CNN Reporting that RBG Has Passed

[TheGoodBits]

5 minutes ago, Koala said:

 

 

To be quite honest with you, Im not really sure what Democrats are complaining about.  Republicans were under no Constitutional obligation to confirm Garland, and they are under no obligation to wait now.  As matter of fact, why would they?  Because what?  They promised?  Grow the **** up. 

Do you know what the Constitution says about the Senate’s role in the Supreme Court? 

[bearrock]

3 minutes ago, Koala said:

What if Biden wins the presidency, but the Republicans manage to hold on to a slim majority in the Senate?  I see this as a very possible, if not probably outcome.  So does Mitch.  Soo, all the warnings about stacking Judiciary are pretty much meaningless anyways.

 

To be quite honest with you, Im not really sure what Democrats are complaining about.  Republicans were under no Constitutional obligation to confirm Garland, and they are under no obligation to wait now.  As matter of fact, why would they?  Because what?  They promised?  Grow the **** up. 

 

And Dems have no constitutional obligation to not pack the courts, not rotate SCOTUS seats among Federal judges, or not pack the Senate with new states.  If the position is going to be whatever is legally allowed is therefore acceptable and proper, the country is going to be stuck in a vicious cycle of wildly lurching from one end to the other with every shift in political power.  Guess we'll all just have to grow the **** up.

[Burgold]

10 minutes ago, Koala said:

What if Biden wins the presidency, but the Republicans manage to hold on to a slim majority in the Senate?  I see this as a very possible, if not probably outcome.  So does Mitch.  Soo, all the warnings about stacking Judiciary are pretty much meaningless anyways.

 

To be quite honest with you, Im not really sure what Democrats are complaining about.  Republicans were under no Constitutional obligation to confirm Garland, and they are under no obligation to wait now.  As matter of fact, why would they?  Because what?  They promised?  Grow the **** up. 

They were under pressure. The pressure of precedent and the pressure of their oath to the Constitution to advise and consent. What they did in refusing to hold a trial was unique. It actually would have been much more normal to vet Garland, question him, and then reject him (for any or no reason). The route they chose was unusual and morally dubious which makes their turnaround now all the more glaring.

 

In the end you are right, the Republicans are not compelled by law to morally consistent. They do still have that duty to advise and consent. That doesn't mean it doesn't stink. That doesn't mean that they aren't slimes for acting as they did and do. Sadly, there also isn't any way to legally prevent them from damaging the country (which is their intent.)

18 minutes ago, tshile said:

They’re convinced it’s George Soros money

 

I'm sure many of "fine" Republicans will try this tact. 

Edited September 22, 2020 by Burgold

[Cooked Crack]

11 minutes ago, Koala said:

What if Biden wins the presidency, but the Republicans manage to hold on to a slim majority in the Senate?  I see this as a very possible, if not probably outcome.  So does Mitch.  Soo, all the warnings about stacking Judiciary are pretty much meaningless anyways.

 

To be quite honest with you, Im not really sure what Democrats are complaining about.  Republicans were under no Constitutional obligation to confirm Garland, and they are under no obligation to wait now.  As matter of fact, why would they?  Because what?  They promised?  Grow the **** up. 

Would you be okay with Dems expanding the court since they are under no constitutional obligation to have 9 justices?

[88Comrade2000]

Packing the Court—or Taming the Courts?

 

kk

[Burgold]

I think it's also useful to remember that the case of Merrick Garland was not unique under McConnell. Despite the Constitutional imperative to vote on a President's judicial picks, the GOP sat and refused to hold an up or down vote on more than a hundred benches. This led to the infamous recess appointments which the GOP decried so. It also led to them packing the bench under trump, very often with candidates who the bar said did not meet the qualifications to be a judge.

 

Garland is remember because he was a Supreme Court nominee, but we really shouldn't discount the hundreds of other judges Mitch screwed the country out of.

[88Comrade2000]

33 minutes ago, Koala said:

What if Biden wins the presidency, but the Republicans manage to hold on to a slim majority in the Senate?  I see this as a very possible, if not probably outcome.  So does Mitch.  Soo, all the warnings about stacking Judiciary are pretty much meaningless anyways.

 

To be quite honest with you, Im not really sure what Democrats are complaining about.  Republicans were under no Constitutional obligation to confirm Garland, and they are under no obligation to wait now.  As matter of fact, why would they?  Because what?  They promised?  Grow the **** up. 

Just like if the Dems have control in 21; they are free to expand to the court.

 

The GOP didn't even have the courtesy to take up the nomination; they still could've rejected it.  Reep what your sow.  You right wingers will get your seat but you can shut your pie hole if the Dems do have control and expand.  It's in the constitution that congress sets the amount of supreme court justices.

 

AS for GOP having a slim majority in the Senate next year?  Not happening.   Arizona, Colorado and Maine are definitely going Dem. That would at least give the Dems a tie and control if Biden wins. 

[Hersh]

46 minutes ago, Koala said:

To be quite honest with you, Im not really sure what Democrats are complaining about.  

 

That speaks to your moral compass.

 

 

 

(It's not good)

[Cooked Crack]

8 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

AS for GOP having a slim majority in the Senate next year?  Not happening.   Arizona, Colorado and Maine are definitely going Dem. That would at least give the Dems a tie and control if Biden wins. 

Almost. Dems have to pull out another victory to get 50 since they're going to lose Alabama. I like their chances in NC and Iowa.

 

 

[88Comrade2000]

Forgot about Alabama. I'll amend my position.  If Biden wins, I believe he will at least have a 50-50 Senate and Dems will win the 4 seats necessary to get to 50-50.

Arizona, Colorado and Maine are a lock.  The Dems probably will win North Carolina.

 

It would sure be nice if they win Iowa and South Carolina. I was listening to a Lincoln Project podcast and they were saying Espy may have a shot in Mississippi.

 

Looks like the Dems blew Montana. Steve Bullock just wasn't as good as they thought.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

The real issue was whoever decided it was a good idea to get rid of the 2/3 requirements for judge appointments. If that were still precedent I think we would be having a different conversation.

 

btw, if the senate can change the rules whenever they like what is the point in having rules?

 

I really don’t like the Idea of Supreme Court appointments being less that life time, but maybe that is a better option than the senate deciding to add judges whenver the senate and president are of the same party.

 

Maybe 50 judges where each state gets to pick there lifetime judge. 

[88Comrade2000]

**** lifetime judges.    Now that judiciary has become so political; you don't want lifetime judges making key decisions.

 

When the right wing court takes over with their 6-3 majority; they will impose their tyranny of minority.  They will oppose everything the majority wants and get rid of it.  

Right to choose, Obamacare, Gay Marriage, Voting rights, etc...  They will definitely go full steam to undo every program that FDR and LBJ passed.

 

We need term limits on judges. Set the term to 10 years and they can be renominated twice; for a total of 30 years.  

[Long n Left]

9 hours ago, PokerPacker said:

Indeed.  Graham is on record--and even made point of being super-on-the-record-you-can-quote-me-on-this-if-it-happens--two years ago saying he absolutely positively would not confirm a supreme court justice in the last year of Trump's presidency if a position opened up.  There was no weasel-wording out of it, he's just decided to completely not address those previous words.

Why is the media not hammering him with this constantly? He made the statement, he should have to come up with a reasonable explanation for NOT doing what he said...oh wait, it’s Lindsay Graham we're talking about...

[Long n Left]

5 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said:

**** lifetime judges.    Now that judiciary has become so political; you don't want lifetime judges making key decisions.

 

When the right wing court takes over with their 6-3 majority; they will impose their tyranny of minority.  They will oppose everything the majority wants and get rid of it.  

Right to choose, Obamacare, Gay Marriage, Voting rights, etc...  They will definitely go full steam to undo every program that FDR and LBJ passed.

 

We need term limits on judges. Set the term to 10 years and they can be renominated twice; for a total of 30 years.  

Was watching a legal pundit on MSNBC last night (can’t recall his name) who floated the idea of increasing the SC dramatically. His argument was, that there are large judicial pools in circuits, 50-100, why should there not be in the largest court in the land?
 

He said, why not 50 SC justices? Then decisions would be rendered by a randomly selected group of 3 judges, and it would cut down on suits brought before the court, because you’d have no idea which justices would be hearing the case. The case would stand on its merits.

 

Agreed with most everything he said, though, I’d think a panel of 7 or 9 justices would be a better draw from the pool of 50, as only 3 would not slow as many suits brought forth, because the odds are better. 7 or 9 would even out those odds, and, IMO, is a more democratic way of justice in this land’s highest court than what we have now.

[DCranon21]

12 hours ago, Burgold said:

If Dems win Senate, I'd immediately have them charge Kavanaugh with libel during his Senate questioning, convict him (which should take no effort at all) and remove him from the bench. I'd then increase the bench to fifteen.

 

Also I'd pass the Voting Rights Act to destroy voter suppression, nix the filibuster and give DC and PR statehood. Make the GOP pay for McConnell and Trump. 

[Burgold]

1 hour ago, DCranon21 said:

 

Also I'd pass the Voting Rights Act to destroy voter suppression, nix the filibuster and give DC and PR statehood. Make the GOP pay for McConnell and Trump. 

That's a good call. Some laws that really curtail gerrymandering would be awesome, too.

[Llevron]

Make another national election. Let the people choose the judges. Straight up popular vote. So much freedomz 

[Mooka]

1 hour ago, Long n Left said:

Why is the media not hammering him with this constantly? He made the statement, he should have to come up with a reasonable explanation for NOT doing what he said...oh wait, it’s Lindsay Graham we're talking about...

 

Graham already said its not the same situation because the GOP has the Presidency and the Senate.

 

Not sure why there's a narrative that any GOP Senator won't confirm a new Justice. (save Romney) 

 

Their goal is to get Trump reelected and apppoint as many judges as possible.

[LD0506]

11 hours ago, techboy said:

 

I was uncomfortable about that turn when this thread first started, and though I didn't mention it, I did bump the "usual" Supreme Court thread (which is also not really following the original topic either, but whatever), thinking that people could post tributes and such here, and the politics stuff there.

 

Upon further reflection, though, I read the thoughts of Elizabeth Warren and others, and they are saying that Ruth Bader Ginsburg wouldn't want people to despair... she would want them to FIGHT. I suspect that's right from everything I've read about her, and the fact that she told a relative that her dying wish is that the seat only be filled by a new President.

 

Now I'm thinking that perhaps sharing information and ideas about that fight, as people are doing, may well be the tribute she would have wanted the most.

 

 

While I agree with the sentiment here I am still just a little saddened that collectively we have been sucked up in the political tornado of filling the seat and will not have the small interval of quiet reflection and remembrance for RBG that she so richly deserves. Not despair, not the anger or angst, but the weekend was the perfect opportunity to simply remember her and all she has done for us. She is held up as a feminist icon and champion of women's rights, but at her core she was a jurist that sought to make the law work better for all. She deserves the thoughtful introspection, the solemnity of memorial and gratitude of the nation for her life's dedication.

[Burgold]

39 minutes ago, LD0506 said:

 

While I agree with the sentiment here I am still just a little saddened that collectively we have been sucked up in the political tornado of filling the seat and will not have the small interval of quiet reflection and remembrance for RBG that she so richly deserves. Not despair, not the anger or angst, but the weekend was the perfect opportunity to simply remember her and all she has done for us. She is held up as a feminist icon and champion of women's rights, but at her core she was a jurist that sought to make the law work better for all. She deserves the thoughtful introspection, the solemnity of memorial and gratitude of the nation for her life's dedication.

I think that too is an artifact of McConnell. In his condolence message less than an hour after RBG's reported passing, the **** couldn't resist adding that the Senate would vote on a new judge. A Senate that has sat on so many critical things for years and months... This, it would do immediately.

 

So, McConnell immediately turned the narrative to a new judge because he said, "We're doing this. We're doing this now." The smarmy creep didn't even allow the country a weekend to grieve and get its head around her passing.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

3 hours ago, Long n Left said:

Why is the media not hammering him with this constantly? He made the statement, he should have to come up with a reasonable explanation for NOT doing what he said...oh wait, it’s Lindsay Graham we're talking about...

You kind of summed it up with the fact that it's Graham we're talking about here, but he said that everything is off the table after what the dems did to Kavanaugh.  He was beggin for 5 or 10 bucks from half of Hannity's viewership last night to fight the good fight.  Either that or to pay for more ladyboys.

[JSSkinz]

I wonder if those Bernie supporters who didn't vote for Hillary in 2016 are holding themselves accountable for letting the worst President in US history place 3 Supreme Court justices, probably not.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

9 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Maybe 50 judges where each state gets to pick there lifetime judge. 

this is worse than the current system and would again give empty low populated GOP states a a ton of power over everybody else. 

[visionary]

 

[DCranon21]

Because Mitt folded like a cheap lawn chair. Of course he did

 

 

If Biden wins, he has no choice but to go ahead and put more justices on the bench. They need to go ahead and just crush them if they win the majority. I'd go full liberal and pass every bill under the sun for this. Make it where the GOP cannot win another election for at least 10-15 years. They have holy hell to pay.