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

[Cryingdick]

47 minutes ago, heybruce said:

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.

 

If the dems had the senate and WH it wouldn't matter about who cried on Fox. That's how things work. 

[heybruce]

55 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

If the dems had the senate and WH it wouldn't matter about who cried on Fox. That's how things work. 

In other words, it's ok that the Republicans are behaving themselves in a shamelessly hypocritical and partisan manner and creating divisions that will take decades if not generations to heal.

[Scott]

Troll posts removed.  The topic is the death of Ginsburg.  

 

There is a topic about the Supreme Court vacancy running.

 

 

[johnnybangkok]

9 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

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,

You're right. It's not about 'what's fair'. Fair went out the GOP window as soon as Obama was elected. What it is about though is the continued erosion of whatever small amount of cross-party consensus there ever used to be, to the point now that everything the Dems do is immediately countered by the GOP and vice versa. 

The GOP used to have some integrity when it came to what was good for the country and could at least be counted on to keep it's word; that's all gone now with it's obsession with Trump and it's self serving agenda. 

If you cannot see how dangerous that is then there really is no hope for you.

[johnnybangkok]

12 hours ago, bluehippie said:

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.

 

Really? You are going to bang that drum whilst supporting Trump? 

These guys are priests compared to Trump.

[Morch]

10 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

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

 

On the other hand, I'm sure you are. Plus being unnecessarily offensive. Is it incumbent on Biden to air a list of candidates he cannot nominate? Is airing such a list prior to elections something all candidates do?

[heybruce]

11 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

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

Just to be clear; are you criticizing Biden because one day after Justice Ginsburg died he hasn't made a list of possible replacements a campaign issue?

[bluehippie]

RBG should heave hung tough a few more months, or she should have retired in year 7 of the Obama administration. She didn’t, so too bad so sad. 
Trump nominates and McConnell confirms. It’s the way the system is set up. Americans are very fortunate that our founders were so wise, and that the Lord called Ginsburg home at this fortuitous moment.

Not a damn thing your beloved dems can do about it.

[Rimmer]

A post and a reply have been removed, if you wish your post to remain up please use political parties correct names not something that suits your personal agenda.

 

A troll post and a flame from the same person has also been removed

[MajarTheLion]

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

Just to be clear; are you criticizing Biden because one day after Justice Ginsburg died he hasn't made a list of possible replacements a campaign issue?

No, I'm sure he's not. Obviously, with RBG having been near death for over a year, the criticism is Biden not already having a clue who he would replace her with.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

No, I'm sure he's not. Obviously, with RBG having been near death for over a year, the criticism is Biden not already having a clue who he would replace her with.

 

That's just another nonsense argument. Why would Biden need to present a list of potential replacements? He's not the President (yet).

[MajarTheLion]

Just now, Morch said:

 

That's just another nonsense argument. Why would Biden need to present a list of potential replacements? He's not the President (yet).

I'm not necessarily saying he "needs" to. But obviously, it would show engagement with what is going on in the country. So you don't think a presidential candidate should have ideas on how to solve issues and situations likely to arise when he becomes president. I disagree.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

I'm not necessarily saying he "needs" to. But obviously, it would show engagement with what is going on in the country. So you don't think a presidential candidate should have ideas on how to solve issues and situations likely to arise when he becomes president. I disagree.

 

Let's try again - was this ever a thing with other candidates? Or is this an ad hoc 'issue' ?

[Cryingdick]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Let's try again - was this ever a thing with other candidates? Or is this an ad hoc 'issue' ?

 

If you don't have an 'issue' with it that's fine. However many people do want to know what Biden's vision for a replacement is. Many people wonder if he knows who to appoint or if he is actually hiding his choice. The SC has become the 'issue' of the entire campaign right now. If you do not grasp that I am not sure anybody can explain it more clearly. 

 

Why is it so hard for Joe to come up with a name or two? What's the 'issue'?

[Scott]

Numerous replies to off-topic posts removed.

[MajarTheLion]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Let's try again - was this ever a thing with other candidates? Or is this an ad hoc 'issue' ?

No, let's stick to the subject. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died. Her death has been expected for well over a year. There are two people running to be president. One of them has apparently not thought about who will replace her. I am glad at least one has.

 

Furthermore, the logic you presented in another post about Biden not needing to do so because he's not president crumbles under the weight of even minor scrutiny. Since Biden isn't president yet, he shouldn't need to reveal any plans he would implement as president. After all, he's not president yet. Your logic.

 

 

Edited September 20, 2020 by MajarTheLion

[MajarTheLion]

Here is what Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself said (just a few years ago) about presidents nominating Supreme Court Justices in their last year of office:

 

"She lamented the Republican-majority Senate’s continued blocking of Garland from consideration, and its insistence that the next President, to be elected in November, should be the one to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice.

“That’s their job,” Ginsburg said, when asked whether the Senate should give the 63-year-old judge a fair hearing. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.”'

 

https://time.com/4400491/ruth-bader-ginsburg-interview-donald-trump-merrick-garland-abortion/?iid=sr-link7

 

Can anyone put forth an argument as to why such a brilliant and legendary Justice shouldn't be listened to?

 

 

Edited September 20, 2020 by MajarTheLion
clarification

[candide]

16 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

Here is what Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself said (just a few years ago) about presidents nominating Supreme Court Justices in their last year of office:

 

"She lamented the Republican-majority Senate’s continued blocking of Garland from consideration, and its insistence that the next President, to be elected in November, should be the one to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice.

“That’s their job,” Ginsburg said, when asked whether the Senate should give the 63-year-old judge a fair hearing. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.”'

 

https://time.com/4400491/ruth-bader-ginsburg-interview-donald-trump-merrick-garland-abortion/?iid=sr-link7

 

Can anyone put forth an argument as to why such a brilliant and legendary Justice shouldn't be listened to?

 

 

All GOP leaders opposed her POW! ????

So according to you, they were wrong?

Edited September 20, 2020 by candide

[MajarTheLion]

2 hours ago, candide said:

All GOP leaders opposed her POW! ????

So according to you, they were wrong?

They were being the partisan hacks we expected them to be. But honestly, now that the circumstances are in my hacks' favor, I can now take a moral stand and declare these delaying tactics wrong. And that right there is the most honesty you'll get here all day.  ????

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

Here is what Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself said (just a few years ago) about presidents nominating Supreme Court Justices in their last year of office:

 

"She lamented the Republican-majority Senate’s continued blocking of Garland from consideration, and its insistence that the next President, to be elected in November, should be the one to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice.

“That’s their job,” Ginsburg said, when asked whether the Senate should give the 63-year-old judge a fair hearing. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.”'

 

https://time.com/4400491/ruth-bader-ginsburg-interview-donald-trump-merrick-garland-abortion/?iid=sr-link7

 

Can anyone put forth an argument as to why such a brilliant and legendary Justice shouldn't be listened to?

 

 

Because the person who invented the precedent of not confirming a Supreme Court nomination during an election year is now ignoring his own rule.

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

No, I'm sure he's not. Obviously, with RBG having been near death for over a year, the criticism is Biden not already having a clue who he would replace her with.

What evidence to you have that Biden doesn't  have a clue as to who will replace Ginsburg?

 

Why should Biden make replacing Ginsburg a campaign issue so soon after her death?

[Morch]

9 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

If you don't have an 'issue' with it that's fine. However many people do want to know what Biden's vision for a replacement is. Many people wonder if he knows who to appoint or if he is actually hiding his choice. The SC has become the 'issue' of the entire campaign right now. If you do not grasp that I am not sure anybody can explain it more clearly. 

 

Why is it so hard for Joe to come up with a name or two? What's the 'issue'?

 

What 'many people'? I asked, since the first time this was brought up, if it's customary for opposition candidates to do so, if they are required to do so, or if it's much of a 'thing'. Still no answers.

 

Why are you making this particular point into a major issue? I can safely bet that if Biden did offer a candidate, the reaction from Trump supporters would be to denigrate his choice and/or to gloat over it being pointless since he's not POTUS.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

No, let's stick to the subject. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died. Her death has been expected for well over a year. There are two people running to be president. One of them has apparently not thought about who will replace her. I am glad at least one has.

 

Furthermore, the logic you presented in another post about Biden not needing to do so because he's not president crumbles under the weight of even minor scrutiny. Since Biden isn't president yet, he shouldn't need to reveal any plans he would implement as president. After all, he's not president yet. Your logic.

 

 

 

The topic is not about a bogus demand that Biden produce a list of candidates. That's just something you injected into the discussion. Still no answer as to whether this is something past opposition candidates routinely did, whether it's expected or required, or even what's the point of it.

 

Presenting a platform is obviously different - practically goes with the concept of candidacy, and generally expected to be part of the campaign.

[Scott]

Troll post and replies removed.  

 

[johnnybangkok]

7 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

They were being the partisan hacks we expected them to be. But honestly, now that the circumstances are in my hacks' favor, I can now take a moral stand and declare these delaying tactics wrong. And that right there is the most honesty you'll get here all day.  ????

Whilst it is appreciated that you are finally being honest and admitting you're hypocritical stance, there's nothing moral about it. A better description would be 'self-serving'.

But you knew that.

[johnnybangkok]

14 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

I'm not necessarily saying he "needs" to. But obviously, it would show engagement with what is going on in the country. So you don't think a presidential candidate should have ideas on how to solve issues and situations likely to arise when he becomes president. I disagree.

Your point about Biden producing a list of nominees is an obvious deflection but since you are so fond of playing politics to the detriment of the common good, hopefully you'll appreciate his reasons for not doing so   https://apnews.com/bd03c1a07a7cc00c5c412eba49a04202

 

Also, if you are genuinely interested in how Biden will 'solve issues and situations likely to arise when he becomes president' he has a detailed manifesto which can be viewed at https://joebiden.com/joes-vision/. In stark contrast to Biden, Trump only lists his accomplishments rather than his 'vision' in a cherry picked manner that paints a very different story to the dystopian America we see today https://www.promiseskept.com. He doesn't have a manifesto other than 'more of the same' on his site or if he does it's certainly well hidden.

 

Can any of you Trump fans show me where on his site he lays out his 'vision', post 2020 election?

Edited September 21, 2020 by johnnybangkok

[xylophone]

 

11 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

Can anyone put forth an argument as to why such a brilliant and legendary Justice shouldn't be listened to?

Since you wish to go down that path, here is RBGs last wish....... 

 

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, days before her death Friday, shared her last wish: that her replacement to the highest court in the land be picked by a president other than Donald Trump.

 

"My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed," Ginsburg said in a statement dictated to her granddaughter, Clara Spera, according to NPR.

 

So hopefully she is listened to............touché.
 

[Sujo]

12 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

No, let's stick to the subject. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died. Her death has been expected for well over a year. There are two people running to be president. One of them has apparently not thought about who will replace her. I am glad at least one has.

 

Furthermore, the logic you presented in another post about Biden not needing to do so because he's not president crumbles under the weight of even minor scrutiny. Since Biden isn't president yet, he shouldn't need to reveal any plans he would implement as president. After all, he's not president yet. Your logic.

 

 

He is not president so should not reveal his list. If he was to reveal the list those judges would come under extreme pressure from imvestigations into private lives and fake newsers.

 

All of which would be unnecessary if biden loses.

 

So no, he should not reveal the list.

[Sujo]

Posters demanding a list from someone who cannot appoint the justice.

 

Wheres the demand for tax returns.

[bluehippie]

On 9/19/2020 at 5:20 PM, heybruce said:

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.

They all do it, so easy to be hypocritical in politics.

Biden did the same, he now promotes the same "Biden Rule" which he promoted in 1992, but then disavowed in 2016. It shows that Joe Biden holds no principle in the matter, but, instead, just flip-flops depending on whatever suits his current agenda.

Nothing supersedes the Constitutional powers of 45 including but not limited to RBG's dying wishes, to proceed in the matter of nominating a new SC judge now, rather than later and for senate to confirm, hypocrisy or not or whatever else people say or do (threats of violence from the left).

To argue or say otherwise is pointless. Let the show go on.

 

Edited September 21, 2020 by bluehippie