6 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

No, that's not clear enough. You made a claim about when she made the decision she announced in 2016. But thanks for pointing out even RBG herself flip-flopped on the issue. The list continues to grow.

No, I didn't.  I posted:

 

"After McConnell succeeded in blocking Merrick Garland's nomination for 11 months she decided that the same rule should be applied to Republican nominees.  Why is that difficult to understand? "

 

I then explained that while McConnell was actively blocking Merrick Garland's confirmation for eleven months, Ginsburg considered it wrong.  After McConnell succeeded in his partisan blocking, she expected him to apply a semblance of consistency in confirming her replacement. 

16 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Err...no. I'm offering that until he actually does something, alleging he'll diligently follow the platform on offer during elections is, as they say here, up to you. That you treat it as 'what he does', doesn't make it into actual deeds. You may think the pursuit for bi-partisanship 'fatuous' - and I'll offer the very same comments as above. If all Biden's got to offer is a mirror image of partisanship, then as much as I prefer these views, it's simply not enough.

 

I agree that some issues are easier to recognize, or to be 'marketed' as being in the interests of all the people, regardless of partisanship. It would probably be a better strategy to focus on these, given that resistance might be weaker, thus avoiding feeding the partisan counter-narrative. Other issues, perhaps being more controversial, might take the backseat.

 

Biden might not be as 'dominant' as Trump vs. the party, fair enough. But then again, he's a politician who proved he can build bridges, deal with opponents and generate less antagonism than others. I think this could play both vs. his home crowd (Democratic Party), the opposition (Republican Party) and the general public.

 

I get your own position is supportive of a more radical approach, but for me that's just an extension of the existing divide, which I see as a greater threat to the USA than most policies pushed. 

 

 

I think you fail to understand that cause of the current polarization of politics which you nevertheless see as the greatest threat to the US.  The graph below sums up the underlying economic facts.  From the end of the War until the late 70's the median wage advanced with the growth in gdp per capita describing an equitable distribution of the benefits of the US economy.  And then it changed dramatically in the late 70's and even more so from the start of the Reagan era.  Up until Reagan an auto worker could own a home, a car, and send his kid to college.  From the Reagan period on all the growth in productivity went to the richest Americans while the bottom half were seeing their real income decline.  

 

There was nothing "natural" about this change which was due to changes in policy.  Reagan and his successors suppressed the unions, lowered taxes on the rich, effectively eliminated the inheritance tax, allowed more wages to escape the payroll tax via 401k and stock bonuses, etc.  It's a long story.  The result was that the rich got much, much richer and naturally decided to invest some of their gains in further policy changes to enhance their power and wealth.  Right-wing talk radio was invented in the early 90's as a Republican project to change the political opinions of the blue collars.  Richard Mellon Scaife, the Waltons, and a select group of similarly hyper-rich families built a war chest that funded the campaign to gut the inheritance tax for which they invented the pejorative term, "the death tax."  

 

Free trade policies required exposing the American manufacturing workers to cheap competition from China delivered via Walmart while at the same time protecting the professional classes of doctors, lawyers, and others from similar competition.  How long do you think American doctors would continue to enjoy their top-of-the-world incomes if H1 visas were available to any doctor who could pass the test (and get the required internship?)  But that question never arose in the public discourse.

 

Over the decades since Reagan the income inequality has resulted in a vast wealth inequality.  The Republican party fully adopted a business model of using the funding provided by their rich sponsors to persuade the voters to vote against their own interests and then using their power to enact policies that favor the rich very much at the expense of the average Americans.  

 

This has been the radical program for the redistribution of wealth and power in the US which is gutting the middle class and crushing the lower half.  Unless the Democrats, who are not free of blame themselves, enact policies to reduce the inequality then the political conflict that so concerns you will only get worse.

 

 

On 9/20/2020 at 6:48 AM, Mama Noodle said:

Fill the seat. Republicans owe the Democrats absolutely nothing. Less than nothing in fact. Let them make threats of violence and unrest. Let them create a dog and pony show of it. Let then make threats of adding more judges. 
 

Fill it and let them meltdown, because they’d do the same thing if given half a chance. 

Sad note but consistent with the studies that show supporters of The Donald and his ilk are motivated by their emotion to stick it to the liberals without the use of reason of what is best for the USA. 

On 9/20/2020 at 6:50 AM, Cryingdick said:

 

Exactly for them to expect unwritten rules to be followed or any common courtesy at this point is laughable. 

Left out a bit. "Exactly for them to expect"... the rule McConnell made up not to allow for a vote on the nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016 "... is laughable"

On 9/20/2020 at 6:48 AM, Cryingdick said:

If Trump gets the nominee through and loses afterwards, it's still a huge win. I am not saying that will be the outcome as we all know this election will be won by lawyers. However if he lost and the GOP holds the senate it would still be acceptable. 

 

Should the dems win they will have the most divided country ever. Biden isn't going to simply step in and unify the country as if we stepped in a puddle and our pants have dried. I don't think people overseas (Americans or otherwise) realize how  great deal of anger welling up on the other side now and it won't be silly games of burning our own neighborhoods down. 

 

In that way Biden will never be the president of the USA. Trump was rejected by the left and the response to Biden is bound to be more severe.

 

The madness in the USA will continue, IMHO, due to having the underlying issue not being addressed by anyone in national leadership ... save Bernie and he again was shut out by powerful vested interests. The underlying issue? It is evidenced in the justified frustration/anger in the working middle class and is economic. The great irony is that this issue was/is the cause of far too many believing The Donald's promises to address (too bad they did not read his documented history before the 2016 election) ... the irony? It is the same issue demanding to be addressed by the progressives. All addressing the economic income/wealth gap, at least as a moderate step. 1). raise the minimum wage for the working middle class 2). institute a national healthcare program like all other developed countries provide for their citizens 3). lower any cost of increasing knowledge through higher education (benefitting the individual, business, and the nation through more knowledgable citizens) 4) protect Social Security/Medicare as earned benefits for the retired working middle class.

9 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

Sad note but consistent with the studies that show supporters of The Donald and his ilk are motivated by their emotion to stick it to the liberals without the use of reason of what is best for the USA. 

Are you aware that every president back to George Washington submitted a justice when they were able?

 

Are you also aware that every Senate back to the first voted on a new justice when they could, unless they chose to defer due to anticipated loss of the vote, like 2016?

 

Why should any President to anything different?  Think about it.

1 hour ago, cmarshall said:

I think you fail to understand that cause of the current polarization of politics which you nevertheless see as the greatest threat to the US.  The graph below sums up the underlying economic facts.  From the end of the War until the late 70's the median wage advanced with the growth in gdp per capita describing an equitable distribution of the benefits of the US economy.  And then it changed dramatically in the late 70's and even more so from the start of the Reagan era.  Up until Reagan an auto worker could own a home, a car, and send his kid to college.  From the Reagan period on all the growth in productivity went to the richest Americans while the bottom half were seeing their real income decline.  

 

There was nothing "natural" about this change which was due to changes in policy.  Reagan and his successors suppressed the unions, lowered taxes on the rich, effectively eliminated the inheritance tax, allowed more wages to escape the payroll tax via 401k and stock bonuses, etc.  It's a long story.  The result was that the rich got much, much richer and naturally decided to invest some of their gains in further policy changes to enhance their power and wealth.  Right-wing talk radio was invented in the early 90's as a Republican project to change the political opinions of the blue collars.  Richard Mellon Scaife, the Waltons, and a select group of similarly hyper-rich families built a war chest that funded the campaign to gut the inheritance tax for which they invented the pejorative term, "the death tax."  

 

Free trade policies required exposing the American manufacturing workers to cheap competition from China delivered via Walmart while at the same time protecting the professional classes of doctors, lawyers, and others from similar competition.  How long do you think American doctors would continue to enjoy their top-of-the-world incomes if H1 visas were available to any doctor who could pass the test (and get the required internship?)  But that question never arose in the public discourse.

 

Over the decades since Reagan the income inequality has resulted in a vast wealth inequality.  The Republican party fully adopted a business model of using the funding provided by their rich sponsors to persuade the voters to vote against their own interests and then using their power to enact policies that favor the rich very much at the expense of the average Americans.  

 

This has been the radical program for the redistribution of wealth and power in the US which is gutting the middle class and crushing the lower half.  Unless the Democrats, who are not free of blame themselves, enact policies to reduce the inequality then the political conflict that so concerns you will only get worse.

 

 

 

Even if I fully subscribed to your take - complete with the conspiracy implied and the almost blind partisanship it exhibits - even then it would still fail to address the point made, which basically was shoving policies down people's throats ain't a good way to decrease animosity.

 

Obviously, I do not accept the notion that all of the USA's woes, especially those related to the partisan divide can be quite as clearly, or solely, attributed to things referred to in your post.

On 9/20/2020 at 8:11 AM, mikebike said:

Not really. If Dems win potus and senate they will just expand the court to 11 or 13 justices.

Mikebike

 

You are exactly correct.  When Ginsburg was voted on she was a FLAMING LIBERAL and everyone knew it.  She was an attorney for the American Civil Liberty Union which is a very very far left organization.  Despite that the Senate did what it was supposed to do.  It confirmed her 96 - 3 with one none vote.  They did that because it was the tradition to confirm a qualified candidate for the sitting president.  

Now no rules apply.  Traditions such as the filibuster are threatened to be eliminated giving dictatorial power to the majority party.  No longer will Supreme Court picks be based on merit, they will strictly be partly line votes. And so if Trump has the court as 6-3 the next Democratic Administration will just push the court to 11 or 15 to have their way.  It essentially means we no longer have any rules to govern behavior, the rules will be made up to suit whoever wins the election and it is then one party govern. 

10 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

The madness in the USA will continue, IMHO, due to having the underlying issue not being addressed 

What is this "underlying issue" you speak of?

24 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

Sad note but consistent with the studies that show supporters of The Donald and his ilk are motivated by their emotion to stick it to the liberals without the use of reason of what is best for the USA. 

 

I think putting a conservative judge in that seat IS what's best for the people of the united states, and many millions and millions of americans agree with me. 

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

From the Reagan period on all the growth in productivity went to the richest Americans while the bottom half were seeing their real income decline. 

Morch,

 

I agree with your analysis of the outcome but I totally disagree with blaming Reagan and other Republicans for it.  The middle class in the USA was always made up of Blue Collar workers working for good wages in manufacturing.  Two things changed that caused those jobs to go overseas.  The first is computerization.  No longer did you require the educated American worker with the knowledge to operate technically complicated pieces of manufacturing equipment.  Computers meant that items made overseas were just as good as those made domestically.  So to compete, companies had to go where they could build the cheapest because if they did not, their competitors would.  Secondly, the liberals, hating the dirty polluting factories made regulations for manufacturing onerous.  Also the liberal passed regulations mandating things like mandatory health care coverage, mandatory family leave, increased workers compensation benefits, extended worker unemployment insurance etc.  Business must go where it can produce its products the cheapest.  If it does not, competitors from other countries will and they will be put out of business.  If you want a resurgence in the middle class in the USA there needs to be policies that make the USA an attractive place to make things.  Reduced taxation, reasonable regulations, and market place based wages.  Otherwise, the manufacturing companies will go to Tawain, the Philippines, Vietnam etc to make their products cost effectively and become importers.  That policy hurts the blue collar American Worker.  

24 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

I think putting a conservative judge in that seat IS what's best for the people of the united states, and many millions and millions of americans agree with me. 

I understand, and I think Merrick Garland would have been a bipartisan correct choice but ... As to millions, yes we will see if The Donald has picked up the 3 million votes he lost in the popular vote last time or if even more than 3 million again reject him as what is best for the country. As to replacing Ruth Bader Ginsberg, I (and I'll wager millions) would like to see her replaced with someone like her. The Donals says it will be a woman so we will see.

35 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Mikebike

 

You are exactly correct.  When Ginsburg was voted on she was a FLAMING LIBERAL and everyone knew it.  She was an attorney for the American Civil Liberty Union which is a very very far left organization.  Despite that the Senate did what it was supposed to do.  It confirmed her 96 - 3 with one none vote.  They did that because it was the tradition to confirm a qualified candidate for the sitting president.  

Now no rules apply.  Traditions such as the filibuster are threatened to be eliminated giving dictatorial power to the majority party.  No longer will Supreme Court picks be based on merit, they will strictly be partly line votes. And so if Trump has the court as 6-3 the next Democratic Administration will just push the court to 11 or 15 to have their way.  It essentially means we no longer have any rules to govern behavior, the rules will be made up to suit whoever wins the election and it is then one party govern. 

 

"She was an attorney for the American Civil Liberty Union which is a very very far left organization."

 

Left would suffice. That some posters have a hard time seeing anything not in line with their views as 'extreme' or 'far-' doesn't make it real.

 

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/american-civil-liberties-union

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-civil-liberties-union-aclu/

 

 

3 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

I understand, and I think Merrick Garland would have been a bipartisan correct choice but ... As to millions, yes we will see if The Donald has picked up the 3 million votes he lost in the popular vote last time or if even more than 3 million again reject him as what is best for the country. As to replacing Ruth Bader Ginsberg, I (and I'll wager millions) would like to see her replaced with someone like her. The Donals says it will be a woman so we will see.

 

Nothing wrong with a constitutionalist judge. Its the liberal ones that are dangerous. 

47 minutes ago, RoadWarrior371 said:

Are you aware that every president back to George Washington submitted a justice when they were able?

 

Are you also aware that every Senate back to the first voted on a new justice when they could, unless they chose to defer due to anticipated loss of the vote, like 2016?

 

Why should any President to anything different?  Think about it.

"... unless they chose to defer due to anticipated loss of the vote, like 2016?".  Defer due to anticipated loss? The vote should have proceeded up or down. Are you saying Obama asked to defer a vote on his nominee or McConnell who made up a rule which he now voids?

34 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

I think putting a conservative judge in that seat IS what's best for the people of the united states, and many millions and millions of americans agree with me. 

 

That's your opinion. And while many millions and millions of Americans might agree, there are millions and millions of Americans who do not. The last two elections (2016, 2018) indicate that there are more of them.

27 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Morch,

 

I agree with your analysis of the outcome but I totally disagree with blaming Reagan and other Republicans for it.  The middle class in the USA was always made up of Blue Collar workers working for good wages in manufacturing.  Two things changed that caused those jobs to go overseas.  The first is computerization.  No longer did you require the educated American worker with the knowledge to operate technically complicated pieces of manufacturing equipment.  Computers meant that items made overseas were just as good as those made domestically.  So to compete, companies had to go where they could build the cheapest because if they did not, their competitors would.  Secondly, the liberals, hating the dirty polluting factories made regulations for manufacturing onerous.  Also the liberal passed regulations mandating things like mandatory health care coverage, mandatory family leave, increased workers compensation benefits, extended worker unemployment insurance etc.  Business must go where it can produce its products the cheapest.  If it does not, competitors from other countries will and they will be put out of business.  If you want a resurgence in the middle class in the USA there needs to be policies that make the USA an attractive place to make things.  Reduced taxation, reasonable regulations, and market place based wages.  Otherwise, the manufacturing companies will go to Tawain, the Philippines, Vietnam etc to make their products cost effectively and become importers.  That policy hurts the blue collar American Worker.  

 

The words you quoted are not mine, but taken from another poster's comment.

Just now, Morch said:

 

That's your opinion. And while many millions and millions of Americans might agree, there are millions and millions of Americans who do not. The last two elections (2016, 2018) indicate that there are more of them.

 

Thats your opinion, based on nothing. Start winning senate elections and presidential elections and you can appoint judges to your hearts content, otherwise its just sour grapes. 

2 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

"... unless they chose to defer due to anticipated loss of the vote, like 2016?".  Defer due to anticipated loss? The vote should have proceeded up or down. Are you saying Obama asked to defer a vote on his nominee or McConnell who made up a rule which he now voids?

You answered your own question.  Senate owns the decision, and does not owe you a standard rule, but you can probably guess the rule would be based on the make-up of the Senate.

1 minute ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Nothing wrong with a constitutionalist judge. Its the liberal ones that are dangerous. 

I am guessing you mean a strict Constitutionalist interpreting Justice? How strict ... equal rights for women which was championed by Ginsberg? The FCC, FAA CDC ... nothing about them in the Constitution (thus the Elastic Clause). Ok, strict interpretation? "A well regulated militia being necessary for ... ", not a member of a well regulated militia?

Troll post and replies removed. 

4 minutes ago, RoadWarrior371 said:

You answered your own question.  Senate owns the decision, and does not owe you a standard rule, but you can probably guess the rule would be based on the make-up of the Senate.

We will see if the Senate does not owe the people consistency in November. You may be correct ... I am watching the loss of my country.

4 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Thats your opinion, based on nothing. Start winning senate elections and presidential elections and you can appoint judges to your hearts content, otherwise its just sour grapes. 

 

You are the one who brought up the popular support issue ('millions and millions of Americans'). The facts relates (regarding the 2016 and 2018 elections) directly relate to that. You want to deflect, or maybe come  up with a new version of your argument, go right ahead. I was responding to your own reasoning - nothing whatsoever to do with 'sour grapes'.

7 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

"A well regulated militia being necessary for ... ", not a member of a well regulated militia?

 

Thats not a legitimate interpretation, hence the need for a strict constitutionalist. 

2 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Thats not a legitimate interpretation, hence the need for a strict constitutionalist. 

That is not an "interpretation" that is the exact wording. The SCOTUS has made the interpretation. Same as it has done over the years with ... Dred Scott, Brown vs the Board of Education..., or ruling that corporations are citizens. In fact, that is all the supreme Court does is interpret and on occasion re-interpret the meaning of the words. Now we might reflect on which court majority advances the country and rights of the citizens and which constrain progress ... In the Constitution blacks, women cannot vote ... how strict?

1 hour ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

I think putting a conservative judge in that seat IS what's best for the people of the united states, and many millions and millions of americans agree with me. 

 

The majority do not agree with the process proposed by the trump administration.

Edited September 21, 20205 yr by simple1

16 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

We will see if the Senate does not owe the people consistency in November. You may be correct ... I am watching the loss of my country.

Yeh, kinda brutal like "to the victor go the spoils", or "Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the women!" ????

Not only appointing one in an election year, but appointing one whilst the election is already underway.

5 minutes ago, RoadWarrior371 said:

Yeh, kinda brutal like "to the victor go the spoils", or "Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the women!" ????

 

You do know the Democrats represent 20 million more US citizens than the Republicans in the Senate? I would not be surprised if there were a complete overhaul of the current antiquated US electoral representation process in the coming years. At the very least it would stop the gloating of those in power representing the minority.

8 minutes ago, simple1 said:

You do know the Democrats represent 20 million more US citizens than the Republicans in the Senate? I would not be surprised if there were a complete overhaul of the current antiquated US electoral representation process in the coming years. At the very least it would stop the gloating of those in power representing the minority.

Funny, I was under the impression the electoral process was enacted to keep the toothless mobs from attempting to grab power.  Antiquated to who?  LOL