U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg dies at age 87 from pancreatic cancer

[MajarTheLion]

1 minute ago, bluehippie said:

I expect by Monday morning Mitch McConnell will have a name in his hand and start the proceedings. Old Ruthie refused to retire to deny Trump a replacement. Now it's time to do the right thing. Replace her immediately!
This should have happened over a year ago.
Trump Senate House 2020

I have a feeling Trump knew her death was imminent. I got a campaign email about three days ago talking up his short list of Supreme Court candidates.

[MajarTheLion]

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

 

I suspect it will be a black woman, thoroughly vetted, beyond reproach and conservative to the max. You have to play the race and sex card here. It most certainly can't be a man or no matter who it is somebody will come forward with some hazy memory from 20 years ago. To hide behind sex and race is a move right out of the dems playbook.

 

I think you are correct. The Democrats will look silly attacking a woman with the stale, regurgitated talking points. Even worse for a black woman. It's best Trump nominate someone NOW and get them appointed in the Senate. After all, Democrats tell us Trump is going to be slaughtered at the ballot box and the Senate and probably House taken over by Democrats. With that in mind, why wouldn't Trump want to replace Ruthy now? And as a bonus, the Democrats can't use who Trump may nominate as a voting issue- it will be done and over with!

[Cryingdick]

7 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

I have a feeling Trump knew her death was imminent. I got a campaign email about three days ago talking up his short list of Supreme Court candidates.

 

Let's see if the teleprompter tells Joe who to pick soon. I agree that Trump got word, how could he not? I suspect Biden couldn't produce a list because he actually doesn't have one. 

Edited September 19, 2020 by Cryingdick

[riclag]

Need that spot filled before the election, 8 justices possible deadlocked can't break a tie! In the event of a contested election the SC would ultimately decide the next POTUS

[MajarTheLion]

32 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

Republicans controlled the senate at that point when those statements were made, the same as they do now. Democrats of course controlled the presidency but I'm not sure how that is relevant. This is otherwise the exact same situation as Republicans were in 4 years ago... The only difference is that in that case there was much more time before the election. Yet the reason that was given to note even bring Merrick Garland to a vote was that it was too close to an election. Well if that is the case then certainly 45 days from an election more than qualifies for that same explanation. But suddenly it's a completely different tune. Which pretty much makes all of the above bold-faced liars and hypocrites. There is no other way to see if we are being honest. 

I can certainly agree politicians are bold-faced liars and hypocrites. The thing is, in the spirit of being honest, it's human nature to not mind the lying and hypocrisy so much when it works out in our own favor.  ????

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, riclag said:

Need that spot filled before the election, 8 justices possible deadlocked can't break a tie! In the event of a contested election the SC would ultimately decide the next POTUS

At that point Pelosi would be president until the house votes. Simple majority one state one vote. That's a trump win. If the SC can't solve the issue.

[MajarTheLion]

2 minutes ago, riclag said:

Need that spot filled before the election, 8 justices possible deadlocked can't break a tie! In the event of a contested election the SC would ultimately decide the next POTUS

I couldn't agree more. Democrats have made it clear they won't accept the results of the election if Trump wins Based on the 2000 election, when Bush defeated Gore, it is obviously wise to have nine justices in place, as one of the SCOTUS decisions on that election was 5-4. We certainly don't want a Constitutional crisis to play out. There's no other way.

[MajarTheLion]

1 minute ago, Cryingdick said:

At that point Pelosi would be president until the house votes. Simple majority one state one vote. That's a trump win. If the SC can't solve the issue.

I guess we can add that to the reasons Democrats don't want a nine-member Supreme Court.

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Let's see if the teleprompter tells Joe who to pick soon. I agree that Trump got word, how could he not? I suspect Biden couldn't produce a list because he actually doesn't have one. 

 

Thought it was Presidents who got to nominate SC judges. Biden isn't President, yet.

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, riclag said:

Need that spot filled before the election, 8 justices possible deadlocked can't break a tie! In the event of a contested election the SC would ultimately decide the next POTUS

 

I could be mistaken, but in case of a tied verdict, isn't the previous court verdict (as in the step before SC) upheld?

[riclag]

Just now, Morch said:

 

I could be mistaken, but in case of a tied verdict, isn't the previous court verdict (as in the step before SC) upheld?

https://apnews.com/fa1f88c9ff0681bd78b147137c09b3d9

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

I couldn't agree more. Democrats have made it clear they won't accept the results of the election if Trump wins Based on the 2000 election, when Bush defeated Gore, it is obviously wise to have nine justices in place, as one of the SCOTUS decisions on that election was 5-4. We certainly don't want a Constitutional crisis to play out. There's no other way.

 

Whereas Team Trump committed to accepting election results if these don't go Trump's way? Contesting election results when margins are minimal is acceptable.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, riclag said:

https://apnews.com/fa1f88c9ff0681bd78b147137c09b3d9

 

How does it relate to my post and question?

[johnnybangkok]

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

 

I suspect it will be a black woman, thoroughly vetted, beyond reproach and conservative to the max. You have to play the race and sex card here. It most certainly can't be a man or no matter who it is somebody will come forward with some hazy memory from 20 years ago. To hide behind sex and race is a move right out of the dems playbook.

 

Just try submitting somneone without a dodgy/criminal sexual past. It;s not that hard and only seems difficult to do for the GOP.

[riclag]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

How does it relate to my post and question?

contested

[bluehippie]

5 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Just try submitting somneone without a dodgy/criminal sexual past. It;s not that hard and only seems difficult to do for the GOP.

Who are you referring to?

Sounds like u just described Biden and most democrats. Oh, wait Bill and his cigar insertion "I never had sex with that woman" Clinton! Johnny, you don't need to worry Trump's SCOTUS picks, it don't concern you.

 

Edited September 19, 2020 by bluehippie

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, riclag said:

contested

 

I'm sure you meant something by that. My post, however, related to the claim it's urgent to have a full SC quorum as to avoid a possible tie. As far as I understand, in case of a tie, the previous (lower) court verdict is upheld, so apparently not a situation unforeseen or unaddressed.

[johnnybangkok]

53 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

You could be right. So you are saying the GOP actually changed it to make confirmation simpler at a time Obama was appointing a potential SJC? It occurs to me the only real difference in all of this is not the time line involved. The MAJOR difference is the GOP hold both the senate and the WH. If the dems had the same situation their pick would have gone through.

Top marks for stating the obvious. Problem being it was the GOP who had the majority and they were VERY clear about why they would not allow an appointment 11 months before Obama's departure. To now say everything is fine with less than 2 months to go is the whole point of this thread.

The battle was started by the GOP (again) and was one of the final shots in a battle of obstruction that had started way back at the beginning of Obama's precidency. This further example of Republican intransigence and making up the rules as you go along is why American politics now feel like a war of attrition rather than a healthy democratic process. 

It was tolerated then (as was many GOP antics) on the proviso the GOP would at least be somewhat consistent in similar situations but as this clearly shows, there are no morals with the GOP and there's certainly no rules. The only rules they like are the ones they can bend or the ones they make up themselves. And even then they can simply ignore their own rules with no thought to anything other than their own selfish cause.

There is no trust to be had with the GOP and as soon as the Dems start fighting fire with fire the better. 

[johnnybangkok]

44 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

I can certainly agree politicians are bold-faced liars and hypocrites. The thing is, in the spirit of being honest, it's human nature to not mind the lying and hypocrisy so much when it works out in our own favor.  ????

It's not human nature. It's your nature.

Some of us hold our elected leaders to higher standards than you obvioulsy do and DON'T accept the 'lying and hypocrisy' 

You're aptly demonstarting your average Trump fans philosophy in a nutshell; Scr$w morals, integrity and doing the right thing as long as I'm getting something out of it.

[riclag]

10 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

It's not human nature. It's your nature.

Some of us hold our elected leaders to higher standards than you obvioulsy do and DON'T accept the 'lying and hypocrisy' 

You're aptly demonstarting your average Trump fans philosophy in a nutshell; Scr$w morals, integrity and doing the right thing as long as I'm getting something out of it.

Ginsburg died she needs to be replaced and confirmed by the senate majority! What ever was said in the past by politicians about waiting for a new administration to claim the vacancy is so beyond reproach and that putting it lightly ! What the dems  have done during Trumps tenure  prompts the only thing that should be done ! Fill that vacancy!   

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

OK, as soon as you show where the Biden rule on not replacing Supreme Court Justices is mentioned in any of the above places you mentioned. Obviously, you already knew that.no one can cite such things from the sources you listed, whether it's the Biden or McConnell rule. Obviously you already knew that. But in order to pursue a full debate based on logic, both sides need to be pointed out. So essentially, that leaves one option: the party in power gets to decide. And as a very wise man once said, "elections have consequences".

It's the McConnell rule, as I'm sure you're aware.  He's the one who held off on considering Barrack Obama's nomination for the Supreme Court vacancy, Merrick Garland, on March 16 2016 until after the election on the specious grounds that the nomination and Senate confirmation should wait until after the 2016 election. 

 

McConnell, Trump and the Republicans won't hold themselves to that rule.  Try to explain why that isn't hypocrisy.

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, IAMHERE said:

Those Amerivans can also say good-bye to the 2nd amendment when Harris becomes president.

Ginsberg should of resigned while Obama was POTUS.

 

You have no idea how the US Constitution is amended, do you?

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

How is speculating on Ruth's fitness a "conspiracy theory"? But let's set that aside. The last time I saw her on television, should could barely hold her head up. It's perfectly reasonable to think the mental faculties of such a person are significantly compromised.

So it's perfectly reasonable to question the mental faculties of a President who has trouble drinking water and walking down stairs and ramps.

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

There should be a condition that the justices need to be in good health. If they fail the physical they are done regardless of who is President. That way you don't get a corpse on the court hiding from the public for extended periods waiting for the election with the candidate of their choice.

Shouldn't we apply the same rule to Presidents?  And require that the results of a qualified, unbiased, comprehensive physical exam be made public?

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

So is this the official GOP stance now or just more of your mental gymnastics to defend the indefensible?

4 years ago McConnell clearly stated the responsibility of a new nomination had to be given to the incoming POTUS. This was backed by many, many GOPers, all singing obediantly to McConnels tune. It's was never mentioned that this 'rule' only worked for departing Presidents; it also wasn't mentioned about the WH and Senate being 'controlled by the same party' but here you are trying to pass these things off as 'facts' when they are nothing of the sort.

I just wish you Trump fans could just be honest and fess up to what everyone can see is clearly happening; 4 years ago McConnell and the GOP managed to prevent Obama from nominating a SCJ by childishly throwing their toys out of the pram but now it doesn't suit them, they are just going to be complete hyocrites and do exactly the reverse of what they preached 4 years ago.

I think you would get more respect from Biden fans if you did this rather than your usual vacuos 'explaining'.

Let's state the McConnell rule for what it really is:  When there is a Democrat in the White House and the Republicans control the Senate, no Supreme Court Justice nomination will be considered.  I assume this rule will be expanded to all vacant judicial positions.

 

However if the Democrats applied this rule to Republicans, all hell would break loose on Fox, Breitbart, Inforwars, and other propaganda sites.

Edited September 19, 2020 by heybruce

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Well with the tihs show that is going to be mail in voting we may not know who won for months. Isn't that going to be convenient? This is going to get real ugly. I can say many people in the USA who do not live on the interwebz are getting awfully sick of the BLM, Antifa, lockdowns, etc. 

 

If that demographic loses it's cool it's going to make the "protests" look like a summer of love. 

If Trump succeeds in hobbling the US Postal Service the final count could take days, not months.  However I'm sure his primary plan for delaying or overturning the actual election results involve specious court challenges and a stacked Supreme Court.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

I couldn't agree more. Democrats have made it clear they won't accept the results of the election if Trump wins Based on the 2000 election, when Bush defeated Gore, it is obviously wise to have nine justices in place, as one of the SCOTUS decisions on that election was 5-4. We certainly don't want a Constitutional crisis to play out. There's no other way.

"Democrats have made it clear they won't accept the results of the election if Trump wins"

 

No, it is Trump who made it clear, last election and this one, that he won't accept the results of the election if he loses.

[Cryingdick]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Thought it was Presidents who got to nominate SC judges. Biden isn't President, yet.

 

Not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse. Joe won't reveal his top secret list of possibles IF he is elected.

[Cryingdick]

2 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

Top marks for stating the obvious. Problem being it was the GOP who had the majority and they were VERY clear about why they would not allow an appointment 11 months before Obama's departure. To now say everything is fine with less than 2 months to go is the whole point of this thread.

The battle was started by the GOP (again) and was one of the final shots in a battle of obstruction that had started way back at the beginning of Obama's precidency. This further example of Republican intransigence and making up the rules as you go along is why American politics now feel like a war of attrition rather than a healthy democratic process. 

It was tolerated then (as was many GOP antics) on the proviso the GOP would at least be somewhat consistent in similar situations but as this clearly shows, there are no morals with the GOP and there's certainly no rules. The only rules they like are the ones they can bend or the ones they make up themselves. And even then they can simply ignore their own rules with no thought to anything other than their own selfish cause.

There is no trust to be had with the GOP and as soon as the Dems start fighting fire with fire the better. 

It isn't about what's fair. It is about what is possible. Under Obama it was impossible for him to get it done. Now it is possible for Trump. You know, because, like, I am simply stating, the obvious,

[Cryingdick]

46 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Shouldn't we apply the same rule to Presidents?  And require that the results of a qualified, unbiased, comprehensive physical exam be made public?

 

It could be argued but that's way OFF topic.