Ruth Bader Ginsburg

[glennds]

Think about this - what if a new Justice was shoehorned onto the Court at warp speed.
Then three weeks later a case arrives called Trump v. Biden over the contested election.
The new Justice promptly recuses herself as she could not possibly be impartial considering one of the parties in the case just finished appointing her to the pinnacle of her legal career and naturally she feels enormous personal indebtedness towards him.
This leaves an 8 member Court, which then ends up deadlocked in the case.

By that line of reasoning, wouldn't Gorsuch and Kavanaugh also recuse themselves of a Trump vs. Biden case since they were also appointed by Trump?

Technically, yes.
Look, I'm not saying any of this is going to happen. Just illustrating the obvious point that we're in uncharted territory and almost anything can happen. Usually we have history and tradition as a barometer against which to form our expectations. Here, all tradition is out the window, and it's anyone's guess how this will play out. Orderly is not a word that comes to mind.
So yes, Supreme Court justice recusals are unlikely, but only a short few years ago, everything that is happening before our eyes would have seemed unlikely.

[Libertarian666]

Why does this make me think of @vnatale?
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rbg-mom- ... afbe990c15

Because you may oftentimes be guilty of over-generalizing based upon limited information / evidence and viewing / interpreting such information / evidence through a super narrow viewpoint which then results in you grossly missing the mark?

Vinny

LOL.

[Maddy]

Fill Supreme Court vacancy after election

https://www.recorder.com/my-turn-hamdan ... n-36387182

I am a relatively conservative-leaning attorney. While I have tremendous respect for the accomplishments, dignified personality, and logic of the late Justice Ginsburg, (may she rest in peace), I would probably support having another conservative justice on the Supreme Court.

Having said that, I vehemently oppose the ongoing attempts to fill her seat, less than two months before the November election. I think it would be both grossly unfair and politically suicidal for Republicans to try to shoehorn in a nomination in this manner.

I'm sorry, but you are not a conservative in any meaningful sense of the word. No conservative could possibly do anything other than vote for Trump in this election, because the alternative is the destruction of the Republic.

The content of Vinny's post is not his own. It is a quote from an article from the Greenfield Recorder, authored by a self-described "conservative-leaning attorney."

My first impression, upon reading the post, was, "Why the hell should I care what this nobody thinks?" Is the mere attribution of an opinion to somebody who managed to acquire a law degree supposed to influence me?

I, too, am a conservative-learning lawyer, and I adhere to pretty much the opposite view, finding the article one more tired iteration of the relentless Alynski-esque "never stop accusing the republicans of what we're doing" theme. Historically, the hallmark of the PP forum has been the quality of the contributors' analysis. Has the posting of articles in droves and the attribution of an idea to somebody with a credential supposed to substitute for reasoned analysis?

[vnatale]

On live right now. Outstanding! You can catch the end of it now. Or, watch it later.

Tons of insight into the Supreme Court. How it fits into this country, and how Congress abdicates much of its responsibilities and, instead, leaves it to the Supreme Court.

Example is the Republicans attempt to repeal Obamacare via the Supreme Court and Scalia's response to them, "You keep funding it every year!"

Vinny


Washington Journal

James Wallner Discusses the Senate & Upcoming Supreme Court Confirmation Battle

R Street Institute Senior Governance Fellow James Wallner discusses the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation battle in the Senate.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?476166-3/ ... attle&live

[Maddy]

Fill Supreme Court vacancy after election

https://www.recorder.com/my-turn-hamdan ... n-36387182

I am a relatively conservative-leaning attorney. While I have tremendous respect for the accomplishments, dignified personality, and logic of the late Justice Ginsburg, (may she rest in peace), I would probably support having another conservative justice on the Supreme Court.

Having said that, I vehemently oppose the ongoing attempts to fill her seat, less than two months before the November election. I think it would be both grossly unfair and politically suicidal for Republicans to try to shoehorn in a nomination in this manner.

I'm sorry, but you are not a conservative in any meaningful sense of the word. No conservative could possibly do anything other than vote for Trump in this election, because the alternative is the destruction of the Republic.

The content of Vinny's post is not his own. It is a quote from an article from the Greenfield Recorder, authored by a self-described "conservative-leaning attorney."

My first impression, upon reading the post, was, "Why the hell should I care what this "nobody" thinks?" Is the mere attribution of an opinion to somebody who managed to acquire a law degree supposed to influence me?

I, too, am a conservative-learning lawyer, and I adhere to pretty much the opposite view, finding the article one more tired iteration of the relentless Alynski-esque "never stop accusing the republicans of what we're doing" theme. Historically, the hallmark of the PP forum has been the quality of the contributors' analysis. Has the posting of articles in droves and the attribution of an idea to somebody with a credential supposed to substitute for reasoned analysis?

[Libertarian666]

Why does this make me think of @vnatale?
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rbg-mom- ... afbe990c15

Tech, what on earth were you doing on HuffPost to run across this gem?

Mark Dice cited it and I had to check whether it was real.
These days, it's pretty hard to tell!

[Xan]

On live right now. Outstanding! You can catch the end of it now. Or, watch it later.

Tons of insight into the Supreme Court. How it fits into this country, and how Congress abdicates much of its responsibilities and, instead, leaves it to the Supreme Court.

Example is the Republicans attempt to repeal Obamacare via the Supreme Court and Scalia's response to them, "You keep funding it every year!"

Vinny


Washington Journal

James Wallner Discusses the Senate & Upcoming Supreme Court Confirmation Battle

R Street Institute Senior Governance Fellow James Wallner discusses the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation battle in the Senate.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?476166-3/ ... attle&live

I've mentioned this here before. EVERY federal elected or appointed official swears to uphold the Constitution, and they all outsource this duty to the Supreme Court.

A prime recent example is Bush saying, as he signed the McCain/Feingold repeal of the first amendment (aka campaign finance reform) that he thought it was unconstitutional and the court would throw it out. Well then don't sign it!

Another is Eisenhower saying that he thought it wasn't constitutional to send federal troops to integrate schools. But just because the court thought it was, he did anyway. He should have said no. He took an oath!

[Mark Leavy]

Since it doesn't appear as if anyone else has appropriated it yet, I'm going to start referring to myself as Notorious MRL

I would appreciate it if y'all could spread it around.

[I Shrugged]

As far as election rulings, the court is currently 5-3 presumably conservatives

[vnatale]

Since it doesn't appear as if anyone else has appropriated it yet, I'm going to start referring to myself as Notorious MRL

I would appreciate it if y'all could spread it around.

I do work for a place that makes a ton of t-shirts so I can put you in touch with them so they can help you with a design for all the t-shirts you will no doubt want to sell of The "Notorious MRL"!

Mine would be quite the dud. The "Notorious VAN"???!!

Directed to Cortopassi! What IS my middle name!

Vinny

[Cortopassi]

Since it doesn't appear as if anyone else has appropriated it yet, I'm going to start referring to myself as Notorious MRL

I would appreciate it if y'all could spread it around.

I do work for a place that makes a ton of t-shirts so I can put you in touch with them so they can help you with a design for all the t-shirts you will no doubt want to sell of The "Notorious MRL"!

Mine would be quite the dud. The "Notorious VAN"???!!

Directed to Cortopassi! What IS my middle name!

Vinny

Gotta be Anthony...

[vnatale]

Since it doesn't appear as if anyone else has appropriated it yet, I'm going to start referring to myself as Notorious MRL

I would appreciate it if y'all could spread it around.

I do work for a place that makes a ton of t-shirts so I can put you in touch with them so they can help you with a design for all the t-shirts you will no doubt want to sell of The "Notorious MRL"!

Mine would be quite the dud. The "Notorious VAN"???!!

Directed to Cortopassi! What IS my middle name!

Vinny

Gotta be Anthony...

I knew I could count on my paisan! If you are male and Italian, good chance it's either your first name or your middle name!

Vinny

[WiseOne]

I hate to say something even slightly disparaging of a woman who is genuinely and deservedly a national figure, but ...

I do think the Republicans are rather transparently acting in their own self interest to push through a nomination quickly. However, think about why we are in this position in the first place: it’s because Ginsburg did not resign when it became obvious she could not serve any longer. Instead she hung onto the post in order to forestall a nomination from the current administration.

The situation is not at all similar to what happened to Scalia. That was genuinely an unexpected event. This was not.

[vnatale]

Capture.JPG (27.7 KiB) Viewed 3241 times

[glennds]

Capture.JPG

It should be apparent at this point that very little is going to happen in the foreseeable future based on what voters want. In the present age of power politics, the voter is irrelevant. It looks unlikely that the election will be decided on votes.
Welcome to the Machine.

[vnatale]

Capture.JPG

It should be apparent at this point that very little is going to happen in the foreseeable future based on what voters want. In the present age of power politics, the voter is irrelevant. It looks unlikely that the election will be decided on votes.
Welcome to the Machine.

However, could the choice of when to fill this vacancy affect how a voter votes?

Vinny

[glennds]

Capture.JPG

It should be apparent at this point that very little is going to happen in the foreseeable future based on what voters want. In the present age of power politics, the voter is irrelevant. It looks unlikely that the election will be decided on votes.
Welcome to the Machine.

However, could the choice of when to fill this vacancy affect how a voter votes?

Vinny

I think so, yes

[Tyler]

However, could the choice of when to fill this vacancy affect how a voter votes?

I seriously doubt anyone will think "I planned to vote for Trump and want him to nominate the next SC justice, but because he did it now I'm going to vote for Biden." I suppose there might be a small handful of true undecideds who are pushed over the edge by the perception that the process isn't "fair", but I don't think it will be enough to move the needle. The more likely possibility to me is that the left wing of the Democrat party ends up flipping a significant number of independents or even centrist Democrats to Republican by going after ACB way too strongly in the confirmation hearings. Coming out as hardcore anti-Christian and attacking her family will raise quite a few eyebrows among normal people.

[Tortoise]

How relevant are voters’ wishes to Supreme Court nominations and confirmations?

Did the U.S. founders intend for voters to directly influence those processes, other than by electing the President and senators to take care of it?

[Libertarian666]

How relevant are voters’ wishes to Supreme Court nominations and confirmations?

Did the U.S. founders intend for voters to directly influence those processes, other than by electing the President and senators to take care of it?

The US Founders didn't even provide for the Senate to be popularly elected.

That was changed by the 17th Amendment, which was a terrible idea that essentially removed the state legislatures as a check on the federal government's power.

However, there are several states that have never ratified that amendment:

"The Utah legislature rejected the amendment on February 26, 1913. No action on the amendment has been completed by: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, Virginia, Alaska or Hawaii. Alaska and Hawaii were not yet states at the time of the amendment's proposal, and have never taken any official action to support or oppose the amendment since achieving statehood. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeen ... the_states

It could be reasonably argued that the states that joined after the ratification of the 17th Amendment, namely Alaska and Hawaii, consented to its provisions by joining the union.

However, the states that existed at that time and never ratified it still retain their rights under Article V, namely:
" no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_F ... nstitution)

This means that the legislatures of those states, namely Utah, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia, could appoint Senators without having a popular vote if they wanted to do so. That would give them far more influence over the federal government than the others where Senators are popularly elected.

Of course I support this because it would serve as a check on the federal government.

[boglerdude]

Checks on gov? Like overturning the 22nd amendment so Trump could serve more terms?

[WiseOne]

Coming out as hardcore anti-Christian and attacking her family will raise quite a few eyebrows among normal people.

I was wondering about this too. Especially because the Democrats have been trumpeting Biden's Catholicism in (I guess) an attempt to woo the religious right voters who are more than a bit appalled at Trump's twitter posts. Now it's coming across as it's OK for a man to be a devout Catholic but it's not OK for a woman. The optics of that are really, really bad.

[Cortopassi]

Coming out as hardcore anti-Christian and attacking her family will raise quite a few eyebrows among normal people.

I was wondering about this too. Especially because the Democrats have been trumpeting Biden's Catholicism in (I guess) an attempt to woo the religious right voters who are more than a bit appalled at Trump's twitter posts. Now it's coming across as it's OK for a man to be a devout Catholic but it's not OK for a woman. The optics of that are really, really bad.

They should just ask a few facially reasonable questions and then shut up, but they can't do that because then their lunatic fringe would try to burn their houses down.

That's just one of the reasons why this was a brilliant pick by Trump.

Isn't it amazing how someone so dumb as he is can make such good moves, entirely by accident?

There's no way they'll question her faith. No way.

[Maddy]

Coming out as hardcore anti-Christian and attacking her family will raise quite a few eyebrows among normal people.

I was wondering about this too. Especially because the Democrats have been trumpeting Biden's Catholicism in (I guess) an attempt to woo the religious right voters who are more than a bit appalled at Trump's twitter posts. Now it's coming across as it's OK for a man to be a devout Catholic but it's not OK for a woman. The optics of that are really, really bad.

Being Catholic is a problem only when you're in a position to sway the vote on abortion.

[WiseOne]

There's no way they'll question her faith. No way.

That ship has sailed, Corto.

From the Guardian:

Amy Coney Barrett: spotlight falls on secretive Catholic group People of Praise

Trump’s pick is a member of a ‘covenant community’ that faces claims of a ‘highly authoritarian’ structure

I looked up People of Praise. They have a website, a list of chapters, extensive "about us" and "who we are" descriptions, and a writeup about schools they've set up and inner city initiatives designed among other things to improve social structure and reduce crime. There's maybe a lot you can say about what looks like a charismatic/born again Christian group, but "secretive" and "authoritarian" didn't exactly come across. And anyway...what's the problem with someone of that persuasion serving in a public office? Are we saying that people can be disqualified due to their religious beliefs? I thought the Constitution was pretty clear that a "religious test" is not allowed.

I guess we'll find out if she is 100% behind her statement that her religious principles will not affect her judgments. That is the more important issue. I don't care if she's a pole dancer or a priest in her spare time, I just want to know that her performance on the Supreme Court would be based on a sound, well-founded interpretation of the law.