refused to bring Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016 to the floor. The Dems will scream bloody murder and cite the case of Garland to deny a vote until after the election, even though they were in favor of Garland getting a vote, yet have been holding up other Trump nominees for upwards of three years. In other words, both parties believe the nominee deserves a vote when the outcome favors them, and both parties believe the nominee does not deserve a vote until the voting public gets a chance to voice its opinion when the outcome favors them.

It will basically come down to a whip count. Lisa Murkowski is already on record saying she won't vote on a nominee until after inauguration. Peel off Romney and Collins, and assuming the Dems and "Independents" are in lockstep against any nominee, and McConnell is down to 50 votes. Collins is up for reelection in a blue-state, and would probably prefer not to be forced to take a stance either way.

Traditions, customs and politics aside, what if McConnell calls recess?

Can donny more or less appoint whoever he chooses and how long does that person sit as a justice?

AND can that justice weigh in on October cases?

[tonyz]

I’ll just drop this here. The left has long chosen a path that selectively adopts their political positions solely to accommodate their political ends - without regard for the precedent they set for when they are no longer in power. They are, shall we say ruthless.

FLASHBACK: RBG Said Presidents Should Name Supreme Court Justices in an Election Year

BY MATT MARGOLIS SEP 19, 2020 11:37 AM
EST

PJ Media

As the debate over what to do about the vacancy on the Supreme Court is only getting started, perhaps we should heed the advice of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself as to what to do.

When a similar scenario occurred four years ago, following the death of Antonin Scalia, the Republican-controlled Senate blocked Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. It was a controversial move, and Ginsburg had something to say about it: Ginsburg publicly called on the Senate to go through with the nomination.

“That’s their job,” she said in July 2016. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.”

“Eight is not a good number for a collegial body that sometimes disagrees,” Ginsburg said on the issue a few months later during an event at the Smithsonian Museum of American History in Washington.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was with her, agreed. “I think we hope there will be nine as quickly as possible.”

“What we do is we automatically affirm the decision of the court below. No opinion is written, no reasons are given, and the affirmance has no precedential value,” Ginsburg explained. “It’s just as though we denied review.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) made the same argument was made Friday night, though he added that since the 2020 election results are expected to be contested, an eight-member Court poses a potential constitutional crisis.

“Democrats and Joe Biden have made clear they intend to challenge this election. They intend to fight the legitimacy of the election. As you know, Hillary Clinton has told Joe Biden ‘under no circumstances should you concede, you should challenge this election.’ And we cannot have Election Day come and go with a 4-4 Court,” Cruz told Sean Hannity on Friday. “A 4-4 Court that is equally divided cannot decide anything. And I think we risk a constitutional crisis if we do not have a nine-justice Supreme Court, particularly when there is such a risk of … a contested election.”

Unfortunately for the Left, their revered Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the case for Trump to nominate, and for the Senate to confirm, her own replacement back in 2016. You can point to the words of politicians who adjust their views to accommodate their desired political ends, and great, there’s plenty of that to go around on both sides, but are the same people mourning the loss of Ruth Bader Ginsburg going to say that she was wrong?

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politic...4BDC3XG4uYBORQ

[rubberneck]

Originally Posted by cbtengr

Gotta be some full blown implosions coming from the the other side of the aisle. RGB had a long and a full life and went down swinging.

I have a hard time respecting her behavior the past five years. She has been the most nakedly partisan Justice in the history of the court hurting the institution with her selfish and boorish behavior. To make matters worse she refused to retire when Obama was still in office. Because of that we now must endure what is surely to be a violent freak show if Trump manages to get another appointee on the court before the next inauguration.

I don’t rejoice in her passing and her family has my condolences but whatever good she did earlier in her life is now outweighed by the damage she’s done. That’s a sad legacy to leave behind.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by rubberneck

I have a hard time respecting her behavior the past five years. She has been the most nakedly partisan Justice in the history of the court hurting the institution with her selfish and boorish behavior. To make matters worse she refused to retire when Obama was still in office. Because of that we now must endure what is surely to be a violent freak show if Trump manages to get another appointee on the court before the next inauguration.

I don’t rejoice in her passing and her family has my condolences but whatever good she did earlier in her life is now outweighed by the damage she’s done. That’s a sad legacy to leave behind.

Agree 100%.

If she'd really wanted her replacement to be chosen by a dimm president, she should have retired during Obama's last term. She rolled the dice and lost on that account (as did everyone counting on Hilary's win).

S.

[abc_123]

Originally Posted by rubberneck

I have a hard time respecting her behavior the past five years. She has been the most nakedly partisan Justice in the history of the court hurting the institution with her selfish and boorish behavior. To make matters worse she refused to retire when Obama was still in office. Because of that we now must endure what is surely to be a violent freak show if Trump manages to get another appointee on the court before the next inauguration.

I don’t rejoice in her passing and her family has my condolences but whatever good she did earlier in her life is now outweighed by the damage she’s done. That’s a sad legacy to leave behind.

I agree. She should have resigned when she started failing in health and mental agility. Instead she kept her seat (in accordance with the letter of the law) for politically partisan reasons. So her legacy to me is that she was a partisan hack. Glad that she is off the bench. It took too long.

[bblhead672]

Originally Posted by rubberneck

I have a hard time respecting her behavior the past five years. She has been the most nakedly partisan Justice in the history of the court hurting the institution with her selfish and boorish behavior. To make matters worse she refused to retire when Obama was still in office. Because of that we now must endure what is surely to be a violent freak show if Trump manages to get another appointee on the court before the next inauguration.

I don’t rejoice in her passing and her family has my condolences but whatever good she did earlier in her life is now outweighed by the damage she’s done. That’s a sad legacy to leave behind.

Originally Posted by abc_123

I agree. She should have resigned when she started failing in health and mental agility. Instead she kept her seat (in accordance with the letter of the law) for politically partisan reasons. So her legacy to me is that she was a partisan hack. Glad that she is off the bench. It took too long.

Totally agree. RBG had every opportunity to ensure her seat stayed in leftist hands...yet she held on selfishly. Now she is the only one to blame should Trump be successful in appointing a constitutionalist to her seat.

[Box]

Justices are supposed to zealously portray themselves as the keepers of blind justice. Supreme Court justices insist that politics plays no role in their decision-making.
...one of them said they'd move to New Zealand if their candidate didnt win.

One of them waited to retire because they wanted to be replaced by the first female president.

When asked about the POTUS and their responsibniity for nominating a judge, one of them said, “That’s their job,” she said. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”

One of them spoke ill about the possibility of a second term for the current POTUS.


Judges don't get to pick their replacements.
Presidents do.

Presidents don't get to "seat" their nominee's.
The Senate does.

If you spend a career as an activist, you should expect to be subjected to opposing activism. If you want to be enshrined by the 1st Female POTUS, perhaps you should make sure she gets elected before throwing a tantrum. Thats the gamble when you are more focused on your own personal symbolism than what is best for your party and the country.

Everyone knows - if you control the House, you control the purse. If you control the Senate, you get to seat your judges with a bit less hassle. Maybe you might not want to seat one - it happens alllll the time. When Democrats controlled the House and Senate, there was no way on hells half acre that Robert Bork would get confirmed. The only reason democrats confirmed O'Connor and Kennedy is because they were MODERATES - or Reagan would have never gotten anyone seated on the court. The only reason Scalia made it in was because Republican controlled the senate for his confirmation.
...but hey, lets all pretend that politics is all about friendly days on the golf course sipping tea and lemonade and not the lying cut-throat game that the democrats play EVERY.SINGLE.DAY..

When one party has to seat a judge and THEIR party doesn't control the senate, they can expect to have a hard time getting their "real" pick conformed.
...perhaps folks that want to threaten departure from the US when elections don't go their way should just STFU

Gird your loins boys, shit is now officially "real"

[Ret10Echo]

Box,

Is there an "Activist corollary" to the physics here?


We have completely lost our ability to understand our "system" of government and the foundational constructs of our nation.

I'd settle for basic civics classes.

Reeducation? Yeah.. I'm FOR that

Required reading....
- The Constitution of the United States of America
- Federalist Papers
- Anti-Federalist Papers
- Democracy in America