Sudden Supreme Court vacancy a new 'wild card' in U.S. presidential race

[cmarshall]

40 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

If your objections are limited to a single phrase in my post, does it imply you accept the rest? I don't have no magic answer as to how things got the way they are - and I do not think it can be pinned on a single issue or be blamed solely on one side of the partisan divide. It takes two to tango. There are any number of economic, social, political, technological etc. which can be brought into this discussion, with almost each providing a different point of view and/or answers.

 

My main issue was that dealing with this divide is unlikely to yield much positive results if handled along partisan lines, as in we-are-right-they-are-wrong-we-know-best-we'll-decide. There's got to be a level of give and take. Conservatives will not turn into liberals/progressives and vice versa. And yet, they need to find a way of living in the same country.

 

On this score, I actually expect Biden to do better than others. Precisely because he's not an ideologue, not too strongly attached to agendas, and because he doesn't really generate much antagonism. 

It doesn't take two to tango at all in this case.  The Republicans are faced with the problem that the majority of Americans supports progressive policies, i.e. a return to higher taxes on the rich, protection of the environment, abortion rights, an end to foreign wars, etc.  As a minority party they only way they can retain power is by the anti-democratic means of gerrymandering, voter suppression, telling Big Lies, violating institutional norms of comity when they can gain an advantage, applying the laws politically, seeking illegal foreign assistance in elections, politicizing the courts, etc.  Other than some cases of gerrymandering, the Democrats have done none of this.  Accusing both sides of equal responsibility may seem even-handed to you, but it is deluded.  

 

It's not just your single phrase to which I object, but your failure to understand that the severe inequality that the mostly Republican policies have created in the last forty handed huge economic and political power to the rich right-wing who are using it to get more power.  Indeed, the US has the highest inequality in the world among the rich nations while social mobility is now lower than in Europe.    

 

Unless you understand the root cause your only hope will be trying to get everyone to sing "kumbaya" around the campfire.  You have no answer to why Americans are at each other's throats now more than at any time since 1865.  Forty year trends aren't inexplicable.  They have causes.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, cmarshall said:

It doesn't take two to tango at all in this case.  The Republicans are faced with the problem that the majority of Americans supports progressive policies, i.e. a return to higher taxes on the rich, protection of the environment, abortion rights, an end to foreign wars, etc.  As a minority party they only way they can retain power is by the anti-democratic means of gerrymandering, voter suppression, telling Big Lies, violating institutional norms of comity when they can gain an advantage, applying the laws politically, seeking illegal foreign assistance in elections, politicizing the courts, etc.  Other than some cases of gerrymandering, the Democrats have done none of this.  Accusing both sides of equal responsibility may seem even-handed to you, but it is deluded.  

 

It's not just your single phrase to which I object, but your failure to understand that the severe inequality that the mostly Republican policies have created in the last forty handed huge economic and political power to the rich right-wing who are using it to get more power.  Indeed, the US has the highest inequality in the world among the rich nations while social mobility is now lower than in Europe.    

 

Unless you understand the root cause your only hope will be trying to get everyone to sing "kumbaya" around the campfire.  You have no answer to why Americans are at each other's throats now more than at any time since 1865.  Forty year trends aren't inexplicable.  They have causes.

 

I think you can gather from my posts I'm not a GOP fan. That said, I recognize that in a democracy, while things generally go by the majority wishes, the minority is not simply disregarded and waved aside. That the GOP might have failed upholding some democratic ideals is not, by itself, a good enough reason to do unto them etc.

 

Like it or not, 'minority' in this case is still almost half the populace. Sure, their share of the vote may be diminishing, but they are not a 'minority' in the sense that they can be ignored or brought to heel by sheer political force.

 

I don't think I've said anything about equal responsibility, but rather that both sides of the political divide have contributed to this state of things. Obviously, there can be different views of who's responsible for what and who carries most of the blame. While interesting enough, I doubt going down this path is either constructive or does much but sustain the divide.

 

You want to make it all about inequality, and pin it all (or most of it) on Republican policies. That's alright. IMO, even if accepting the premise, some of it can be attributed to the level and pace of changes during this time - think about it as a reaction, as means to preserve a world view. Now, I'm not saying I support the GOP's way of seeing things, far from it. But I can acknowledge that they may hold different opinions and that as far as their side is concerned change was/is being pushed through regardless of their views.

 

What you seem to be after is a version of WINNING. I'd settle for less, provided less antagonism involved. My point of view doesn't go so far as for Kumbaya, difference will remain, and that's alright too. It's more about being able to discuss things without manning the barricades, without constant pointing of fingers, or not giving an inch to the other side.

 

As said, I do not, indeed, have the sort of answer you offer or seek. I don't think it can be reduced to such simplistic explanations, or that addressing just one issue will make it all better.

 

[cmarshall]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I think you can gather from my posts I'm not a GOP fan. That said, I recognize that in a democracy, while things generally go by the majority wishes, the minority is not simply disregarded and waved aside. That the GOP might have failed upholding some democratic ideals is not, by itself, a good enough reason to do unto them etc.

 

Like it or not, 'minority' in this case is still almost half the populace. Sure, their share of the vote may be diminishing, but they are not a 'minority' in the sense that they can be ignored or brought to heel by sheer political force.

 

I don't think I've said anything about equal responsibility, but rather that both sides of the political divide have contributed to this state of things. Obviously, there can be different views of who's responsible for what and who carries most of the blame. While interesting enough, I doubt going down this path is either constructive or does much but sustain the divide.

 

You want to make it all about inequality, and pin it all (or most of it) on Republican policies. That's alright. IMO, even if accepting the premise, some of it can be attributed to the level and pace of changes during this time - think about it as a reaction, as means to preserve a world view. Now, I'm not saying I support the GOP's way of seeing things, far from it. But I can acknowledge that they may hold different opinions and that as far as their side is concerned change was/is being pushed through regardless of their views.

 

What you seem to be after is a version of WINNING. I'd settle for less, provided less antagonism involved. My point of view doesn't go so far as for Kumbaya, difference will remain, and that's alright too. It's more about being able to discuss things without manning the barricades, without constant pointing of fingers, or not giving an inch to the other side.

 

As said, I do not, indeed, have the sort of answer you offer or seek. I don't think it can be reduced to such simplistic explanations, or that addressing just one issue will make it all better.

 

I am not advocating that the Dems engage in gerrymandering, voter suppression, making unfounded accusations of fraud against anyone, or any other of the Republican's dirty tricks.  You don't seem to have any grasp of the economics of the past forty years and how that has affected politics.  You seem to think the political and soon to be constitutional crisis can be fixed if people just use good manners.

 

That's just a little too superficial for me.  But anyway good luck with it.

[Tippaporn]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I replied to your first statement.  I passed on answering your question.  Feel free to say, "Sorry for my confusion."

In other words, none of the minority of quick confirmations occurred during an election campaign.

4 out of 13 were "quick" appointments.  Almost 31%.  A minority, yes, but not a "sliver" either, which you're obviously trying to portray it as.  You answered your own question so why ask me?

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

I am not advocating that the Dems engage in gerrymandering, voter suppression, making unfounded accusations of fraud against anyone, or any other of the Republican's dirty tricks.  You don't seem to have any grasp of the economics of the past forty years and how that has affected politics.  You seem to think the political and soon to be constitutional crisis can be fixed if people just use good manners.

 

That's just a little too superficial for me.  But anyway good luck with it.

 

No, that would be you trying to misrepresent my views. I have clearly said I do not believe this is possible in the manner you falsely present.

 

What I did say was that embracing the partisan stance (as again exhibited in your post above), focusing on laying blame, or of ramming through policies regardless of opposition - is not necessarily the best way to go about things.

 

As for superficial, never mind simplistic, I wasn't the one making it all about economics, or all being one side's fault.

 

Let's hope Biden wins, and that cooler headed advisors prevail.

Edited September 21, 2020 by Morch

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

4 out of 13 were "quick" appointments.  Almost 31%.  A minority, yes, but not a "sliver" either, which you're obviously trying to portray it as.  You answered your own question so why ask me?

You answered one question, and ignored the most important question.

 

So I'll answer that one for you:  In the last 100 years there have only been three Supreme Court Justice confirmations during an election year, and all three took place in January or February. 

 

A confirmation hearing less than two months before a Presidential election is unprecedented, violates the "McConnell rule" (no confirmation hearings during an election year), the "Biden rule" (no confirmation hearings once the campaign season has begun) and is wrong.

[Damual Travesty]

On 9/21/2020 at 10:33 AM, simple1 said:

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

The process is demanded by the Constitution of the USA. The President is to pick a Justice, and guess what he has the Party in power in the Senate. They now have a job to do. In 2016 the President who made the pick unfortunately did not have control of the Senate so he did not get to have his pick confirmed BY THE SENATE! We do not have majority rule in the USA. We call our form of Government a Republic. What do you call yours? Does it differ from ours? Is it better? Which Country is that?

[Damual Travesty]

On 9/22/2020 at 1:45 AM, heybruce said:

You answered one question, and ignored the most important question.

 

So I'll answer that one for you:  In the last 100 years there have only been three Supreme Court Justice confirmations during an election year, and all three took place in January or February. 

 

A confirmation hearing less than two months before a Presidential election is unprecedented, violates the "McConnell rule" (no confirmation hearings during an election year), the "Biden rule" (no confirmation hearings once the campaign season has begun) and is wrong.

It does not violate any rules nor is it the fastest process in the history of the Country, not even in recent history. It's not wrong. Here I will prove it to you with a short statement: The seat will be filled and it will not be stopped via any legal means. Despite what you or anyone else says about the process being somehow wrong. Bank on that. All threats to the Republic of packing the court or doing away with the EC or having 16 year olds or illegals vote, or voting by unsolicited ballot etc, none of that is going to happen now or ever.

[heybruce]

49 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

It does not violate any rules nor is it the fastest process in the history of the Country, not even in recent history. It's not wrong. Here I will prove it to you with a short statement: The seat will be filled and it will not be stopped via any legal means. Despite what you or anyone else says about the process being somehow wrong. Bank on that. All threats to the Republic of packing the court or doing away with the EC or having 16 year olds or illegals vote, or voting by unsolicited ballot etc, none of that is going to happen now or ever.

The Constitution was never meant to lay out detailed rules for every conceivable contingency; it assumes elected leaders will perform in a responsible manner and in the best interests of the country.  This is a clear example of Republicans behaving irresponsibly, blatantly hypocritically, and contrary the the country's best interests.

[Jack100]

Oh dear , didn't anyone on the Dem side  see this  one coming ?

[Damual Travesty]

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

The Constitution was never meant to lay out detailed rules for every conceivable contingency; it assumes elected leaders will perform in a responsible manner and in the best interests of the country.  This is a clear example of Republicans behaving irresponsibly, blatantly hypocritically, and contrary the the country's best interests.

Everything you just said sir is absolutely false. The constitution is very detailed when it was meant to be. Very clear. And this is one of those cases. If people seem to want to change it, the constitution even has a method for that through the amendment process. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. The President of the USA is currently doing exactly what the Constitution demands. Again, there is zero truth to your statement and the Constitution is proof of that. What is irresponsible and a threat to the Republic are those who seem to want to change things outside of the Constitutional means to do so. I have had enough of people laying claim about what the Constitution was not meant to do. As an American I believe that the Constitution protects our Republic from the tyranny of the majority just as it was designed to do. A Republic if we can keep it!

Edited September 23, 2020 by Damual Travesty
clarity

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, Damual Travesty said:

Everything you just said sir is absolutely false. The constitution is very detailed when it was meant to be. Very clear. And this is one of those cases. If people seem to want to change it, the constitution even has a method for that through the amendment process. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. The President of the USA is currently doing exactly what the Constitution demands. Again, there is zero truth to your statement and the Constitution is proof of that. What is irresponsible and a threat to the Republic are those who seem to want to change things outside of the Constitutional means to do so. I have had enough of people laying claim about what the Constitution was not meant to do. As an American I believe that the Constitution protects our Republic from the tyranny of the majority just as it was designed to do. A Republic if we can keep it!

You consider this false? 

 

"The Constitution was never meant to lay out detailed rules for every conceivable contingency"

 

You clearly don't know the US Constitution.  The original document was only four pages long.  There is no way four pages could provide detailed instructions for governing the original 13 states and its approximately 3 million people.

 

For example, there is no time constraint on the President appointing a Justice.  With voting already begun in this election, it's irresponsible to appoint one now.

 

Did you know the Founding Father's were opposed to the two party system?  George Washington spoke out against it in his fare well address.  The authors of the Constitution tried to write a document that would allow different groups to elect representatives to meet and arrive at consensus.  It was an epic fail.

Edited September 23, 2020 by heybruce

[plentyofnuttin]

On 9/23/2020 at 8:56 PM, Damual Travesty said:

Everything you just said sir is absolutely false. The constitution is very detailed when it was meant to be. Very clear. And this is one of those cases. If people seem to want to change it, the constitution even has a method for that through the amendment process. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. The President of the USA is currently doing exactly what the Constitution demands. 

The Constitution does not demand that President Trump select a replacement. It may surprise you to learn that the Constitution does not stipulate how many judges should be seated on the Supreme Court.

[watthong]

1 hour ago, plentyofnuttin said:

On 9/23/2020 at 8:56 PM, Damual Travesty said:

Everything you just said sir is absolutely false. The constitution is very detailed when it was meant to be. Very clear. And this is one of those cases. If people seem to want to change it, the constitution even has a method for that through the amendment process. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. The President of the USA is currently doing exactly what the Constitution demands. 

The Constitution does not demand that President Trump select a replacement. It may surprise you to learn that the Constitution does not stipulate how many judges should be seated on the Supreme Court.

However in Trumpland, it does, and does, and does ad nauseum. As far as Trumpbots are concerned whatever Trump says immediately gets addendum-ed to the 2 stone tablets from Mt Sinai: "You know it (pointing to the left tablet,) we know it (pointing to the right tablet) and the Dems especially (pointing to fire in hell below) know it..." 

 

Trumpspeak consists of very simple, short, easy to understand phrases: "... The constitution is very detailed when it was meant to be... Very clear... And this is one of those cases...The Constitution is the highest law of the land, etc." constructed as for even a 5 year old can understand. The only catch is you have to understand it in reverse. 
For example:
- "Everything you just said sir is absolutely false" means you just spoke the truth. 
- "The President of the USA is currently doing exactly what the Constitution demands" should be understood as "POTUS currently demands that the Constitution approves exactly what he does." 
Easy peasy, got it? (Or just listen to Mike Pence speech below)

 

 

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by watthong

[Cryingdick]

On 9/21/2020 at 3:53 AM, Tippaporn said:

A total of 61 SCOTUS Justices have been nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court since 1900.  70%, or 43 Justices, were confirmed in under 46 days (the number of days remaining until the election).  I'd call that good odds.  We'll have to see what Nancy has in her quiver.

 

They don't even have to hold hearings if they don't want to. They will do. it just for show and the result will be predictable. A partisan smear campaign and then each respective party will vote strictly along party lines. A few strays scared of the election will vote not to confirm or present.

 

It's pretty much a done deal. The dems can argue what they want to all day long everyday but opposing opinions won't change the reality that a new SJC will be appointed. As far as Pelosi goes she should stick to business in the house and stay in her lane. 

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed.

 

[riclag]

4 hours ago, watthong said:

However in Trumpland, it does, and does, and does ad nauseum. As far as Trumpbots are concerned whatever Trump says immediately gets addendum-ed to the 2 stone tablets from Mt Sinai: "You know it (pointing to the left tablet,) we know it (pointing to the right tablet) and the Dems especially (pointing to fire in hell below) know it..." 

 

Trumpspeak consists of very simple, short, easy to understand phrases: "... The constitution is very detailed when it was meant to be... Very clear... And this is one of those cases...The Constitution is the highest law of the land, etc." constructed as for even a 5 year old can understand. The only catch is you have to understand it in reverse. 
For example:
- "Everything you just said sir is absolutely false" means you just spoke the truth. 
- "The President of the USA is currently doing exactly what the Constitution demands" should be understood as "POTUS currently demands that the Constitution approves exactly what he does." 
Easy peasy, got it? (Or just listen to Mike Pence speech below)

 

 

 

"When a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court, the President of the United States is given the authority, under Article II of the United States Constitution, to nominate a person to fill the vacancy.  The nomination is referred to the United States Senate, where the Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing where the nominee provides testimony and responds to questions from members of the panel.  Traditionally, the Committee refers the nomination to the full Senate for consideration".

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/supreme-court

 

Traditionally when there is a vacancy, the office of the POTUS is granted the authority to nominate by the constitution!

For centuries, millions and millions of Americans have accepted and supported this !

 If your American you should to!  Its a tradition.

Demands lol,

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by riclag

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, riclag said:

"When a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court, the President of the United States is given the authority, under Article II of the United States Constitution, to nominate a person to fill the vacancy.  The nomination is referred to the United States Senate, where the Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing where the nominee provides testimony and responds to questions from members of the panel.  Traditionally, the Committee refers the nomination to the full Senate for consideration".

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/supreme-court

 

Traditionally when there is a vacancy, the office of the POTUS is granted the authority to nominate by the constitution!

For centuries, millions and millions of Americans have accepted and supported this !

 If your American you should to!  Its a tradition.

Demands lol,

 

For over 100 years this has not been done within nine months of a Presidential election.  Now the Republicans intend to do this within six weeks of an election, after voting has begun in some states and against their own McConnell rule from 2016

[Morch]

5 hours ago, riclag said:

"When a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court, the President of the United States is given the authority, under Article II of the United States Constitution, to nominate a person to fill the vacancy.  The nomination is referred to the United States Senate, where the Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing where the nominee provides testimony and responds to questions from members of the panel.  Traditionally, the Committee refers the nomination to the full Senate for consideration".

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/supreme-court

 

Traditionally when there is a vacancy, the office of the POTUS is granted the authority to nominate by the constitution!

For centuries, millions and millions of Americans have accepted and supported this !

 If your American you should to!  Its a tradition.

Demands lol,

 

 

For centuries, millions and millions of Americans have accepted and supported the peaceful transition of power. If you're an American, you should too. But apparently the President you support holds different views. Do go on about tradition, though....

[Sujo]

6 hours ago, riclag said:

"When a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court, the President of the United States is given the authority, under Article II of the United States Constitution, to nominate a person to fill the vacancy.  The nomination is referred to the United States Senate, where the Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing where the nominee provides testimony and responds to questions from members of the panel.  Traditionally, the Committee refers the nomination to the full Senate for consideration".

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/supreme-court

 

Traditionally when there is a vacancy, the office of the POTUS is granted the authority to nominate by the constitution!

For centuries, millions and millions of Americans have accepted and supported this !

 If your American you should to!  Its a tradition.

Demands lol,

 

Which repubs refused to do.

[riclag]

3 hours ago, Sujo said:

Which repubs refused to do.

 

7 hours ago, heybruce said:

For over 100 years this has not been done within nine months of a Presidential election.  Now the Republicans intend to do this within six weeks of an election, after voting has begun in some states and against their own McConnell rule from 2016

 

3 hours ago, Morch said:

For centuries, millions and millions of Americans have accepted and supported the peaceful transition of power. If you're an American, you should too. But apparently the President you support holds different views. Do go on about tradition, though....

 repubs, refused to give in to the demands of the opposition party,thank you!

 

Over the centuries the one true constant of the tradition that  has never changed, the nomination process,  given only to the office of the President through the Constitution!

 

You three can whine  and spin all you want ,sad! But in the end the passing of ginsberg was a  devine  intervention imop!

 

 

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, riclag said:

 

 

 repubs, refused to give in to the demands of the opposition party,thank you!

 

Over the centuries the one true constant of the tradition that  has never changed, the nomination process,  given only to the office of the President through the Constitution!

 

You three can whine  and spin all you want ,sad! But in the end the passing of ginsberg was a  devine  intervention imop!

 

 

 

You can deflect all you like, but got to wonder what's the value of going on about 'tradition' when the President you support and adulate refuses to commit to one of the basic tenets of democratic rule - the peaceful transfer of power, the acceptance of election results. That you see no issues with a person who holds such views appointing  SC justices, or indeed, holding the office he holds, is quite amazing.

[riclag]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

You can deflect all you like, but got to wonder what's the value of going on about 'tradition' when the President you support and adulate refuses to commit to one of the basic tenets of democratic rule - the peaceful transfer of power, the acceptance of election results. That you see no issues with a person who holds such views appointing  SC justices, or indeed, holding the office he holds, is quite amazing.

Tradition(constitution)and the office of the President's given right(nomination of scj)  is the only thing that stands in the way of left's  radicalism thats trying to deny and deflect the  the office of the president right to nominate   constitutional . Thats the law!

Now stop your deflecting

Edited September 25, 2020 by riclag

[Morch]

58 minutes ago, riclag said:

Tradition(constitution)and the office of the President's given right(nomination of scj)  is the only thing that stands in the way of left's  radicalism thats trying to deny and deflect the  the office of the president right to nominate   constitutional . Thats the law!

Now stop your deflecting

 

So, tradition and the constitution are important when it suits, but a 'deflection' when it doesn't? Who was denying Trump's right to nominate? He's got the right - whether it's proper to go ahead with it can be argued about. The only one deflecting here is you.

[MajarTheLion]

On 9/21/2020 at 1:45 PM, heybruce said:

You answered one question, and ignored the most important question.

 

So I'll answer that one for you:  In the last 100 years there have only been three Supreme Court Justice confirmations during an election year, and all three took place in January or February. 

 

A confirmation hearing less than two months before a Presidential election is unprecedented, violates the "McConnell rule" (no confirmation hearings during an election year), the "Biden rule" (no confirmation hearings once the campaign season has begun) and is wrong.

Elections have consequences. Rules changing is one of those consequences.  ACB will make a fine Supreme Court Justice.

[MajarTheLion]

On 9/25/2020 at 4:02 AM, Morch said:

 

So, tradition and the constitution are important when it suits, but a 'deflection' when it doesn't? Who was denying Trump's right to nominate? He's got the right - whether it's proper to go ahead with it can be argued about. The only one deflecting here is you.

The Senate majority, elected by the people of the United States of America, decides what's proper and makes the rules.