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

[heybruce]

9 hours 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.

Your description of progressives is wrong is almost every way.  Have you been watching too much Faux News?

 

What's interesting is how wrong you are about associating the current Republican party with the Reagan Republican Party. 

 

When Reagan was President the Republican Party was in favor or free trade, easier immigration, and US leadership in the world.  Reagan famously told Gorbachev to "tear down this wall". 

 

Can anyone imagine Trump clearly and publicly telling Putin to get out of Ukraine?  Or stop interfering in US elections?  Or stop poisoning opponents? 

 

The only thing the current Republicans have in common with the Reagan Republicans is a cult of personality.

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, Damual Travesty said:

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.

 

"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."

 

Really?  First of all, the Constitution establishes the rules, history establishes the precedents.

 

What precedent has a vote confirming a nomination to the Supreme Court within six months of a Presidential election?  Now McConnell is proposing to do it within six weeks of an election.

[teatree]

23 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.

The reason Garland was rejected was because the Republicans could.  If the shoe was on the other foot, and the Dems held the Senate right there is no doubt they would do exactly the same. 

 

Yes, the election is heated and the result looks likely to be challenged by who ever loses.  All the more reason to fill the SC asap.  The election could well go down to a SC judgement and there must not be an equal number of judges to avoid a tie.  Imagine the constitutional crisis if that happened!   

 

[Morch]

29 minutes ago, teatree said:

The reason Garland was rejected was because the Republicans could.  If the shoe was on the other foot, and the Dems held the Senate right there is no doubt they would do exactly the same. 

 

Yes, the election is heated and the result looks likely to be challenged by who ever loses.  All the more reason to fill the SC asap.  The election could well go down to a SC judgement and there must not be an equal number of judges to avoid a tie.  Imagine the constitutional crisis if that happened!   

 

 

The composition of the SC is already 'unbalanced' with more conservative (or however you want to label them) justices in place. So kinda doubtful to call a tie likely if based on this division. Adding yet another conservative justice would only make the imbalance more pronounced.

[Yellowtail]

15 hours ago, heybruce said:

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.

What makes him a centrist? What are some of his positions you consider right-wing? 

[Yellowtail]

16 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

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. 

 I think it more like the left is reaping what Harry Reid sowed.

[Yellowtail]

21 hours ago, Morch said:

 

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.

 

The court had been tilting left for decades, no talk of balance back then.

 

So how would you package it such that it's not so misleading? 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

 

The court had been tilting left for decades, no talk of balance back then.

 

So how would you package it such that it's not so misleading? 

 

What does your comment have to do with things as they are today? Or with how they might be following Trump's move?

[Bluespunk]

15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 I think it more like the left is reaping what Harry Reid sowed.

Yeah right, I find it laughable what is called the left by some in the usa. 
 

The current situation is entirely of the republicans making. 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Bluespunk

[Yellowtail]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

What does your comment have to do with things as they are today? Or with how they might be following Trump's move?

 

Sorry, I was responding to your comment, was that not clear? 

 

 

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Sorry, I was responding to your comment, was that not clear? 

 

 

 

How does your response relate to my comment. You wish to make claims regarding 'decades', fine. I'm not even asking you to support them. Just pointing out I'm addressing the present, and the foreseeable future.

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

How does your response relate to my comment. You wish to make claims regarding 'decades', fine. I'm not even asking you to support them. Just pointing out I'm addressing the present, and the foreseeable future.

 

You (as I understand it) claimed the court was already unbalanced, and I just stated there was nothing new about an unbalanced court, it was just never a concern when the scales tipped to the left.

 

In any event, I personally don't think balance on the court should be an issue. I think virtually 100% of the decisions should be unanimous. As I understand it, the court should not be political, you (apparently) do, whatever. 

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

You (as I understand it) claimed the court was already unbalanced, and I just stated there was nothing new about an unbalanced court, it was just never a concern when the scales tipped to the left.

 

In any event, I personally don't think balance on the court should be an issue. I think virtually 100% of the decisions should be unanimous. As I understand it, the court should not be political, you (apparently) do, whatever. 

 

How was it 'never a concern'? Did not concern those on the right? Did it not concern those who felt that over politicizing the SC is not a great idea? Was it as 'unbalanced' at times coinciding with the nation so divided?

 

The court is political, given the nature SC justices are appointed. You wish to deny this, fine. I'm not into defending this system, or praising it - it is what it is. Or rather, it was what it was - my position is that the current tugging match between sides will damage the SC standing, and that as a nation, it's better for the USA not to go there.

[J Town]

16 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

You (as I understand it) claimed the court was already unbalanced, and I just stated there was nothing new about an unbalanced court, it was just never a concern when the scales tipped to the left.

 

In any event, I personally don't think balance on the court should be an issue. I think virtually 100% of the decisions should be unanimous. As I understand it, the court should not be political, you (apparently) do, whatever. 

This court is absolutely political. Citizens United was NEVER about the people, that decision merely opened a dark doorway allowing unlimited money into politics. One of the most frightening rulings coming down the pike is the repeal of ACA. 45 repeatedly lies about "We're signing a health care plan within two weeks" (19 July 2020 Fox News interview with Chris Wallace and multiple similar lies since). Regardless of who gets elected, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear this case to repeal the ACA 10 November. You better believe this is a political decision!

[bunnydrops]

If the Trump folks are so sure he is going to win, whats the rush?

[Yellowtail]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

How was it 'never a concern'? Did not concern those on the right? Did it not concern those who felt that over politicizing the SC is not a great idea? Was it as 'unbalanced' at times coinciding with the nation so divided?

 

The court is political, given the nature SC justices are appointed. You wish to deny this, fine. I'm not into defending this system, or praising it - it is what it is. Or rather, it was what it was - my position is that the current tugging match between sides will damage the SC standing, and that as a nation, it's better for the USA not to go there.

 

I don't think people on either side (except you and I) want it to be balanced, they want it tipped to their side. 

 

You're making things up. I know the court is political, I just don't think it should be. It seems to me Presidents used to nominate and the Senate pretty much just confirmed. Those days are gone. 

[Mama Noodle]

15 minutes ago, J Town said:

Regardless of who gets elected, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear this case to repeal the ACA 10 November. You better believe this is a political decision!

 

You cant mandate that people buy a product, have that product overwhelmingly controlled by the government, and fine people who dont or cant afford the product. 

 

The ACA was wrong from the beginning 

[Mama Noodle]

23 minutes ago, Morch said:

my position is that the current tugging match between sides will damage the SC standing, and that as a nation, it's better for the USA not to go there.

 

So it would be better for the country to do what YOU like, but bad for the country to do what the other side likes. 

 

Meh, pass. 

[nemo38]

Gaslighting.

 

The Democrats have no principles. Bring in a new SC justice. It will demoralise them ahead of the election. 

 

If Trump fails to appoint a SC Justice, Democrats will be energised to vote. Kill their spirit by bringing in a pro-life justice.

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I don't think people on either side (except you and I) want it to be balanced, they want it tipped to their side. 

 

You're making things up. I know the court is political, I just don't think it should be. It seems to me Presidents used to nominate and the Senate pretty much just confirmed. Those days are gone. 

 

I wasn't 'making things up'. You, on the other hand, misrepresented my views.

 

The issue of balance can not be fully addressed given how the nomination system and the SC are set up. Given this, balance is realistically best served in the form of a 4-5 roster, tipping as it may. This allows for certain upsets of the balance on certain issues. A 6-3 ratio would make these less likely.

 

I don't know when you start your 'used to' count, so not sure it's relevant. My point in previous posts was that having a bad enough state of things, doesn't mean there's need to aggravate them further. I have no illusions that this view will prevail.

 

 

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

So it would be better for the country to do what YOU like, but bad for the country to do what the other side likes. 

 

Meh, pass. 

 

No, you misrepresent what I mean. And as you often do, chop bits of the posts you reply to in order to do so.

 

It would be better if the ratio is 4-5, with occasional shifts between 'sides'. This would better represent the nation as a whole, rather than cement things for years based on a temporary political advantage. The latter is great (for one side, at least) on the short term, the former takes a broader, and long term approach.

 

By the way, I don't think that what I (personally) would like is exactly what many of the Democrats/Left wish for. The drive for partisan imbalance is strong on both sides.

[Mama Noodle]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

It would be better if the ratio is 4-5, with occasional shifts between 'sides'. This would better represent the nation as a whole, rather than cement things for years based on a temporary political advantage.

 

Disagree. Republicans won elections fair and square, which gave them the power to both block and allow justice nominees. You and many others certainly dont really care about fairness or what's "better for the nation" or anything of the sort unless its something as serious as this, then all of a sudden you want what you perceive as "best" for "the nation" 

You dont see how obviously fake and transparent it all is, do you. 

[Morch]

22 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Disagree. Republicans won elections fair and square, which gave them the power to both block and allow justice nominees. You and many others certainly dont really care about fairness or what's "better for the nation" or anything of the sort unless its something as serious as this, then all of a sudden you want what you perceive as "best" for "the nation" 

You dont see how obviously fake and transparent it all is, do you. 

 

You push hyper-partisan positions, narrative and rhetoric - while dishonestly misrepresenting views and chopping of bits of posts not fitting with that. I wouldn't know that you care much for fairness, given the manner in which you engage others on this forum.

 

The accusations in your post are not supported by anything, just a collection of rambling nonsense. There can be different views on what's best for the nation. That you automatically interpret such as what's best for this side or that, is more an indication of how far gone you are, in terms of partisanship.

 

Notably, you do not even address points made, but simply go on the attack. Again, not the sign of anyone interested in discussion.

Edited September 23, 2020 by Morch

[Mama Noodle]

32 minutes ago, Morch said:

Notably, you do not even address points made, but simply go on the attack. Again, not the sign of anyone interested in discussion.

I just call the BS when I see it, nobody every said you must engage me. There is literally nothing that can be said to me that would justify republicans giving even one millimeter to the democrats on this nomination after the absolute trash they’ve put forward over the last few years. 
 

I just flat disagree with your premise and think it’s plain laughable. 

[Morch]

Just now, Mama Noodle said:

I just call the BS when I see it, nobody every said you must engage me. There is literally nothing that can be said to me that would justify republicans giving even one millimeter to the democrats on this nomination after the absolute trash they’ve put forward over the last few years. 
 

I just flat disagree with your premise and think it’s plain laughable. 

 

And once again, chopping inconvenient bits of post which are too tough to handle. Talk about fairness some more, though. As for your complaints about 'trash', guess you're going to ignore how Republicans behaved during Obama's terms.

 

Given that you constantly misrepresent my views, it's kinda hard knowing which imaginary 'premise' you both disagree with, and feel to be 'laughable'.

[Mama Noodle]

Just now, Morch said:

And once again, chopping inconvenient bits of post which are too tough to handle. Talk about fairness some more, though. As for your complaints about 'trash', guess you're going to ignore how Republicans behaved during Obama's terms.

 

Given that you constantly misrepresent my views, it's kinda hard knowing which imaginary 'premise' you both disagree with, and feel to be 'laughable'.

There’s 2 of you on this board that cry so hard when their WHOLE post isn’t quoted in full, then disregard what’s posted because youre SO upset your WHOLE post isn’t quoted. 
 

I do not feel it necessary to quote your entire angry rant, just the parts that are pertinent to what I feel we are discussing/what I want to reply to.

 

Dont like it, don’t engage. 
 

Obama... my my how the tables have turned. I distinctly remember sooooo many people crying about republicans invoking what Obama did like it’s an obsession, mocking it into oblivion,  but look at you boys now. Lordy how the tables have turned. 
 

Obama, he did real great losing the senate by being a hyper partisan turd, and it’s nobody’s fault but his and the Democrats that they lost it, and thereby lost the opportunity to appoint a judge. That’s THEIR fault, not republicans. It’s politics. 
 

“Republicans did Obama wrong after he lost his power” is comical. 

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

There’s 2 of you on this board that cry so hard when their WHOLE post isn’t quoted in full, then disregard what’s posted because youre SO upset your WHOLE post isn’t quoted. 
 

I do not feel it necessary to quote your entire angry rant, just the parts that are pertinent to what I feel we are discussing/what I want to reply to.

 

Dont like it, don’t engage. 
 

Obama... my my how the tables have turned. I distinctly remember sooooo many people crying about republicans invoking what Obama did like it’s an obsession, mocking it into oblivion,  but look at you boys now. Lordy how the tables have turned. 
 

Obama, he did real great losing the senate by being a hyper partisan turd, and it’s nobody’s fault but his and the Democrats that they lost it, and thereby lost the opportunity to appoint a judge. That’s THEIR fault, not republicans. It’s politics. 
 

“Republicans did Obama wrong after he lost his power” is comical. 

 

You routinely leave out parts of posts which are relevant to you the replies you make or the points you raise. You do so when they do not fit the position you push at a given moment.

 

I wasn't bringing up Obama, though - but referencing how Republicans acted back then. This was a direct comment to your complaint about how the Trump administration/Republicans are treated now. You wish to deflect? Get better at it.

 

If all you've got is name calling and such, guess you do not really have much of an argument. Or class, for that matter. '

 

The last bit you put in quotes wasn't part of my post, more dishonesty. And, of course, the Birther thing did not start then, but way earlier. It's quite fascinating, and sad, that you equate gaining a majority with acting badly. Not surprising, though.

 

 

[Mama Noodle]

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

It's quite fascinating, and sad, that you equate gaining a majority with acting badly. Not surprising, though.

It’s funny though, as bad as you guys think Trump is, and as bad as you guys imply people like me are, republicans kept hold of the congress better than Obama did, and look at Republicans now. About to appoint another judge. 
 

Also, in case you lack the self awareness to see it, you are posting just as personally, insultingly, and deflective as I am. 
 

Only difference is I’m not moaning about it. 
 

Oh and excuse me if I’m not caring about the “birther” deflection. Years of “nazi” “put y’all back in chains” “racist” “stormtroopers” ad nauseum will do that to a person. 

[sotonowl]

On 9/21/2020 at 2:33 AM, shdmn said:

It's time for Democrats to be Ruthless.

Another hurricane?

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

What makes him a centrist? What are some of his positions you consider right-wing? 

You don't think a person is a centrist unless he has taken positions you consider right-wing?