Page 1 of 5

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 6:45 pm
by flyingpylon
As if 2020 couldn’t get any crazier...

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87

RIP

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 6:55 pm
by I Shrugged
Yeah this will be a huge conflagration.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:01 pm
by vnatale
flyingpylon wrote:
Fri Sep 18, 2020 6:45 pm

As if 2020 couldn’t get any crazier...

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87

RIP


What will McConnell do?

Vinny
Simonjester wrote:
i think they set a precedent for waiting till the election ends during the Obama years... it will be interesting to see if the republicans flip flop on that one..
Simonjester wrote:
Libertarian666 wrote:
Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:10 pm


The reason that the Senate didn't hold hearings for an Obama appointment is that the Senate was in Republican hands so no one that Obama nominated would have been confirmed.

The situation right now is obviously completely different because the Senate and Presidency are controlled by the same party. McConnell should ram through a confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett at warp speed. It is particularly critical now because the Supreme Court may be the only body that can prevent the Democrats from stealing the election via mail-in ballot fraud.
i agree we should put a new judge on the bench asap.. i am not so sure the dems are going to let it happen, even if they set the precedent in their own interest to prevent a denial of confirmation, they will use it to prevent a republican confirmation as well... hope i am wrong or that trump just some how manages to come up "winning" again...

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:20 pm
by vnatale
Capture.JPG
Capture.JPG (30.83 KiB) Viewed 4792 times

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:57 pm
by vnatale
Libertarian666 wrote:
Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:45 pm
vnatale wrote:
Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:20 pm
Capture.JPG
The American people do have a say in the selection of Supreme Court justices, because they vote for Presidents who nominate them and Senators who confirm them.

Hope that helps.
Capture.JPG
Capture.JPG (23.43 KiB) Viewed 4768 times
Hope that helps.

Vinny

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:04 pm
by I Shrugged
They will wait.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:09 pm
by vnatale
Capture.JPG
Capture.JPG (141.19 KiB) Viewed 4757 times

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:14 pm
by Kriegsspiel
Where was Hillary Clinton when this happened?

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:14 pm
by flyingpylon
The question is: What will the RINOs do?

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:25 pm
by Libertarian666
vnatale wrote:
Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:09 pm
Capture.JPG
So McConnell agrees with me.
And of course it is up to him, not you or me.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:26 pm
by Libertarian666
flyingpylon wrote:
Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:14 pm
The question is: What will the RINOs do?
We only need 50 votes in the Senate, not counting Pence. I don't think there are enough RINOs to block it.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:57 pm
by Cortopassi
So if this doesn’t happen the Democrats will steal the election.

But if she stayed alive they were going to steal it anyway

I guess there’s no way Trump can lose. Either he wins, or the democrats stole it?

According to NPR, there are at least 5 republicans that will not vote until after Jan 20.

This has the potential of energizing both sides.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:01 pm
by Tyler
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.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:35 pm
by glennds
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.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:39 pm
by Xan
I don't know that I have a better system, but I'd just like to point out that lifetime appointment for these judges makes for some horrible mixing of politics with humanity. Some huge portion of the country is effectively always hoping that the right person will die. We ghoulishly plot out how long so-and-so has left.

I suppose it was the same on steroids in the days of true monarchs, where the government would completely change when one person died.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 10:01 pm
by Mark Leavy
Damn. I just saw the news. I didn't think 2020 could get any more chaotic. Maybe I will throw another steak on the grill tonight...

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 11:49 pm
by vnatale
Capture.JPG
Capture.JPG (56.92 KiB) Viewed 4493 times

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:02 am
by Libertarian666
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.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:49 am
by Dieter
There goes the republic.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:21 am
by flyingpylon
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?

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:48 am
by glennds
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.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:43 am
by pp4me
Libertarian666 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.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:56 am
by Tyler
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.)

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2020 2:25 pm
by Xan
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.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:09 pm
by vnatale
Capture.JPG
Capture.JPG (43.08 KiB) Viewed 4802 times