Majority of Americans, including many Republicans, say wait for election to replace Ginsburg - Reuters poll

[bluehippie]

Go back to Merrick Garland fiasco, and considering the current political climate, why on earth would a Senate controlled by one party take steps to confirm a Supreme Court nomination by a lame-duck President from the other party in an election year? This is simple political reality, no matter what sort of "spin" was put on this by McConnell four years ago.

Makes me chuckle how the Democrats screamed bloody murder over the "delay" with the Garland nomination, but now promote the very same "delay" with the Trump nomination (no matter who it is) upon the thin premise that we are "close" to the election date. This might sound logical in the retributive sense, but it is really the logic of the schoolyard: ha-ha, tables turned, we got ya! It might even have some teeth to it if the Democrats now controlled the Senate: Problem is, they don't

 

Fast forward to 2020, when a party has both the Presidency and the Senate, nothing dictates that they should defer or delay other than noisy opposition claptrap. Hopes of returned civility from the Left is extremely delusional. Both the Senate, as now constituted, and the President are solidly within their elected terms. Both now need to DO THEIR JOBS.

A contested election is likely, having 4-4 split court could lead to an elongated nothingness and unless legal doctrine prevails in his decisions, CJ Roberts could flip liberal, voting against party lines. (just supposition).

 

Fill the vacancy!

 

 

Edited September 22, 2020 by bluehippie

[Tippaporn]

59 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

....and you call us snowflakes!

Never once called anyone a snowflake.  You must be thinking of someone else.  In this instance, though, another adjective would be much more fitting.

[teatree]

On 9/21/2020 at 7:06 AM, scorecard said:

True, he thinks of one person only and with no respect for anybody else including no respect for this sadly now deceased wonderful lady who has made great contributions to the US and deserves total/absolute respect. 

Ginsburg said herself in 2016 that a president being in his last year of office does not disqualify him from appointing SCOTUS.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Did you guys miss this post?

 

What were you guys saying about "hypocritical?"

 

Please explain Joe's hypocritical flip flopping.  And also please tell us all how his flip flopping has nothing to do with partisan politics and it's somehow rooted in noble principles.

 

Seems the Dems and libs here just want to bleat endlessly about the unfairness while projecting themselves as honourable people who follow only the righteous path.  Joe isn't following it.  Obama isn't following it.  Schumer isn't following it.

 

Let's face it . . . it's all politics and this is an issue the Dems lose.  Don't worry about it so much.  When the Dems retake the Senate and presidency they can stack the court with four more justices.  Right?

I didn't miss that post, I answered it here:  https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1183556-majority-of-americans-including-many-republicans-say-wait-for-election-to-replace-ginsburg-reuters-poll/?do=findComment&comment=15838738

 

But to make it very clear, again, Joe Biden, in June 1992, proposed that if an opening for a Supreme Court Justice were to come up, less than five months before the Presidential election and weeks before the Democratic Convention, it be deferred until after the election. 

 

"Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."  https://www.politifact.com/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

 

The Biden rule (actually a request made in a speech) was to not have confirmations when a Presidential campaign is in full swing.

 

The McConnell rule is, or was, to have no Supreme Court Justice confirmations the same year as a Presidential campaign, even though that has been done three times in the last 100 years, always in January or February of the election year.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

 

So, in summary:

 

The Biden rule is to not have Supreme Court Justice confirmations during a very active Presidential campaign.

 

The McConnell rule is to not have Supreme Court Justice confirmations during a Presidential election year, and McConnell is shamelessly breaking his own rule.

 

There is precedent going back over 100 years to not have Supreme Court Justice nominations within nine months of a Presidential election.

 

Common sense tells any reasonable person that it is insane to have a Supreme Court Justice nomination less than six weeks before a Presidential election.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, bluehippie said:

Go back to Merrick Garland fiasco, and considering the current political climate, why on earth would a Senate controlled by one party take steps to confirm a Supreme Court nomination by a lame-duck President from the other party in an election year? This is simple political reality, no matter what sort of "spin" was put on this by McConnell four years ago.

Makes me chuckle how the Democrats screamed bloody murder over the "delay" with the Garland nomination, but now promote the very same "delay" with the Trump nomination (no matter who it is) upon the thin premise that we are "close" to the election date. This might sound logical in the retributive sense, but it is really the logic of the schoolyard: ha-ha, tables turned, we got ya! It might even have some teeth to it if the Democrats now controlled the Senate: Problem is, they don't

 

Fast forward to 2020, when a party has both the Presidency and the Senate, nothing dictates that they should defer or delay other than noisy opposition claptrap. Hopes of returned civility from the Left is extremely delusional. Both the Senate, as now constituted, and the President are solidly within their elected terms. Both now need to DO THEIR JOBS.

A contested election is likely, having 4-4 split court could lead to an elongated nothingness and unless legal doctrine prevails in his decisions, CJ Roberts could flip liberal, voting against party lines. (just supposition).

 

Fill the vacancy!

 

 

The Merrick Garland confirmation should have happened ten months before the 2016 election.  Trump and McConnell are now proposing confirmation hearings less than six weeks before the election.  There is a big difference.

[heybruce]

29 minutes ago, teatree said:

Ginsburg said herself in 2016 that a president being in his last year of office does not disqualify him from appointing SCOTUS.

Legally that is true, and there was no reason not to consider Merrick Garland's nomination ten months before the 2016 election.

 

However nominating and attempting to confirm a Supreme Court Justice less than six weeks before a very heated election is insane.

[OZinPattaya]

12 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

I am wondering what is so wrong with "progressive" thinkers in any branch of justice or administration?

Without progressive thinkers, we would be using horse and cart for transport, and writing with quills on parchment, and still have slavery

Nothing would necessarily be wrong with progressive thinkers so long as they actually were progressive. Nowadays what passes for "progressive" thought is the regressive philosophies of Marxism, racial and gender identitarianism, and post-modernism, intellectual relics all. These are decades-old cliches. That being said, the Republican party has become a largely nostalgic party predicated on 1980's Reaganism--an utterly doomed party unless the more populist elements take over (which is what the left wing really should worry about). Same for the Dems. The longer they follow their doomed course of rehashing failed Marxist ideologies and 1960's militant identity politics, the more new right wingers they're going to spawn.

 

 

[RJRS1301]

1 minute ago, OZinPattaya said:

Nothing would necessarily be wrong with progressive thinkers so long as they actually were progressive. Nowadays what passes for "progressive" thought is the regressive philosophies of Marxism, racial and gender identitarianism, and post-modernism, intellectual relics all. These are decades-old cliches. That being said, the Republican party has become a largely nostalgic party predicated on 1980's Reaganism--an utterly doomed party unless the more populist elements take over (which is what the left wing really should worry about). Same for the Dems. The longer they follow their doomed course of rehashing failed Marxist ideologies and 1960's militant identity politics, the more new right wingers they're going to spawn.

 

 

That is certainly NOT my understanding of progressive either politically, psychologically or socially

 

[OZinPattaya]

1 minute ago, RJRS1301 said:

That is certainly NOT my understanding of progressive either politically, psychologically or socially

 

Not mine either. Unfortunately that is how the current Democratic party understands it, which is why I "walked away" from the Democratic party after Bill Clinton encouraged and countenanced the whole miserable PC culture in its adolescence  (Yes, I used to be a Democrat!)--a PC culture now in the full bloom of its monstrosity under the current Democratic leadership.

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Legally that is true, and there was no reason not to consider Merrick Garland's nomination ten months before the 2016 election.

 

However nominating and attempting to confirm a Supreme Court Justice less than six weeks before a very heated election is insane.

 

He wasn't considered because they weren't going to confirm him and did not want more of a circus than they had.

 

Why is it insane? I think it's a great idea. 

 

I think a lot of people are afraid if Joe wins and the left takes the Senate all bets are off and the the left will pack the Supreme Court, (effectively) eliminate the electoral collage, open the border. and any number of other things to further their agenda. 

 

[Morch]

32 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

He wasn't considered because they weren't going to confirm him and did not want more of a circus than they had.

 

Why is it insane? I think it's a great idea. 

 

I think a lot of people are afraid if Joe wins and the left takes the Senate all bets are off and the the left will pack the Supreme Court, (effectively) eliminate the electoral collage, open the border. and any number of other things to further their agenda. 

 

 

Isn't Trump's current move about packing the Supreme Court? How will the electoral college be 'eliminated'? Who said anything about open borders? Any other imaginary items on that supposed agenda?

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Isn't Trump's current move about packing the Supreme Court? How will the electoral college be 'eliminated'? Who said anything about open borders? Any other imaginary items on that supposed agenda?

 

When I say packing, I mean increasing the number. 

 

I said effectively eliminate, but if you say this is not already a work in progress by a  number of states I must be wrong.

 

Again, my bad, no one supports open boarders. 

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

When I say packing, I mean increasing the number. 

 

I said effectively eliminate, but if you say this is not already a work in progress by a  number of states I must be wrong.

 

Again, my bad, no one supports open boarders. 

 

The way I understand it, the number of SC justices is not so much the issue, as the division of legal views. If following Trump's current move, the balance would be something like 6-3. Guess it comes down to whether one sees such over representation (that's bound to stay in place long term) as just or even as a wise choice.

 

I still have no idea what you meant by 'effectively eliminate', nor how do you mean a work in progress by 'a number of states'.

[Yellowtail]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The way I understand it, the number of SC justices is not so much the issue, as the division of legal views. If following Trump's current move, the balance would be something like 6-3. Guess it comes down to whether one sees such over representation (that's bound to stay in place long term) as just or even as a wise choice.

 

I still have no idea what you meant by 'effectively eliminate', nor how do you mean a work in progress by 'a number of states'.

 

And if you pack 6 more leftists on the court what will it look like? The left is all for majority rule, until they lose and then they take it to the court. Six to three? I think not.  

 

States that are passing bills that will pass all their electoral votes to who ever wins the popular vote.

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

And if you pack 6 more leftists on the court what will it look like? The left is all for majority rule, until they lose and then they take it to the court. Six to three? I think not.  

 

States that are passing bills that will pass all their electoral votes to who ever wins the popular vote.

 

I would suggest that the desired (or rather, ought to be desired) scenario would be a more or less balanced SC. Trump is poised to tilt that balance. You claim the Democrats might do something to counter that if and when. The former is happening right now, the latter is (presently) an imaginary scenario. Further, there is a certain causality involved, kinda hard to miss.

 

Could be wrong, but what you refer to seems to be the question of whether electors have freedom to cast votes regardless of state elections results. If so, then packaging it as 'effectively eliminate' is somewhat misleading. A bit of a broader issue there, and of course, could be addressed from the opposing angle.

[Average man]

The USA has a constitution and laws to guide them .you do not have a vote on this  ,the president chooses and the senate approves or disapproves the nomination . Bogus polls do not mean squat, if they had polled more republicans and less democrats the poll would be reversed . Polls are inherently evil because their pointed to get weak minded people to their point of view .

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Average man said:

The USA has a constitution and laws to guide them .you do not have a vote on this  ,the president chooses and the senate approves or disapproves the nomination . Bogus polls do not mean squat, if they had polled more republicans and less democrats the poll would be reversed . Polls are inherently evil because their pointed to get weak minded people to their point of view .

 

There are more Democrats than Republicans.

[Cryingdick]

Romney has decided he loves America more than he hates Trump and wants to take a vote. I wonder if the dems will go back to thinking he is an evil man. He was their darling during the impeachment. So it looks like a done deal and the vote is going to happen.

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

Romney has decided he loves America more than he hates Trump and wants to take a vote. I wonder if the dems will go back to thinking he is an evil man. He was their darling during the impeachment. So it looks like a done deal and the vote is going to happen.

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously? You're gonna make 'evil man' an issue? Like, how many times did Trump change his tune on this or that person, with followers scrambling to alter narratives?

[Average man]

I thought we were discussing this poll .

[Cryingdick]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Seriously? You're gonna make 'evil man' an issue? Like, how many times did Trump change his tune on this or that person, with followers scrambling to alter narratives?

 

Trump does this Trump does that. It would be really refreshing for just one time, to see a dem own it when it is called. I realize politicians are hypocrites. You seem to think it is only on one side. It's a dirty game. Now let's get off this deflection. 

 

The poll is meaningless and nothing more than tripe to stir up emotions. 

[Damual Travesty]

The Constitution of the United States of America is quite clear on the matter, as is precedent of 250 years of what happens when the party that controls the Senate is the same as the President. The President has a duty to pick a Justice and the Senate has the VOTES right now to confirm a pick. It is madness to expect otherwise. This poll is pure nonsense. As usual.

 

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. "

 

It's very clear and there is no clause in here about the last "wishes" of a Justice to try and have a next President make the appointment. She should have resigned years ago, there was a Democrat President and Senate. She did not.

 

There is zero ambiguity in the Constitution on this matter. It takes a President and a Senate working together, if they are not of the same party most likely no Justice gets confirmed. That is how it is.

 

[Damual Travesty]

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

There are more Democrats than Republicans.

A Republic is designed to protect the minority from the "Tyranny of the Majority" NOT the other way around.

[Morch]

30 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Trump does this Trump does that. It would be really refreshing for just one time, to see a dem own it when it is called. I realize politicians are hypocrites. You seem to think it is only on one side. It's a dirty game. Now let's get off this deflection. 

 

The poll is meaningless and nothing more than tripe to stir up emotions. 

 

No, I've acknowledged that more than once. And I'm not all that much of a Democrat fan either. Lesser of two evils and all that. Spin it whichever way you like and sideways - your side is not particularly adept at painting Trump as a hypocrite. Sure, you do the all-politicians bit, or if pressed, even Republicans. Trump himself? Not so much. The other instances seem more a way to protect him from such criticism. Own up before asking others to own up.

 

I don't think that there's one side. I think that there's one side that's in power right now and therefore it faces more scrutiny. Comes with the territory.

 

If the poll was supportive of your views, you'd have no issues with it. It is only 'meaningless' in the sense that it will be ignored and Trump will try to push things through. As a reflection of public sentiment, don't know - guess we'll see in a few weeks.

 

[Morch]

34 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

A Republic is designed to protect the minority from the "Tyranny of the Majority" NOT the other way around.

 

That's great, now try and read my post in context - instead of making a totally unrelated point. Hint, this was about the poll you labeled 'nonsense', and about a nonsense complaint regarding how many Republicans were polled. If you wish to explain how what you've posted applies, by all means...

[nattaya09]

On 9/21/2020 at 10:11 AM, FlyingThai said:

It's mostly about the prevention of reshaping Americas demographic structure and preservation of constitutional rights.

 

".......... I have no problem with Democrats if we're talking about the democratic party of as recently as when Bill Clinton was President......."

 Yep.  If one wants that version of the Democrat Party, the closest thing available is the Republicans

[nattaya09]

On 9/20/2020 at 11:08 PM, Bluespunk said:

So you agree it was wrong of republicans to block President Obama's choice for the nearly the entirety of 2016?

It was considerate of McConnell to refrain from publicly dragging Garland through the coals before being summarily rejected.

[Bluespunk]

16 minutes ago, nattaya09 said:

It was considerate of McConnell to refrain from publicly dragging Garland through the coals before being summarily rejected.

No. It was an attempt to undermine the president’s right to nominate Supreme Court judges. 
 

One that succeeded, now that the Republicans have established a precedent, they shall reap as they did sow. 

Edited September 22, 2020 by Bluespunk

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

He wasn't considered because they weren't going to confirm him and did not want more of a circus than they had.

 

Why is it insane? I think it's a great idea. 

 

I think a lot of people are afraid if Joe wins and the left takes the Senate all bets are off and the the left will pack the Supreme Court, (effectively) eliminate the electoral collage, open the border. and any number of other things to further their agenda. 

 

Merrick Garland wasn't considered because he was a centrist chosen chosen to appeal to moderate Republicans in the Senate.  McConnell wouldn't allow his nomination to be debated and voted upon because he was afraid Garland would have been confirmed.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, nattaya09 said:

It was considerate of McConnell to refrain from publicly dragging Garland through the coals before being summarily rejected.

BS.  See the above post.