Page 2 of 5

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:12 am
by glennds
pp4me wrote:
Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:49 am
Does anybody here believe for one minute that if the Dems were in control they wouldn't be doing exactly what the Republicans are?

Of course they would. They're all politicians and hypocrisy is the name of the game.
Exactly. Shame on them for what they would probably do.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:44 am
by pp4me
glennds wrote:
Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:12 am
pp4me wrote:
Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:49 am
Does anybody here believe for one minute that if the Dems were in control they wouldn't be doing exactly what the Republicans are?

Of course they would. They're all politicians and hypocrisy is the name of the game.
Exactly. Shame on them for what they would probably do.
Speaking of hypocrisy I just heard that Pelosi said she would be willing to impeach the president again if he tries to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. The reason she gave was to save the constitution and our Democracy.

The constitution says that the president is the one who nominates the Supreme Court justice and the Senate approves or denies. Where does it say anything about an election year? So how is it that going ahead with this is violating the constitution exactly?

As for saving Democracy that makes more sense as long as you understand that in Pelosi's mind Democracy means Democrats run the country.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:34 pm
by vnatale
‘You don’t see any hypocrisy?’ Chris Wallace flattens Trump Supreme Court shortlister Tom Cotton by replaying his Merrick Garland speech

https://www.alternet.org/2020/09/you-do ... paign=5510

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:30 pm
by pp4me
I think a confirmation hearing would be a very entertaining and enlightening spectacle for the American people to watch just before the election.

It will be interesting to see how they are planning on sliming Amy Comey Barrett if she is nominated, which it's sounding like she will be. She has adopted kids from Haiti so the racist accusations might not play well although they might be able to make something out of a white person adopting black kids. I know a lot of progressives think that is a bad thing. My guess is the main thing they will go after is her religion. I don't know much about it but I've already heard it described as a "sect".

But the big question is are they going to let Kamala Harris play a major role like she did with Kavanaugh? I'm getting the impression lately that the handlers are keeping her out of the spotlight even more than Joe. Probably has something to do with saying things like BLM isn't going to stop and they shouldn't and referring to the "Harris administration". If we are going to have a Harris administration I think it would be a good thing for the American people to see her in action again.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:41 pm
by Tortoise

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:22 pm
by Libertarian666
I said this before on a different thread: it will almost certainly be Barbara Lagoa. She ticks the immigrant family, minority, and female boxes, thus presenting the smallest possible attack surface for the Democrat dirty tricks.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2020 5:49 pm
by dualstow

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:05 pm
by WiseOne
I was wondering exactly how the Democrats will manage to savage a woman candidate without looking seriously ridiculous. If they suggest she's not qualified they'll be open to discrimination charges, if not outright slander. And the usual sexual abuse stories will be a lot harder to find. I guess we'll have to wait and see, but I'm really going to enjoy watching this one.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2020 7:48 am
by Libertarian666
WiseOne wrote:
Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:05 pm
I was wondering exactly how the Democrats will manage to savage a woman candidate without looking seriously ridiculous. If they suggest she's not qualified they'll be open to discrimination charges, if not outright slander. And the usual sexual abuse stories will be a lot harder to find. I guess we'll have to wait and see, but I'm really going to enjoy watching this one.
I expect them to throw everything they have at her, and fail.
But the more they do it, on national TV, the worse they will look.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:34 am
by pp4me
I see that Biden has promised to nominate a black woman.

So there you have it. Are the Republicans going to continue to perpetuate systemic racism by putting a white woman on the court in a seat that should rightfully belong to a woman of color?

I guess it wouldn't be 2020 if the race wasn't all about race.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:45 am
by Tyler
With Grassley, Gardner, and Romney now all releasing statements declaring their support for bringing the nominee to a vote before the election, Republicans officially have 51 votes in-hand. It's happening.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:44 pm
by glennds
Tyler wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:45 am
With Grassley, Gardner, and Romney now all releasing statements declaring their support for bringing the nominee to a vote before the election, Republicans officially have 51 votes in-hand. It's happening.
So this must mean Mitt is not a RINO after all.
Does toeing the line on the nomination get him back on the team?

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:58 pm
by Mark Leavy
glennds wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:44 pm
Tyler wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:45 am
With Grassley, Gardner, and Romney now all releasing statements declaring their support for bringing the nominee to a vote before the election, Republicans officially have 51 votes in-hand. It's happening.
So this must mean Mitt is not a RINO after all.
Does toeing the line on the nomination get him back on the team?
All of the LABELS and REASONS serve only to obfuscate the simple. Politicians act in their best interests at the moment. End of story.

There is value in releasing a statement that implies some high ground "reason". But only because we humans are wired to latch onto and accept a "reason".

So much simpler to just acknowledge that they did the calculation and acted on the highest utility.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:45 pm
by vnatale
Can Democrats Stop the Nomination?

Four questions that could determine whether Mitch McConnell can push through a Trump Supreme Court nominee


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... %3A05%3A21

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:57 pm
by Tortoise
Libertarian666 wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:40 am
Tyler wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:45 am
With Grassley, Gardner, and Romney now all releasing statements declaring their support for bringing the nominee to a vote before the election, Republicans officially have 51 votes in-hand. It's happening.
Now we need U. S. Marshals or some other reliable law enforcement agencies to protect the Senators around the clock until the vote.
That, plus push for one or two more votes just in case the unthinkable happens.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:04 pm
by Cortopassi
Has it really gotten that partisan that not even one purple state democrat wouldn’t vote for nomination, whoever it might be? To think not that long ago voting on judges was nearly unanimous a lot of the time.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:30 pm
by glennds
Libertarian666 wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:40 pm
glennds wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:44 pm
Tyler wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:45 am
With Grassley, Gardner, and Romney now all releasing statements declaring their support for bringing the nominee to a vote before the election, Republicans officially have 51 votes in-hand. It's happening.
So this must mean Mitt is not a RINO after all.
Does toeing the line on the nomination get him back on the team?
Certainly it will help but if they had 51 without him it's not as important.
He graduates from a RINO with a capital R to a small r, but still mostly in the dog house for the impeachment vote.
No sitting at the grownups table with Mitch yet.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2020 6:43 am
by dualstow
Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:04 pm
Has it really gotten that partisan that not even one purple state democrat wouldn’t vote for nomination, whoever it might be? To think not that long ago voting on judges was nearly unanimous a lot of the time.
i think you’ve got one too many negatives in that statement.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:08 pm
by vnatale
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.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:48 pm
by glennds
vnatale wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:08 pm
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.
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.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:52 pm
by glennds
glennds wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:48 pm
vnatale wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:08 pm
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.
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.
Alternate Ending -
When the new Justice recuses herself in the face of the Trump v. Biden case, Chief Justice Roberts, wanting to avoid a potentially deadlocked Court, reinstates retired Justice David Souter for the one case.
Trump loses in a 4-5 decision with Souter casting the swing vote against him.
Would it make a good movie?

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:02 pm
by Tortoise
glennds wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:48 pm
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?

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:21 pm
by Libertarian666
Why does this make me think of @vnatale?
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rbg-mom- ... afbe990c15

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:29 pm
by vnatale
Libertarian666 wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:21 pm
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

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:37 pm
by glennds
Tortoise wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:02 pm
glennds wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:48 pm
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.