Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
Dieter
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 420
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 10:51 am

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by Dieter » Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:49 am

There goes the republic.
flyingpylon
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 613
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by flyingpylon » Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:21 am

glennds wrote:
Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:35 pm
There seems to be a presumption that any vote for a SCOTUS appointee will fall strictly along party lines.
Maybe it will, but if so, it is an example of the normalized deviancy of polarized partisanship, which has not historically been the case with appointees, contrary to what McConnell's nostalgic "going back to the 1800's" statement suggests.

As examples here are the confirmation votes for some recent justices (not all):

Roberts 78-22
Breyer 87-9
Ginsburg 96-3
Souter 90-9
Kennedy 97-0
Scalia 98-0

I selected these examples to demonstrate that bi-partisan Senate voting is not only possible but common. And contrary to McConnell's statement this shows plenty of Senate support for the appointee of an opposing party President whether the President's party was majority in the Senate at the time or not. Also, the voting history implies that the criteria for approval was not limited to the party of the appointing President, which itself is a refreshing idea.

So this brings us back to the question of how McConnell will answer the conundrum of why his logic was sound in blocking Garland's hearings in February of an election year, but not applicable here.
But votes on the last five justices in the last 14+ years have been more contentious:

Alito 58-42
Sotomayor 68-31
Kagan 63-37
Gorsuch 54-45
Kavanaugh 50-48

Can you really envision a nominee that would get overwhelming support from both parties given the state of politics in the US?

Do you notice anything about the recent vote counts vs the party of the President who nominated them?
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 283
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by glennds » Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:48 am

flyingpylon wrote:
Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:21 am

But votes on the last five justices in the last 14+ years have been more contentious:

Alito 58-42
Sotomayor 68-31
Kagan 63-37
Gorsuch 54-45
Kavanaugh 50-48

Can you really envision a nominee that would get overwhelming support from both parties given the state of politics in the US?
No I do not, and my point is that it is not normal nor healthy. If the nomination is completely politicized without regard to the specific qualifications of the candidate, it is a perversion of the process. Voting against a proposed appointee because of something specific to that candidate is one thing. Voting against the appointment purely because of party affiliation is not good.
flyingpylon wrote:
Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:21 am

Do you notice anything about the recent vote counts vs the party of the President who nominated them?
Sotomayor (of the 68 yeas, 23 were Republicans in a Senate that was composed of 53% R and 47%D)
Alito (of the 58 yeas, 4 were Democrats in a Senate that was 55%R and 45%D. Note one Republican voted nay, the rest of the 42 nays were all Dem)
Kagan (of the 63 yeas, 5 were Republican in a Senate that was 58%D and 42%R)
Gorsuch (of the 54 yeas, 2 were Democrat in a Senate that was 49.5%D and 50.5%R)
Kavanaugh (of the 50 yeas, 1 was Democrat in a Senate that was 47%D and 53%R)

Interesting pattern. In recent appointees Democrats have been considerably more partisan about SCOTUS appointees than Republicans, at least using Sotomayor as a comparison case. In the earlier appointments that I cited, it was not as egregious.
pp4me
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 421
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2020 4:12 pm

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by pp4me » Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:43 am

technovelist wrote:
Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:02 am
Tyler wrote:
Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:01 pm
Cortopassi wrote:
Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:57 pm
According to NPR, there are at least 5 republicans that will not vote until after Jan 20.
We're just a few hours in. I'm not buying that NPR has a hard count either way before the bargaining and arm twisting even starts. We'll see.
Agreed.
According to Tucker, NPR was also reporting that her dying words were that she wanted her replacement picked by a new president.

Hard to believe that's true. If so, how strange to be thinking of Donald Trump as you are dying.

As one of the commentators said however, Supreme Court justices don't get pick their replacements. The president does.
User avatar
Tyler
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by Tyler » Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:56 am

pp4me wrote:
Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:43 am
According to Tucker, NPR was also reporting that her dying words were that she wanted her replacement picked by a new president.
I dunno. Delaying a Supreme Court nomination another 4 years is a pretty big ask. ;)

(But all jokes aside, the callous spin here is pretty insane. I wish people who claim to respect her so deeply would let the woman get the attention and credit she deserves without immediately propping her up as a sockpuppet for their own political agendas.)
Mechanical engineer, history buff, treasure manager... totally not Ben Gates
User avatar
technovelist
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 6985
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by technovelist » Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:58 pm

pp4me wrote:
Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:43 am
technovelist wrote:
Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:02 am
Tyler wrote:
Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:01 pm
Cortopassi wrote:
Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:57 pm
According to NPR, there are at least 5 republicans that will not vote until after Jan 20.
We're just a few hours in. I'm not buying that NPR has a hard count either way before the bargaining and arm twisting even starts. We'll see.
Agreed.
According to Tucker, NPR was also reporting that her dying words were that she wanted her replacement picked by a new president.

Hard to believe that's true. If so, how strange to be thinking of Donald Trump as you are dying.

As one of the commentators said however, Supreme Court justices don't get pick their replacements. The president does.
Well, if NPR says it, it must be true! After all, they are neutral observers and reporters, right? ;D

As for whether she was thinking of Donald Trump as she was dying, that would definitely qualify as stage 4 TDS.
Another nod to the most beautiful equation: e + 1 = 0
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2882
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by Xan » Sat Sep 19, 2020 2:25 pm

glennds wrote:
Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:48 am
Voting against a proposed appointee because of something specific to that candidate is one thing. Voting against the appointment purely because of party affiliation is not good.
I would agree with this, but I would also note that party affiliation doesn't exist in a vacuum. It correlates with important things like what the place of the law is, how law should be interpreted, what the role of judges is. Basically all the things that are important when confirming a judge.

So the recent polarization isn't necessarily a matter of being more partisan, as it is that the two parties have started to have more and more real differences on what makes a good judge.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3982
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by vnatale » Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:09 pm

Capture.JPG
Capture.JPG (43.08 KiB) Viewed 227 times
"I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats."
User avatar
technovelist
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 6985
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by technovelist » Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:25 pm

vnatale wrote:
Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:09 pm
Capture.JPG
Yes, we know she's a RINO.

Let's see what she does when the vote comes up.
Another nod to the most beautiful equation: e + 1 = 0
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2213
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by Cortopassi » Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:05 pm

I am sure a lot of you know specific reasons why you'd like a liberal vs conservative court and vice versa. Seems reasonably immaterial to me.

The one that is always brought up is Roe v Wade.

I really don't know much about that. If I understand correctly that legalized abortion, would overturning that then make it a crime to have an abortion, or leave to states? Where do other western countries stand on this?
User avatar
technovelist
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 6985
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by technovelist » Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:31 pm

Cortopassi wrote:
Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:05 pm
I am sure a lot of you know specific reasons why you'd like a liberal vs conservative court and vice versa. Seems reasonably immaterial to me.

The one that is always brought up is Roe v Wade.

I really don't know much about that. If I understand correctly that legalized abortion, would overturning that then make it a crime to have an abortion, or leave to states? Where do other western countries stand on this?
If it were overturned, as it should be because it is not a federal issue, then the states would make their own rules.
Just as they do in virtually every other criminal prosecution or lack thereof.
I don't know the answer about abortion in other western countries, but I do know that most countries don't have a federal structure like the US, where most issues are handled at the state and local levels.
Another nod to the most beautiful equation: e + 1 = 0
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2882
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by Xan » Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:45 pm

Cortopassi wrote:
Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:05 pm
I am sure a lot of you know specific reasons why you'd like a liberal vs conservative court and vice versa. Seems reasonably immaterial to me.

The one that is always brought up is Roe v Wade.

I really don't know much about that. If I understand correctly that legalized abortion, would overturning that then make it a crime to have an abortion, or leave to states? Where do other western countries stand on this?
My understanding is that Roe struck down 50 separate state laws on the subject, on the grounds that the Constitution (in some kind of "penumbra" of privacy) prohibits states from regulating the matter.

It's a hallmark of judges legislating from the bench, making the law they think should be made rather than applying what exists. And unlike other such rulings which can be overridden by changing the law, this one can't, because there isn't a law to be changed.
Post Reply